The Real Reason Catholics Press the Canon Issue
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2024
- Kerry Duke continues his discussion on the canon of the Scriptures and how Catholic's interpretations of the canon hold up to what the true canon of the Bible is. What is the reasoning behind the push for the issue of canon?
📚 KERRY DUKE PLAYLIST: • Beyond the Basics - Ke...
📲 DOWNLOAD OUR APP: Available on the App Store, Google Play, Amazon, Apple TV, & Roku!
gbntv.org/reso....
🕸 VISIT US ON THE WEB: www.gbntv.org
📖 HAVE BIBLE QUESTIONS? Email us at: info@gbntv.org
#gbn #gospelbroadcastingnetwork #bible #understandingthebible #christianity #churchofchrist #jesus #understanding
Thank God for His servant shining truth light on the darkness of falsehood.
The Deutrocanonical (apocrypha) were part of the LXX Septaugint, a Jewish scriptures used by the diaspora Jews(greek speaking jews)
Greek is the widely spoken language by that time because of hellenization.. the Septaugint was the Scriptures used by the Apostles and early church they quoted from the Septaugint, the Deutrocanonical is part of the Septaugint, the early church chose the Septaugint instead of the masoretic text that used for the hebrews. The reason is, they want to be distinct from the rabbinic jews. That's why the early church chose Septaugint as the old testament and add the writings and epistles/letters of the apostles, which we know now a days as the New Testament.
I'd like for you to confront GBN about your evidence and compare, I like to see communication between two differences, that is more profitable than names calling as some do
Lots of good refutations of deutercanonical pointsmade in comments here. Now I'd like to see GBN take on the 1 John 5:17 issue from the Bible alone.
Thank you Pope Kerry for clearing this up for us with your teaching authority.
💀
Is this a rapture theory station also?
The reason all these books are not included is that either they have nothing in them that we don't already have in other scriptures, there is no evidence to show that they are inspired, they have things that are contradictory to other scriptures, they are incomplete, etc.
Ok just watching the first couple minutes of this there is so much wrong... like "Jesus never quoted the apocryphal books" - well, no, he didn't, but like five or six of the seven are quoted or referenced in the rest of the NT. And do you know what He did quote from? Enoch. And nobody considers that canon.
Plus, why do we have the books of the NT we do? Why Apocalypse and not the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas?
As a poor ignorant Catholic who nonetheless recognizes even poorer and more ignorant Prot 'arguments' - God bless you.
So what was did he say that was wrong in the first few minutes? You do not say in your comments here.
@@Leelee452 Yes, I did. You need to improve your reading comprehension. But for your... convenience...
Just from my comments: 1) "'Jesus didn't quote it' is an absolutely terrible argument because there's lots of books of the OT He didn't quote
2) The deuterocanonical scriptures, save 1 or 2, are quoted and/or referenced by the other NT authors
3) Jesus DID quote the Book of Enoch, which we don't have a full copy of anymore but was very very popular during His time - because it was rejected as Scripture by the Early Church. Even though the Essenes, whom He was close too through John the Baptist, almost certainly DID consider it scripture.
And none of this nonsense begins to address why we have the NT books we have, and not others. Like the Didache.
@UrielAngeli147 You say that there is no full copy of Enoch. Maybe that's why it wasn't included. It would be quite suspicious to include something that is incomplete. And, it wouldn't make sense for God to allow it either.
The reason all these books are not included is that either they have nothing in them that we don't already have in other scriptures, there is no evidence to show that they are inspired, they have things that are contradictory to other scriptures, etc.
@@JSBrown303 Enoch was, quite obviously, complete and wholly popular at the time of Christ. It is only us who lack copies, and we lack copies BECAUSE the Church decided it was not canon.
@@UrielAngeli147 So, they destroyed their copies? Did they do this to any other books that the decided wasn't canon?
Where does Mr. Duke get his sources for his study?
They compiled the new testament, the old was already established.
It wasn’t there was a diversity of thought among Jews in 2nd temple Judaism on what composed the canon. The Protestants ended up siding with the Pharisees and the later Rabbinic tradition on a 66 book canon. If the Old Testament was established why was there a diversity of opinion among the church fathers on the question? Why did St. Augustine have a 73 book canon
Thank you! This information was dense. I'm glad I can save this and come back to it as needed.
Recognize false signs …
Matthew 24:24
Mark 13:22
2 Corinthians 11:14
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11
Revelation 13:13-14
Revelation 19:20
Thank you for sharing the results of your diligent study that we might be strenghthed and better able to battle the chaos and confusion that They try to teach God bless you brother Dukes
thenn who validate protestant canon?
revelation from holy spirit?
if yes are protestant aware they become gnostic?
We aren’t protestant, because we aren’t protesting the one church because we are The One Church
Just finished watching this on GBN came to RUclips to leave a comment, I have contended with catholics on this very subject and have found them to be under strong delusion as Paul states in 2Thes chapter 2, thank you for your defense of the scriptures!
This is laughable. No Catholic who has a base level knowledge of the canon would take this seriously.
1. When the Council of Trent dogmatically recognises the canon of Scripture (including the deuterocanonical books), it attaches an “anathema” to it.
As you mentioned, the canon is recognised at Carthage (4th century) but also at the Council of Florence (15th century). Then dogmatically at Trent. Perhaps because certain heretics (Luther, et al) were publishing heretical translations of their truncated bible.
2. The Trinity is dogmatically defined at the Council of Nicea (4th century). Would you dare say the Trinity wasn’t believed by the Church beforehand?
3. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament which the New Testament writers most often refer to. The Septuagint contains the deuterocanonical books. It was good enough for the Apostles.
4. The argument that they aren’t directly quoted from in the NT thus justifying not including them, backfires against you. Because by that logic you’d have to throw out; Judges, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and a few others.
You might say, “The Jews had these books so we do as well”
5. The Jews had the deuterocanonical books as well. The point is that different Jewish sects held to different canons. The Sadducees only held to the Torah, interestingly when they confront Jesus about the resurrection of the body, Jesus appeals to Exodus (Luke 20:37-38) rather than to more obvious passages that discuss this like Daniel. He appeals to a Scripture that they hold to. The Pharisees included more in their canon and the Essenes included even more.
The point is that Jews during the time of Christ did not agree on the same list of writings.
6. The early Church Fathers constantly quotes the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. It’s true that not all, but the vast majority did. East and West, which is why Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have the same canon despite them splitting from us in the 11th century.
7. You said that the deuterocanonical books have no mark of divine inspiration. I’ll leave you with this passage from Wisdom (one of the deuterocanonical books)
Wisdom 2:12-22
12 “‘Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and *calleth himself the son of God.*
14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.
16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and *glorieth that he hath God for his father*.
17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
18 *For if he be the true son of God*, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience.
20 *Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words*.’
21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them.
22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.”
Dude has a dispute but doesn't know that the Apocrypha were books like the Gospel of Thomas which are a heretical set of books that goes agaisnt apostolic teaching. The Deutorocanonical books weren't considered explicitly inspired, but they were used by the early church and NEVER condemned in the same scope as true Apocryphal books because they weren't explicitly heretical.
Hey buddy I've got 35 *different Christian "churches" within a 5 mile radius of my house. Why can't Christians agree on anything? Do you think that might be one reason churches are collapsing with attendance in a nose dive. Anyways... good luck.
Because man wants to do his own thing. Mainly because of greed. Greed for money, power, and influence.
Great lesson
LOL, I’m literally 40 seconds into the video and he already said something blatantly, demonstrably false. The Jews (presumably he means of the first Century) didn’t consider the “Apocrypha” to be inspired?! The Jews of that day did NOT have an agreed upon Canon of Scripture, and the NT itself makes this abundantly clear. The Pharisees accepted the Pentateuch and the prophets and other books in the Protestant OT, the Sadducees only the Pentateuch, and plenty of Jews of the day also accepted the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonicals, including Jesus HIMSELF and his disciples, lol!
A question: does this presenter know where the Golden Rule comes from? Probably Jesus’ single most well known teaching, and guess what? It’s from the book of Tobit!! Read Wisdom Chapter 2 and then read St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion. He’s putting, verbatim, the words from Wisdom Chapter 2 into the mouths of the Pharisees and those mocking Christ on the Cross. It’s unmistakable.
CoC got most of their basic doctrines from Catholicism......a works Gospel, Baptism, Holy Spirit, etc.
You mean from the Bible? Also, they don’t agree on baptism.
@@colepriceguitar1153 They both believe water baptism saves a person!
@@EverlastingLife-pl9ug yeah, but disagree on the mode and the people who should be baptized.
@@EverlastingLife-pl9ug And so did every single Christian, including every Early Church Father and writer, and every martyr, from the 1st Century on. Even all Protestant scholars admit this: baptismal regeneration was universally believed and was the original teaching of the early Church, without exception.
We don’t work for salvation we just obey God
Excellent and thorough teaching. I would argue that the RCC doesn't believe that the Bible is God's word. They can't believe it because it undermines the Pope, and he is their authority in religion. I have brought up many times if the position of Pope did exist (I believe that it didn't until centuries later), then why were the Apostles John or Paul not chosen as a replacement after Nero executed Peter in about 64 AD? Especially John, who lived a very long life after Peter’s death. Yet the RCC tells us that the popes after Peter were Linus, Anacletus, and Clement. What?! No Apostle John?
Furthermore, the RCC must explain that if the Pope existed, then why would Jesus select John as the author of His final Revelation, bypassing an alleged Pope for that purpose? So the Pope is supposed to be Christ's authority on earth, yet Christ selected John instead for Revelation. Hmmmmmmm. There is no mention at all in the Revelation of a Pope. You would think he would at least get a reference at least somewhere in the first three chapters, but all we have is Christ and His seven churches in Asia, and those churches in direct review of Christ alone. No Pope.
John had his own patriarchal see. The prinacy of Rome is attested to as early as the reign of Clement, the fifth in succession from Peter. And Iranaeus, martyr, who learned at John's feet, testifies to the same.
The real problem for you Prots is that if the early Church doesn't look like the Catholic Church, then it looks like one of the Orthodox Churches. What it never looks like is Protest-antism.
@UrielAngeli147 Not one thing that you have said is found in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul ordained elders in each church (Acts 14:23) under the conditions that he set forth (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1). BTW, a bishop MUST be the husband of one wife. That eliminates the RCC (1 Timothy 4:3). The example of church polity locally is described in Philippians 1:1, "Saints, bishops, deacons." We know from Acts 20:17,28 that the position of elder is the same as that of overseer (bishop). The New Testament knows nothing of a Pope, Patriarch, cardinal, etc. at all. Believers/saints are the priests, and not some church hierarchy (1 Peter 2:5; Revelation 1:5-6). The New Testament knows of only Jesus Christ Himself and His churches (Revelation 1,2,3).
As far as 1 Clement goes, it claims nothing of any church hierarchy. It was written from the elders of the church in Rome to the elders of the church in Corinth, and the actual author is not known. The issue for its message was that the younger church members in Corinth were rebelling against the elders in the local church. Maybe you should actually read 1 Clement instead of relying on what others say about it. There is no Pope, not Patriarch, in it at all. Pure fantasy to say otherwise. Yes, I realize that the RCC/EOC follows tradition, and that to your detriment (Titus 1:14; Colossians 2:8). As far as Protestantism goes, please don't lump me in with them. I agree with you that the Protestant Reformation has been a disaster, and that is why I protest Protestantism because the Bible only makes Christians only, and that is all that I am.
There is no single verse in the Bible that tells us how many and which books belong to Scripture. The so-called canon of Scripture or list of inspired books must be determined by authority outside Scripture. This should explain why Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants have different canon (OT).
NT does not cite apocrypha directly but neither does it cite from Esther and Song of Songs. NT cites from 1 Enoch in Jude 14 and from unknown Scripture in James 4:5. Being cited in NT is not criteria to be inspired and not being cited is not the reason for rejecting them.
According to Jesus (Mat. 11:13) the Law and the prophets prophesied until John the Baptist, NOT until Malachi. There is no such thing as inter-testament period as stated by Mr. Duke.
The Catholic Church finally closed the canon at Trent council as a response to Reformation where Luther questioned the inspired status not only of apocrypha books but also James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.
Citing what Peter wrote about Paul's epistles in 2 Pe. 3:16 as proof of inspired status of them is circular argument and does not work. Consider the following: A is inspired because B says so and B is inspired because B says A is inspired. It does not make sense but that is what you did to prove inspired status of 2 Pe. 3:6 and Paul's epistles.
John the Baptist wrote the Book of John!
John the Divine wrote First John, Second John, Third John, and Revelation!
I thought John the Baptist was beheaded before Christ died, how could he have written the life of Jesus if he's dead
@@JamesTobey-z9v ,
He was, that’s why the Scripture says, “Even the least in the kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist!
@@walterlahaye2128John the Baptist never followed Jesus Christ around, there’s another John that followed him around
@@Sero.Cross.C.O.C ,
Jesus said in (MATTHEW 11:16, AND LUKE 7:28) concerning John the Baptist, that no one hath been born of woman greater than he; Yet, He said, He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John.
Now, what this tells us is (first of all) that John was as great as anyone who had ever lived, “other than the Lord Himself,”
In the sight of God, John’s office, his work, his ministry, was just as important and just as great as the prophets, “or, of king David,” or, any of the great patriarchs of the Old Testament.
And yet, even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist.
This also tells us that John was not in the kingdom. The church had not yet been established. John had been dead for perhaps six months when Jesus said that He would build His church; it was yet in the future.
So then, if we’re in the kingdom of Christ, which He purchased with His Own Blood, “the church that He has promised to save,” (EPHESIANS 5:23) then we have so much greater blessings than John the Baptist knew and enjoyed during his lifetime. Because he lived under the law of Moses.
And the law of Moses could not take away sin, as we read of course: ln (HEBREWS 10:1-4).
Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, enacted upon better promises. (HEBREWS 8:6).
@@Sero.Cross.C.O.C,
Then who wrote the fourth book of the new testament if it wasn’t John the Baptist?