I accept the canon of the Catholic Church because Protestantism undermines the canon, its authority and its uniform interpretation. Besides, we see indirect references to the Maccabes in Hebrews, to Wisdom 13 and 14 in Romans 1 and a connection between Tobit and Revelation, just to give a few examples.
Though we don't have extant evidence, even Jerome admits that the 1st ecumenical council of Nicaea accepted the deuteros as inspired. So it's not just Ephesus.
@@YajunYuanSDA Alright, then let's cite exactly what Jerome said: "But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed...." -Prologue to Judith Jerome submits to higher authorities than himself, the council and the bishops who requested/demanded his translation of Judith (and Tobit, one can reasonably presume). If only you would too....
Protestants not using all 72 books the full word of God is indefensible. The 66 book bible has only been around for 200 years. For 1500 years all Chrisitians were using the same bible with 72 books. The deutorocononical books were in the Septugiant which the disciples carried for teaching. If these books were good enough for the disciples its good enough for us.
I am glad there was mention of the Bible societies removing the 7 books in the 1800s. But there never seems enough emphasis on this fact. Protestants have a shorter Bible because the printer decided to do this. There was no council or group of Pastors or any authority who did this. Does not show the honoring of the very Bible they cling to. Also what if someone decided to print a Bible that removed more books. What would their be to stop them? And by what authority would you have to judge this act?
Maybe do a little research into the Protestant position. They followed Jewish tradition and did not consider those 7 books to be authoritative scripture. They were included in Protestant translations but moved to a place between the Old and New Testament usually with a word of caution about them being for edification but not establishing doctrine. If they considered them useful but not divinely inspired then it makes total sense for them to not include the books in more compact editions of the Bible. No Protestant would stand for books being removed from the canon. Assuming they would is silly
@@hettinga359 I have done plenty of research into this... "they" is Martin Luther - he wanted to follow some other Jewish authority rather than the authority of his own Church - wild. My statement stands as a fact of history: There was no council or group of Pastors or any authority who did this. Can you show me otherwise?
@@PatrickSteil “they” is all the branches of the reformation, i.e., Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. The leaders of the reformation held to the shorter canon advocated for by Athanasius, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Pope Leo the Great, John Damascene, Hugh of St. Victor, Nicholas if Lyra, and cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan. They did this because they believed that God had guided his chosen people to preserve and compile the OT scriptures just as he had guided the church in compiling the NT. If that’s the case then it’s not the church’s place to go back and tell the Jewish people what they aught to have included in their canon.
@@hettinga359 But look at the timeline... Luther complained about this in the 1500's... the Church had been operating with a set Scripture since at least 395. The FIRST BIBLE to be printed without those seven books was in the 1800's!
@@PatrickSteil what’s included between the covers isn’t important. What’s important is what is considered divinely inspired and authoritative and what isn’t. If there were editions of the NT which included the Didache, 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas in the back because they’re ancient texts which are edifying and help Christians understand the early church that wouldn’t say anything about a view of the canon.
I'd recommend confronting the objections of Dr. David A. Falk (Ancient Egypt and the Bible), an Evangelical Egyptologist and general expert in Ancient Near East studies who is, perhaps, the most steadfast critic I've heard, not just of the legitimacy of the deuterocanon, but of essentially all Catholic apologetics regarding it. While not his only attack on the books, the longest that comes to mind is his 40-minute extemporaneous attack at the start of his 99th live stream; among other things, he believes the Orthodox don't even support the Catholics on the deuterocanon, claiming they were forced to accept it at the Council of Florence under pressure for military aid. I'd be interested to see if Gary would be interested in interacting with Dr. Falk's critiques.
Ok I just watched the 99th livestream. I as much as I respect Dr. Falk, he needs to learn much much more about the canon. I don´t want to get into details here, but you can give me his most compelling and strongest argument and I answer you.
Just watched it myself and I'm surprised at how bad it was. I really like Dr. Falk on ancient history, but he's very poor in church history and theological matters and it really shows there - mostly just repeats general Protestant talking points, ad hoc 'contradictions', and he assumes that Judith must be taken as historical by Catholics/Orthodox! I'm surprised no one pushed back there.
@@davidszaraz4605 I didn't mean to suggest that Dr. Falk's critiques were "strong." Rather, I just meant to say he was most steadfast in his critiques. He's a very intelligent man, but that intelligence means he really, really digs his heels in on subjects, hence why I'd love to see someone like Gary engage with him. As a separate case recently with Dr. Falk, a little less than 40 minutes into his 121st live stream a few weeks ago, he made the rather shocking assertion that sola Scriptura was "invented in the Roman Catholic Church" and was originally a Catholic dogma from "500 years" before Luther. I've been unable to verify this claim of his in any historical fact. So I, too, am rather stunned by his Church history claims about Catholicism. I only bring up the canon issue with him because it seems like a question he's always very aggressive with when asked; the 99th live stream was just the longest version I know of him doing, but he's given similar, shorter answers in other streams when asked about the books.
Has he proven that the NT gives us a 39 Books canon of the Old Testament? No one can do that. Take a look at the article "Hebrew Bible" by Eugene Ulrich in the "Dictionary of NT Background" published by the so called evangelical IVP, and yeah there was not a OT protestant canon in the times of Jesus. I studied long, long hours reading anticatholic essays on the OT canon and I wrote an 40 pages essay I never published and the protestant view on the Canon of the OT is 100% wrong on the so called Deuterocanonical Books of the OT they are canonical period.
This was fascinating thanks!
I accept the canon of the Catholic Church because Protestantism undermines the canon, its authority and its uniform interpretation. Besides, we see indirect references to the Maccabes in Hebrews, to Wisdom 13 and 14 in Romans 1 and a connection between Tobit and Revelation, just to give a few examples.
Three of my heroes on the same podcast, that's great.
30:00 …”Judith, didn’t the council of Trent sneak that in?” Fun and charitable talk men. God bless.
Though we don't have extant evidence, even Jerome admits that the 1st ecumenical council of Nicaea accepted the deuteros as inspired. So it's not just Ephesus.
How did you get a plural of deuteroS? that is not what Jerome says.
@@YajunYuanSDA Alright, then let's cite exactly what Jerome said:
"But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed...." -Prologue to Judith
Jerome submits to higher authorities than himself, the council and the bishops who requested/demanded his translation of Judith (and Tobit, one can reasonably presume). If only you would too....
@@tonyl3762Ouch.
Jesus bless you more. Thank you for your contribution.
Protestants not using all 72 books the full word of God is indefensible. The 66 book bible has only been around for 200 years. For 1500 years all Chrisitians were using the same bible with 72 books. The deutorocononical books were in the Septugiant which the disciples carried for teaching. If these books were good enough for the disciples its good enough for us.
Excellent work Suan, a NT debate will be awesome, in my opinion protestantism have more issues in it
Suan, reading the title, I initially thought this was going to be an actual debate. 🤣
Great vid! Use whichever format you think is best (both 😊)
I am glad there was mention of the Bible societies removing the 7 books in the 1800s. But there never seems enough emphasis on this fact.
Protestants have a shorter Bible because the printer decided to do this. There was no council or group of Pastors or any authority who did this.
Does not show the honoring of the very Bible they cling to.
Also what if someone decided to print a Bible that removed more books. What would their be to stop them? And by what authority would you have to judge this act?
Maybe do a little research into the Protestant position. They followed Jewish tradition and did not consider those 7 books to be authoritative scripture. They were included in Protestant translations but moved to a place between the Old and New Testament usually with a word of caution about them being for edification but not establishing doctrine. If they considered them useful but not divinely inspired then it makes total sense for them to not include the books in more compact editions of the Bible. No Protestant would stand for books being removed from the canon. Assuming they would is silly
@@hettinga359 I have done plenty of research into this... "they" is Martin Luther - he wanted to follow some other Jewish authority rather than the authority of his own Church - wild.
My statement stands as a fact of history:
There was no council or group of Pastors or any authority who did this.
Can you show me otherwise?
@@PatrickSteil “they” is all the branches of the reformation, i.e., Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. The leaders of the reformation held to the shorter canon advocated for by Athanasius, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Pope Leo the Great, John Damascene, Hugh of St. Victor, Nicholas if Lyra, and cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan. They did this because they believed that God had guided his chosen people to preserve and compile the OT scriptures just as he had guided the church in compiling the NT. If that’s the case then it’s not the church’s place to go back and tell the Jewish people what they aught to have included in their canon.
@@hettinga359 But look at the timeline... Luther complained about this in the 1500's... the Church had been operating with a set Scripture since at least 395. The FIRST BIBLE to be printed without those seven books was in the 1800's!
@@PatrickSteil what’s included between the covers isn’t important. What’s important is what is considered divinely inspired and authoritative and what isn’t. If there were editions of the NT which included the Didache, 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas in the back because they’re ancient texts which are edifying and help Christians understand the early church that wouldn’t say anything about a view of the canon.
Thank you...this is great!
I'd recommend confronting the objections of Dr. David A. Falk (Ancient Egypt and the Bible), an Evangelical Egyptologist and general expert in Ancient Near East studies who is, perhaps, the most steadfast critic I've heard, not just of the legitimacy of the deuterocanon, but of essentially all Catholic apologetics regarding it. While not his only attack on the books, the longest that comes to mind is his 40-minute extemporaneous attack at the start of his 99th live stream; among other things, he believes the Orthodox don't even support the Catholics on the deuterocanon, claiming they were forced to accept it at the Council of Florence under pressure for military aid. I'd be interested to see if Gary would be interested in interacting with Dr. Falk's critiques.
Hi, what is title of that video, wgere dr. Falk speaks about this? Thank you
Ok I just watched the 99th livestream. I as much as I respect Dr. Falk, he needs to learn much much more about the canon. I don´t want to get into details here, but you can give me his most compelling and strongest argument and I answer you.
Just watched it myself and I'm surprised at how bad it was. I really like Dr. Falk on ancient history, but he's very poor in church history and theological matters and it really shows there - mostly just repeats general Protestant talking points, ad hoc 'contradictions', and he assumes that Judith must be taken as historical by Catholics/Orthodox! I'm surprised no one pushed back there.
@@Mouthwash019283 exactly, this was not the Dr. Falk I am used to
@@davidszaraz4605 I didn't mean to suggest that Dr. Falk's critiques were "strong." Rather, I just meant to say he was most steadfast in his critiques. He's a very intelligent man, but that intelligence means he really, really digs his heels in on subjects, hence why I'd love to see someone like Gary engage with him. As a separate case recently with Dr. Falk, a little less than 40 minutes into his 121st live stream a few weeks ago, he made the rather shocking assertion that sola Scriptura was "invented in the Roman Catholic Church" and was originally a Catholic dogma from "500 years" before Luther. I've been unable to verify this claim of his in any historical fact. So I, too, am rather stunned by his Church history claims about Catholicism. I only bring up the canon issue with him because it seems like a question he's always very aggressive with when asked; the 99th live stream was just the longest version I know of him doing, but he's given similar, shorter answers in other streams when asked about the books.
So many ads!
Pay RUclips premium 😂😂😂
Has he proven that the NT gives us a 39 Books canon of the Old Testament? No one can do that. Take a look at the article "Hebrew Bible" by Eugene Ulrich in the "Dictionary of NT Background" published by the so called evangelical IVP, and yeah there was not a OT protestant canon in the times of Jesus. I studied long, long hours reading anticatholic essays on the OT canon and I wrote an 40 pages essay I never published and the protestant view on the Canon of the OT is 100% wrong on the so called Deuterocanonical Books of the OT they are canonical period.
Is Dr. Thomas Protestant? He only made arguments that supported the catholic position it seemed to me.
Seems he grew up Protestant and converted.
Ok thanks… I was like he is doing a terrible job of defending the Protestant canon. 😂
@@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER 😂😂
@@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER lol 🤣
@@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTERHES CATHOLIC FIGURE IT OUT BRO