I reckon it's because these questions being asked are quite common.. It's the same thing people ask over and over. Dr. Turek has been doing this for a long time and is obviously diligent enough to be ready with a well prepared answer
@@Starblazer27correct. Atheists are like parrots, they all say the same things and go down the same logical fallacy rabbit holes in an effort to evade God. Whatever sound bites they hear from Matt Dillahunty (a failed atheist), Aron-Ra (laughably embarrassing) and the late Christopher Hitchens (an anti-theist who died bitter and angry), they regurgitate without actually trying to understand what they're saying.
I watched a video yesterday of a girl who was a catholic and listened to her reasoning why and she was giving all this information and everything. I have grown up a Christian, non-denominational. I believe in the Word of God and I believe that Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. As I’ve gotten older I really love learning different ppls beliefs and their reasonings why. When I heard why that young girl was catholic I was shocked. In a 20 minute video she mentioned Jesus’ name twice and neither time talked about what He did. She focused on the saints and praying to them and books that were added to the Bible. I was a little angry and sad when listening to her because I was like why pray to the saints when Christ came and died and tore the veil so that way we could speak directly to God. We didn’t have to go through others anymore. I prayed last night and I said God if I am getting this wrong please show me the right way. Then I came across this channel today and I just happened to see this video and it has helped me to confirm my beliefs even more so! So thank you for having this channel and teaching and letting God use you!! It helps so much!!
Btw. Protestants took away books from the Bible. Catholics didn't add them:) Even Dr Turek would lose the Sola Scriptura debate. It is not a debate Protestants can win. Sola Scriptura and Apocrypha are losing points.
@@mattybla6274 False statement. The Apocrypha is pure contradictory towards the New Testament itself, yet you claim that Protestants would lose the debate? Highly doubtful. Also, if the creator of the original comment sees this, I absolutely know how terrible it is. Catholics seems to worship Mary and the Saints far more than they do with Yeshua. Whenever I hear anything about Catholicism, watch videos, and etc, it’s always about Mary Mary Mary, saints saints saints. It’s just wild.
@@thomas7571 You’re lying. As a Catholic, I’m offended by how ignorant that statement is. The Catholic Church is the first and only Church established by Christ. It’s so easy to show why Protestantism shouldn’t exist, and how WRONG it’s been since the 16th century, it’s still shocking to me that they still exist after 500 years.
@@dinopad10 No, the Catholic Church is not the “first and only church.” Started by Christ. You can not find one biblical scripture to support your claim which you base on the teachings of your Catholic doctrine. Fun fact, Christ wouldn’t have His first church Catholic because of many problems within the Catholic doctrine itself. One of them would be how Catholics teach Mary is sinless. As for someone who was interested in Eastern Orthodox and did some study, I tried to find biblical scripture to support Mary being sinless, however, I only found scripture which teaches otherwise. The fundamental basis of her being sinless is taught from the ideology of man, not by biblical scripture itself. Another problem would be praying to Saints in heaven. Again, I’ve looked into Orthodox and tried to find biblical scripture to support this. I find scripture which goes against it, or in short, it’s just not taught anywhere throughout the Bible. All, and I mean literally all throughout the Bible we are told to make our prayers known to the Father. Not once will you ever find a verse in the New Testament which teaches to make your prayers known to the Father and Saints in heaven. We are taught to pray for each other, but as for someone who stays as biblical as he can, no scripture seems to support the ideology doctrine of praying to Saints in heaven (or asking them to pray for you, and so on.) Don’t assume I’m Protestant, because I’m not. Im not a follower of any denomination nor am I interested in being assumed into labels. The Bible itself teaches there are Christians (Christ followers) nothing else. Denominations are made to separate the Word of God. And within most denominations man’s thoughts, feelings, and/or ideas are thrown into scripture and twisted into man’s understanding, instead of biblical understanding. So in short, the Catholic doctrine itself was not started by Jesus. Not one place in the original Greek/Hebrew text will you even find such a church being supported. The first Catholic Church movement (doctrine) seemed to have gotten rebuked by Yeshua (Jesus) in Luke 11:27-28. And if you’re going to refer to “Peter being the first pope” and him having the keys and etc. This entire thing seems to be based on the confession of peter’s faith. Yes, I’m aware that Peter means rock, however scripture says “upon this rock I will build my church” I don’t think there’s a way of understanding what the “rock” is truly referring to. But in my opinion it’s most likely referring to Christ. In the Old Testament God was known as “the rock” in the New Testament Jesus is God Himself. He then says “upon this rock I will build my church.” Now one can put two and two together at this point and see how “the rock” could be referring towards Jesus. Having Peter at such a role makes no sense. Peter even got rebuked by Jesus in scripture I believe. And to even think Peter was a “pope” (which he was not) is just wild. John himself was the greatest disciple of them all. There’s just so much wrong and so much that could be said about this. Be biblically correct. Not denominationally correct. God bless.
@@thomas7571 You’re a liar and a heretic. Nothing you said is based on scripture, and absolutely not based on anything scholarly or intellectual. I’m not having yet another online debate that will go nowhere with a person who thinks they know more than me, based on bigotry and beliefs from ignorance. Know at least this: once you become aware of church history, you cease to be anything but CATHOLIC. (Paraphrased from Saint John Newman, former Protestant) And for the record, if you’re not Catholic, you’re Protestant. Even if you think you’re non-denominational, you’re still following non-Catholic heresy, and a “church” founded at least 1500 years AFTER Christ founded His Church. Your ignorance is extreme.
The Council of Rome in 382 confirmed the same canonical books that Florance later did in the 15th century and then Trent again in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not add the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. If the Deuterocanon was added at Trent then why would the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches also both include them when they broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior to Trent? No, Trent did not add them, Luther and the protestants removed them. As far as Protestants having the Jewish canon, that depends which Jewish sects we are talking about. Some Jews had a similar canon, but the Jewish canon was not set. The Essenes for example included most of the Deuterocanon, the Saducees only included the Torah, the Pharisees seemed to accept at least Wisdom of Solomon since they cite it while Jesus was on the cross. The Jews did not have a set canon. The current and most common Jewish Canon today is the same as the Protestants, but even to this day many Jews accept the Deuterocanons and some sects of Judaism have less books than the Protestants. But even if the Jews did and still entirely reject the Deuterocanon, which they neither entirely did nor do, that would still not disprove these books as scripture since the Jews are not the standard setters any longer, the Church is. The Jews also reject the New Testament and Jesus, so them rejecting the Deuterocanons is hardly a good argument against those books.
Historically Herot is right. Also early Christians did not entirely agree on the books of the New Testament but the Universal (Catholic) Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided. Christ established a Church not a book. That is why we can have confidence that the cannon used by the Christians around the 4th century is right. "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." St. Augustine . Like it or not historically we would not have the Old and New Testament Canon we use today if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. All you would have to do, to prove this right or wrong is to read history and historical facts are not opinions but are documented events in human history established by multiple references that is unchanging and can be objectively verified.
@@javierreyes623 I've seen Dr. Turek speak in person many times and have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with him two or three. Read most of his books too, more than once for some. He is a very reasonable person and has a lot of willingness and ability to have reasonable dialogue with Christians who disagree with him. The trouble is that the "mere Christian" apologists often have a mindset of wanting to focus more on converting non-Christians than entering into debates between Christian groups, so they rarely end up in settings where they can engage in these kind of discussions by nature of their focus. The nature of their focus also means they don't seem to spend a lot of time looking into this kind of thing outside of the random question they might get about it at their talks on other topics. I do hope one day both him and other great evangelists like him, such as Dr. William Lane Craig, take the time to look into the evidence for the Catholic faith and convert. They both have had a major impact on my life and I likely wouldn't be Christian, let alone Catholic, if it hadn't been for them. So I hope and pray they do take the time to look into it and give the evidence an honest evaluation one day, I could see them converting if they did. Very few reasonable and good willed people can look into these matters and remain protestant, hence why so many of the best protestants become Catholic.
Thanks Herot. I was aware of much of what you shared but you gave me a few more pieces of the puzzle I had not considered eg. what books the Essenes accepted and the Jewish quote while Jesus was on the cross. I'll save your post and look further into that. thanks again and God bless.
Came here to say this. The Deuterocanon being added in Trent is a common lie spread among protestants to slander the Catholic Church, and it's obvious Frank hasn't taken the time to verify that little "fact" that he was taught in Sunday School.
They for get to mention that the Holy spirit who inspired the scriptures also helps us decide what were the book to put together. Dont forget the Holy spirt was and is with us till the end of times
I have to give my respect and gratitude to the Catholics and Non Catholics in the comment section for clearing up the error made by Dr. Turek. God Bless you all.
@Artur False. Protestants adopted a later Jewish cannon (from about the turn of the 1st century) that was adapted, because certain books they rejected were too close for comfort for supporting the new Christian movement. The Jews never really had an official cannon, but just used “commonly accepted” books. The Catholic Church solidified the cannon, and included the deuterocanonical books, which simply mean “2nd cannon,” which means they included the ones that were rejected by anti-Christian Jews of the 1st century. “Once you study history, you cease to be anything but Catholic.” (Paraphrased from St. John Newman, former Protestant)
@Artur I’m sorry if that was unclear. I meant that the Jews up to that point had never adopted an official cannon, but when they ADAPTED their collection of accepted books, they took out the deuterocanonical books, which were later REestablished as cannon (hence the “secondary” part of it).
Catholic Christian here. Dr Turek you are true inspiration and my role model as an apologist. I have couple of friends who are atheists and I'm preparing to bring them to the Lord by watching your videos. Thank you very much for your hard work. And I love how you ended here "it's the New Testament that all Christians agree upon" God bless
@@PInk77W1 I know that. It is also not as relevant to christians as New Testament, that's why Jews don't acknowledge it. So in the end the core teaching which is that of Jesus Christ is the same for Protestants and Catholics. Now the interpretation of said teachings is a whole different matter and source of schism between chrisrians.
use to be a Catholic and finally sat down read the bible studied it with Christians and that was that I was in shock that I never knew anything about God. It was amazing how I let myself believe in the traditions man made idols it was a HUGE wake up for me I thank God in Jesus name Amen.
Frank takes a little truth to spin his yarns. You don't need a bible to know a god. Just don't treat a bible as an idol. Compare the contradictions in the anonymous Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I hope you can learn how to think, not what to think. Good luck.
can you provide actual contradictions without recurring to a google search "contradictions in the bible"? if so, how did you find them and who told you so? just curious, since we are learning how to think
Man, I've been struggling whole night with this, it's 6 AM and just watched this few minutes long video and it all suddenly became very clear :D Thank you Frank for your work, God bless you!
Frank, if the Catholic church added books to her canon at Trent please explain to your audience which books she added that were not in her canon prior to Trent? Answer: there wasn't any because they didn’t add any!
As a Protestant, I also confirm this. The main reason why we removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament is because we wanted to be more in line with the initial Jewish canon. It’s actually a point of contention within both the Catholic and Protestant churches if whether the Apocrypha should be taught in the churches.
@@paulnash6944 Then you should also remove the entire NT for the same reason. The Jews did not accept either of them for the same “Christian” reasons. Using a reason to keep the Jewish canon and keep the Christian NT makes no sense when the church brought ALL of them, both the NT and the “Apocrypha” together at the same time at Carthage 397. If she was wrong on the “Apocrypha” she was wrong on the NT also.
@@srich7503 Indeed, also to add there were several Jewish sects besides the Pharisees and Sadducees, such as the Essenes who were likely the custodians of the Dead Sea Scrolls and have a much larger library of books they considered authoritative. Also fun note - it is heavily implicated that the Essenes were the monastic order of Jews that John the Baptist was part of - worth looking into.
Quick correction the council did not add books, when the church has meeting they usually do them when there is a movement against a belief and they meet and discuss the issue, and at the end they affirm the teaching or not. What the council did during the reformation was affirm that those 7 books were scripture, they did not add them
The Catholic Bible had had those seven books from the Concil of Rome 382 and Hippo 395 and were RE-AFFIRMED at the Council of Trent 1563. They were NOT added at Trent.
Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED. "THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
That just proves that the popes were fallible all men are fallible The reason we do not believe in the apocryphal books is because they are contradictory to scripture
Frank Turek, I just recently discovered you on RUclips and have been enjoying your videos. Saying that the Catholic Church added 7 books at the Council of Trent has a negative impact on your credibility. It was a reaffirmation of the original canon in response to the deformation that removed 7 books.
@@l.t.1305 "ROMAN" Catholic church. Hmm. Wasn't Roman Empire the one leading the persecution of the disciples and first and second generations of Christians? Roman Empire absorbed Christianity when the movement became too big to contain, but brought their Roman paganism into it as well. That's why you see elements of the goddess worship (Mary), sun god worship (just google for the mountain of evidence), and blatant blasphemy of calling man-appointed men "holy father," vicar of Christ (acting in place of real Jesus Christ), etc. By 16th century, Roman Catholic Church so perverted and abused the Word of God that they were afraid of laymen reading the Scripture themselves, that they prohibited it and maintained exclusivity by restricting translation from Greek/Latin. Reformes protestant movement began when some people began to read the Scripture. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christus (Christ alone), Soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).
@@l.t.1305 Satan can be traced back much further and was actually with God at one time... I am sure, despite that, he isn't approved of by Christ either.
This is the clearest and most concise explanation of the apocrypha I’ve ever heard. I had some excellent professors and seminary. But they weren’t this clear
@@sammisaylor2173 Apocrypha means writings or reports not considered genuine. Basically, the apocrypha are the books the Roman Catholic Church added to the Old Testament in 1545 AD. Protestants only include what Judaism considers canon in the TaNaK. In the video starting at 5:08 Dr. Turek talks about this. The apocryphal books have things worth reading, but are not authoritative. For example, Bel and the Dragon is a work of fiction not an actual account, which is why it is not included in the TaNaK. But it is the earliest known mystery story. Like many non-scriptural books today, it has some good things to teach like don’t just believe the explanation you’re given but look for the real causes and explanations. But that doesn’t make it scripture.
Protestants removed 7 books. Not the other way around. Anyone can look this up. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.[The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
@@CPATuttle Close, but not exactly. The Muratorian Canon, AD 170, is the earliest canon of the New Testament and included 24 books. Hebrews, James, and 3rd John were not included. However, a discussion of the NT canon is irrelevant to this subject. What is relevant is the OT, which you only mention in passing. The fact is that the Apocrypha were never included in the TaNaK in Judaism. These books and chapters were additions to the OT. Protestants did not remove them so much as return the OT to it's original canon.
@@cmdrdatayt I was copying and pasting historical facts. To say Catholics added books is straight up wrong. Let’s go with facts. There’s no way to spin it. There’s not one early Christian Bible that matches the Protestant bible today. The Jews 200 years before Jesus was born added the second cannon which means the deuterocanonical scrolls. The Jews added them in the translated Hebrew Bible to Greek called the Septuagint. They added those books. Not the Catholic Church. The eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek. From conquering former land by Alexander the Great who spread the language there. Jesus and his apostles used the Septuagint. Many prophecies of Jesus are in the deuterocanonical scrolls. Jesus nor his disciples not one time ever said those books were “not scripture” or “apocrypha”, after Jesus was born, no other Jew that did not follow Jesus have any authority whatsoever on what the closed Old Testament should be. The Pope choose the books for the Old Testament because they were in the Septuagint used by Jesus. The Pope is the office established by Jesus to have this authority. That’s how we get a closed cannon. There’s no agreement with all Christians that make cannons. That’s impossible to all agree on it.
I can see why Frank is not Catholic. He's not very educated on this topic. However, I listen to him daily and love his weekly podcasts on the Cross Examined app, and he will always be my favorite apologist for his impact on my faith life.
You are right. The two OT canons actually existed during the time of our Lord and the apostles. The septuagint (Catholic canon) was actually popular with Hellenist Jews while the more traditional canon of the Hebrew Bible was popular in Palestine. It is noteworthy that our Lord and His apostles quoted extensively from the Catholic (Septuagint) version in the new testament, so I wonder why Martin Luther rejected scriptures which Christ Himself and His apostles used and quoted from?!
@@DougWarner25 Yup, and i didnt do that. If you dont understand what I am referring to then you dont even know your own churches history. the catholic church is one of the most evil entities to ever exist.
That kid is right. And that man is wrong. He mentioned the 4th century cannons that determined scripture. And he totally ignored it and lied that the council of Trent in 1,500’s added books. When I’m reality Martin Luther removed books. The council of Trent affirmed the already cannon in response to the removal of books. The Old Testament used by Jesus and the disciples were the Septuagint that has the deuterocanonical books. And the Jews never had a closed cannon by the time Jesus was born. Anyone can look this up.
Anglican here (I hope the gentleman who asked the question in the video reads this). The fact is that Anglicanism does accept the Deuterocanon, just not as on the same level as the rest of Scripture. The 39 Articles talk about this.
Actually, Frank Turek is wrong about the Old Testament. Jesus used the Septuagint, which is basically the Old Testament as the Catholic Church holds it to be. The Council of Trent has nothing to do with the Septuagint.
Ah no, the Septuagent was rejected and still is rejected by Torah Observant Jews due to where it was written and who the translators were. . The Septuagent was the Hebrew text translated into the Greek language , this took place in Egypt , that is the first violation , the location where that translation was made - Egypt . and the second violation was with the translatoors not being experienced Jewish scribes to supervise that the texts not contain any errors . Because of that , the Septuagent text is never read or quoted from in a synagogue or Messanic congregation is it is considered corrupt . the organial Hebrew text is. Reason(s): 1) the Septuagent was copied in Egypt around 360 BC . This is in violation of the requirements that the Tanaakh is to be only copied in Israel. 2) the copyists for the Septuagent, were not strictly supervised by noted and experienced Jewish scribes, nor their manuscripts checked for errors in the spelling of words , or text .
No, He did not. Neither Jesus nor any Jew with any measure of intelligence would ever use a corrupt mess like the Septuagint. Well into the New Testament era, while the Temple still existed, the Jews were still using the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apostle Paul addressed the Jews in Hebrew: "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence" (Acts 22:2, KJV).
Don't worry about God's word. That is God's problem and He has always kept His word safe and secure and it will endure when this old earth has passed away.
This! So many people arguing over what was put in, what was taken out, this copy is correct and this copy is not... Do they not have true faith in Him, that He keeps His word secure?
The question was how can we be sure that the books in the bible belong... it’s actually not exactly Gods problem but for us to figure out. That’s why we had the church fathers for example
Love all in the name of our god. Jesus Christ, holyspirit. The trinity. Made hard yet easy. I also love our mother Mary. She also gives me great comfort. Love you all.
I do hope and pray that he knows about the 81 books and not just the 66 the R.C.C.Roman Catholic church had given out. Because all of the books are inspired by God. Prior to the king James authorizing men to put in a single volume the books of the old and new testament. But what many don't know is that before even the Tyndale bible version there's the Ethiopian bible long before either of these were pit together. Within the Catholic archives exist the original Ethiopian bible which they get the complete scriptures. Every time something that is related to the Scriptures, an artifact of some sorts is found or come across it's the Catholic church that somehow gets this information way longer before anyone else hears or even gets wind of. But soon as people find out what they've done they do their best to get the information on what location and area in the Catholic archives to search for it. I believe that they did this to keep the truth from others because once others find out then their dark secrets and lies become apparent. One of the things that I love about God is that you can not show him up. When men decide to say what can and what can not be put in or used. God whose wisdom is greater than man always pit him on the chopping block hanging himself. God opens the understanding of the mind and heart. So what was and is hidden from oir eyes He reveals to let you know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.
Well, and not to state the obvious, those books of the Ethiopian Bible are not "hidden" or anything. They have been and continue to be part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christian tradition. Ethiopian Christians are still around---they never left.
i find it amazing that catholics love to argue over the OT . Dr. Turek being the gentleman he is . brought the discussion to a conclusion that the NT is the most important section ...that being Christs death and resurrection ...period . Which Jews totally deny
Not all Christians agree on the NT canon either, though. Ask Syrian Orthodox Chrisitians, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, etc. And yes, they also disagree on the Old Testament.
Anybody who believes the same Catholic Church who was burning people at the stake for reading the Bible in English, torturing people in dungeons who didn't agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures and hacking entire villages to death because they didn't attend the churches they built in their towns is just being willfully ignorant if they believe the Catholic Church wasn't making edits to the Bible THEY decided on.
Love you on atheist apologetics Frank, but you're off on the P vs C stuff. So the Church added the Deuterocanonical books after Luther rejected them? How does that make sense? The Church *reaffirmed* what had been there for 15 centuries only after the Protestants started throwing them out 30 years before Trent. Note that Luther tried mightily to toss James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation as well. He was tossing books that disagreed with his novel theology. You won't find a Bible before 1517 that doesn't have the 'apocrypha," a derogatory term by the way. And by the way, the councils this young man mentions (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) also affirmed the canon of the Septuagint OT along with the canon of the NT. This should go without saying but these councils were Councils of the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Damasus. I mean one was in Rome after all. If you accept the NT canon then you accept the infallible decision of a Pope.
the apocryphal books have some weird things in them that are more paganistic in rituals, spirit beings somehow managing to have sex with humans and producing children (how does a spirit being created by God produce sperm or impart DNA and start the cell division process?) when Christ said that the children of the resurrection are to be as the angels are, spirit-composed, and not marrying nor given into marriage, etc
@@bobbrockway453 Where does the Gospel of Jesus teach that all men sin? Romans 3:23 for one. Maybe you don't know the meaning of Infallible? All men FALL. Able to Fall. Make Mistakes, Sin. That is why God is God, and Men are men.
Totally respect Dr. Frank and enjoy watching his videos and get good pointers from them to witness to others. Although the only thing that I must disagree with is that the Old Testament has passed away. Indeed it is still binding to all believers today. Jesus said do not think I came to destroy the law or the prophets. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until Heaven and Earth pass away. Paul clearly taught us in Romans 3:31 that we do not make void the law through faith on the contrary we uphold the law and that applies to every believer rather Jew or Gentile. May God bless you all and the truth will set you free.
I don't believe that is what he's saying. The moral law, the 10 Commandments are indisputably still applicable to Christians today, and I don't think Frank is dissing that. Instead, I believe he's referring to the practices of the old testament that temporarily resolved the sin issue before Jesus, and the many traditions that people lived by. The New Testament keeps the law, God's 10 moral laws, and Jesus (as Frank said) fulfilled everything else. Yes he said he came not to destroy the law, and he meant it. But he's talking about the commandments here.
I really appreciate this video! As someone who has a catholic friends and grandmother i wanted to know where the difference was in our bibles. I do believe that in some catholic versions they put a book of saints in the new testament which was also not something I'm familiar with. Much appreciated :)
Hi. I'm Catholic and I've run across a number of Catholic Bible versions accepted by the Church but I have never heard of a 'book of saints' being added to any of the Catholic versions. Even if that were true for a particular edition, Church Tradition has not added to the official canon since it was first selected in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. I use one of the most popular which is the RSVCE 2nd Ed. The Ignatius Study Bible with Commentary is an exceptional Bible if you are interested in learning more about how the early Christians interpreted the Bible. God bless.
All 73 books in the Bible were decided on by the Catholic Church around 800 years ago, the Catholic Church didn't add any Books the Protestants removed 7 Books making their Bible 66 Books. So essentially the canon of the Bible you are reading was still determined by the Catholic Church they just have kept all 73 Books they initially decided on.
About 1700 years ago, the church only confirmed after the Protestant reform that they will be still using the old version because Luther claims weren’t valid
There are other books..Macabees, jasher,Enoch, Jubilees etc. 1. Does it agree with Torah? 2. Does it build on other books 3. Was book used by the early church.?
Great explanation by Frank, it seems he is also protestant, by the way he responded to the question. I understand he does not deal with differences between Christian denominations however it is important to clarify catholics did not add anything, Protestants dropped the books catholic teaching had always regarded as cannon and scripture due to those books including things which could imply to go against certain protestant beliefs by Luther. They realized including them would cause an issue.
Loved when you said "Eucharist" and then quickly said Last Supper. We all know the last supper is the exact same thing as the Holy Eucharist. Found in the Holy Catholic Church. Love you videos though! God bless
In The last Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" ony a remembrance not a critical part of Salvation but only remembering it whereas the Eucharist believes it is the act of receiving Jesus literally and physically (but John 6:63 says otherwise). It is the difference between a vicrory and remembering the victory.
@@jehielmutia1744 The Eucharist is a remembrance but It is also the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Why can't It be both? Only in Protestantism does "do this in memory of me" mean "don't do this".
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh Do this in remembrance of me is funnily not the same as not doing it. Not believing it is literal is not the same as not believing as it is really is it (the bread described in John). It is like Celebrating victory compared to the victory itself.
Sorry but the septuigent included the books that you claimed were added. Whereas Luther was caught trying to change translation and was refuted by his supporters and cohort at the time when those books were removed to support his new theology. Even to the point where he wanted to remove part of James.
Luther called James the "apostle of straw' because he didn't understand the correlation between James & Paul's testimony. Turns out he didn't understand James was talking ab what genuine Christians do & should do & Paul taught how we're actually saved & become a child of God. James deals with how genuine Christian's act, Paul deals with the way in which we are genuinely saved. Luther had his own struggles, he's human. Noone cares ab that aspect in debate because of bias & lack of actual knowledge.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So what if an extra canonical book (Enoch) IS quoted in the new testament, by Jude and Peter directly, and by Christ himself through several comments he made directly relating to passages in Enoch. How is this book not included in our version of the Bible today? For me this opens questions of what may we be missing? For me Enoch opens several possibilities to end times deceptions mentioned by New Testament authors.
Ive learned from a video some time ago on youtube, that the book of Enoch, although very insightful and intriguing, has some contradictions from the Bible. So maybe its not the same Book of Enoch that Jesus was referring to and it is apocryphal. I believe the book of Enoch is a mixture of truth and fiction. And its difficult to separate the two. Its not inspired or edifying for salvation. So be cautious in your quest for truth. But this is just my humble opinion. Godspeed
Yes, scholar Michael Heiser covers this subject extensively. Google him and be prepared to be amazed at his scholarship. The author of the Book of Enoch had no Apostolic connection and so it was not considered to not have the authority of scripture. Just as modern writers may refer to present day popular readings in their works (that everyone of our culture would be very familiar with), so too the ancient writers. We have to remember that the writings of the Bible were written for us but not to us.
Paul makes many Greco-Roman references. In one of his epistles, he has a poetic portion that mimics the famous epic poem of Pericles. These were real people who lived in a cultural setting that affected how they wrote and what they referred to.
I really like Frank's videos, but this is wrong. The Catholics didn't add books, and the clear to anyone who has studied this. I'm not even Catholic and I know this. Luther also tried to remove books from the NT as well.
@@aibelzoe No. The Bible was completed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation in 95 A.D. Roman Catholicism was begun by the heretic Constantine around 325 A.D. Roman Catholics are not real Christians.
@@davidlafleche1142, sorry for contradicted your version friend, but when Constantine allow the freedom of religion, the Church it was in the 32 Pope already. The incredible part it's that you have internet and you not used to find the truth, it's so easy, just google ; " The first 10 the Popes of the Catholic Church and what year." Then finally you are going to see the truth.
@@aibelzoe So what? There is no "pope" in the Bible. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment). You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@Peter Cho Jesus never said that, and He has no "vicar." The 9th Commandment warns, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@ManSon Rising Figures. My Dad (who is now burning in Hell, but probably thinks he's in "purgatory") followed a lady liar named Dr. Mary Jane Even. She called herself "The secretary of Jesus Christ," but she was a servant of Satan, and I told her so. That's what happens when you have female pastors: heresy is inevitable!
The apocryphal books were not added in the council of Trent. Luther removed these books during the reformation. The catholic canon was set at the council of rome in ad 382.
That is demonstrably false. Luther took the 7 books out because they mentioned purgatory and he was about to take out James, Jude and Revelation when fellow protestants stopped him. Those books had been in the bible since the 4th century.
@@aaronsahipakka3224 Martin Luther hated Jews, and he did not believe the book of James belonged in the Bible. Worst of all, his cult (Lutherans) practices the heresy of infant baptism, because it did not make a clean break from the Roman Catholic "ho" of Babylon.
@@davidlafleche1142 what would you say to someone who claims to be Christian but says the bible is corrupt? thankyou and God bless. Im dealing with a family member who believes in Martin Luther and such. Thankyou again
@@nanazbound "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9, KJV). Those liars claim, "The Bible is corrupt," simply because the Bible doesn't tell them what they want to hear. And how do they know "the Bible is corrupt"? Because some unsaved person told them! They reject the Lord Jesus Christ, but they'll take the word of an unrepentant heretic? How typical. If you have any questions, feel free to ask anytime.
Very informative brother, um that very last part though..the old covenant Law is not done away with finished, its finished as fulfilled (like you said) but He upgraded the old covenant (the same way He upgraded The temples His Holy Spirit dwells: from tabernacle-to Christ-to believers) the same covenant upgraded to a 2.0 version. Its most Spiritual applications now. (where in old times they did first before it was sin, now if you hate your brother, you've already committed murder) We worship in Spirit and Truth.
The First king James Bible had the same books the Catholic Bible had. 73, it was till the 1800s that Bible societies removed 7 books. The Lutheran Bible also has 73.
Great lecture with the exception of one point! The deuterocanonical books in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were NOT added in 16th century in response to Reformation but were based on the Septuagint (Greek edition of Old Testament). The reason these 2 groups use Septuagint is Bc this is what early Christians and disciples of Jesus used. Research it yourself.
The oldest septuigent is from the 4th century and the new testament never cites any apocrapha. There's no reason to believe that Jesus's Bible had the apocrapha.
The Septuagint has all 17 of these books. This is what the Orthodox Churches accept. Anglicans accept 14 of the books and Catholics accept 7. Protestants accept none. Catholics didn't add books, Protestants threw out books.
Reverend? Mr. J Roger Allen sir, are you not aware that wearing religious titles is expressly condemned? Jesus forbids the practice when He said, Matthew 23:8-10 ("But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no man your FATHER upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called MASTERS: for one is your Master, even Christ.") This practice of elevating one brother above another is contrary to the spirit of Christianity that "ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." In the old testament Job new that exalting man displeased God, when he said, Job 32:21-22("Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, neither let me give FLATTERING TITLES unto man. For I know not to give FLATTERING TITLES; in so doing my maker would soon TAKE ME AWAY.") Gods Word does not teach we are to form a clergy- laity in doing so we violate Matthew 23:8-10 Gods Word teaches that All christians are priests. 1Peter 2:5 ("you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy PRIESTHOOD...") And 1Peter 2:9 ("But you are a chosen generation, a royal PRIESTHOOD,...") 1 Corinthians 4:6 ("....Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be PUFFED UP in being a follower of one of us OVER AGAINST THE OTHER.")
@Dd S James 1:21 "if anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is USELESS." You mentioned 1 Corinthians 4:15 ..."I became your Father..." Now show me just one verse in the Inspired Word of God where the Apostle Paul is referred to as Father by a fellow brother in Christ. This is what Paul really thought of being exalted above his brother's and sisters in Christ, 1Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have FIGURATIVELY transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you be PUFFED UP on behalf of one AGAINST the OTHER."
@@Eisho.G As a Catholic I sadly agree with the Orthodox Church about the Papacy. Because in reality the Papacy is what CAUSED the Protestant Reformation.
The Bible written by about 40 most unrelated people, lived 1600 years, and still has a Common Thread, carries common message. Most authors martyred. Willing to die for what they witnessed.
KingJames BibleBeliever the septuagint is older than the masoretic text. I read the KJV. Its my favorite bible. However the septuagint came before the masoretic. Even the kjv translators spoke of this in their introduction. Look it up. The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint for the most part. We need to use both the septuagint, and masoretic. I think the problem is we forget sometimes that each of the books of the bible were written on scrolls. They didn’t have books. So we get stuck on this idea that there has to be a perfect compilation of scripture. I believe it is achievable. However we haven’t gotten there yet. We need to be honest as use all the text families and use whichever is more reliable. We can’t accept a manuscript just because it’s much earlier. We also can’t deny a manuscript, because it’s much later. We need to compare scripture with scripture to come to a final conclusion.
@@jasonquick1094 He makes pretty rash generalizations of his opponents and touts his opinions about Christianity around like they're undisputable by all. I understand he's simply being religious but he argues with the weakest opponents and starts feeling like his circular arguments are impressive. Watch him debate/discuss with people who have established themselves and he just looks incompetent. He looks good until he leaves his echo chamber.
@@hyronvalkinson1749 I'm not sure what debate your referring too specifically but even though he and I disagree on things that doesnt make his arguments circular. He debated Christopher Hitchens and pretty well held up his position while Hitchens had a pretty bad showing dispite usually debating effectively in other cases
21:10 Cannonization Questions: "Was it written by a prophet of God?" "was the writer confirmed by acts of God or someone who was confirmed as an eyewitness (ie. Paul confirmed Luke)?" "Was it accepted by the people of God?"
Maybe a good way to think of this is generally speaking is the least common dwnominater. Christians and Catholics agree on the New Testament books. Jews and Chrustians agree on the Old Testament books
Who has the authority to say which books are inspired by God and which ones not? Only the Catholic Church, the Church that has the authority to loose and to bind (Matthew 16:19). The Catholic Church said, at the Council of Rome in 382, that Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees are inspired by God. Therefore they are inspired by God.
@@travisdempster4693 Jesus said, at Matthew 16:18, ".... upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", andvwhen He said in the very next verse that the Church would have the authority to loose and to bind, Jesus was saying that the Catholic Church would be given infallible teaching authority. With that authority the Church proclaimed, at the Council of Rome in 382 a.d., that the 46 books of the Septuagint Old Testament, together with 27 books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude would make up the Christian Bible, and that is how the world got the Christian Bible. First came Jesus, then came the Church, then came the Bible. Whenever you crack your Bible open thank the Catholic Church, because that's where it came from.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh George Jesus DIDNT say Catholic Church. He was not "saying". Anyone can say Jesus was "saying". You could say Jesus was saying the Lutheran Church had authority. Or that pigs fly That is what Jesus was "saying" But that is not ehat Jesus said.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh George the Scriptures came from the Prophets, No Church. No where in any scripture is the Catholic Church listed as the author or writer. Paul, Peter and John belonged to the Church of Christ and the Way. Not the Catholic Church
this seems like a very fallible method of determining which books are inspired by god(why there should be any question at all whether or not a book was written/inspired by god or is merely the writing of a human I don't get at all either.) he says some of the non-canonical books were attributed to authors that didn't really write them years after they were written, but this also applies to the gospels as well. he even says opponents agree the gospels were written by the authors the bible describes(unless I misunderstood him), but even most christians(at least those aware of the facts) admit that is not true. not to mention we know many of Paul's epistles were not written by Paul. that's why we divide them into genuine and non-genuine Pauline epistles.
@@stevecoyle1 most copies of the manuscript are not signed by the authors. The early church fathers decided to give authorship to the books. For an example, the book of Romans is not signed by Paul. Biblical scholars and church fathers made these decisions of authorship through meeting and a vote of hands. Go do some research and you will be amazed of how our faith was decided by individuals.
God actually gives us a litmus test for testing the validity of books for the Bible. Some of which is... ✝✌😇Has to agree with the rest of scripture.(there may be explanations for perceived differences, but those explanations still have to jive with the other books.)ie: no saying Jesus had a wife(or husband), without supporting scripture. ✝😇✌Generally has to either fulfill/reinforce/expand upon the specifics of earlier prophecies of Scripture, or make its own prophecies that later scripture then fulfilled.(many times both.) ✌😇✝Has to generally be historical.(Can't say that a major volcano erupted north of Jerusalem, and is still outgassing to this day. Or that it it kills Judas', so Jesus brings him back to life. As a Robot jackass. Etc.)
Frank, I love you man, but you say things which are factually wrong on the issue of the difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles... The OT canon was *not* settled among the Jews at the time of Christ. To see this, simply compare the canons of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes - they're not the same. Protestants accept the canon decided upon by the Jews left alive *after* the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. If these people didn't recognize the Word when he turned up and preached to them, why would we expect them to perfectly recognize God's written Word? Although there was some disagreement over particular books by certain Early Church Fathers, you certainly find the Deuterocanon generally being quoted as Scripture in the Early Church. The Catholic OT aligns itself to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT which is the translation most quoted by the New Testament authors themselves. This is the canon declared by the early councils of the Church, as well as later ones such as Florence. You *don't* have to wait until Trent for this. Catholics did not *add* books to the Bible, Protestants *removed* them. If you want proof of this, ask a Coptic or Eastern Orthodox Christian (who split from the Catholic Church long before the Reformation and Trent) if they have the deuterocanonical books - they do. Some Reformers, such as Luther, tried to remove books from the New Testament as well, such as the Epistle of James because he couldn't reconcile it with his theology of Sola Fide...
Perfectly said (regarding 1st century Jews): "If these people didn't recognize the Word when he turned up and preached to them, why would we expect them to perfectly recognize God's written Word?" A most excellent point, Theology With An English Accent.
Jude practically cut and pasted sections of 1 Enoch in his short epistles. Jesus makes a direct reference to Enoch with regards to those taking part in the resurrection as being made like unto the angels (Jesus reprimands the Sadducees for not knowing this because they didn’t know the Scriptures - meaning Jesus called Enoch Scripture as that detail pertaining to our resurrection bodies being made like the angels is ONLY found in 1 Enoch).
Bingo. Jewish scripture was fluid at the time of Christ. You can see it in the DSS with alternative versions of the Isaac and Abraham, and David and Goliath, to name just a few. The Septuagint was by and large the Scripture of the 1st century Jew (and Christian). The LXX included the apocrypha, which Protestants today reject as being “fanciful” or “unorthodox”. To the modern mind, maybe it was a point of embarrassment to admit Jesus and his followers would have considered the apocrypha scripture, nonetheless, his answer is a whitewash of history.
Watching these videos can get addictive lol
le carlsom I’ve been watching for two hours 🗿
le carlsom I’ve been up until 4 am.
Addictive naw more like edifying
As long as we learn and study it for ourselves to find salvation in the end ✌🏾
I’d rather be a fool for God than a fool for the things of the world.
One common thread in Dr. Turek's Q and A Sessions is how respectful and patient he is with everyone.
He his very patient
Does he get paid?
Urrcreavesh not from doing these seminars, he gets paid from his books and his podcasts
Jack Jones and how much he lies.
@@louiscyfer6944 he is lying to people that care for the truth, so why do u care?
He’s got a power point ready for anything! 😆
😂
I reckon it's because these questions being asked are quite common.. It's the same thing people ask over and over. Dr. Turek has been doing this for a long time and is obviously diligent enough to be ready with a well prepared answer
I'm sure he's dealt with these questions many times prior
@@Starblazer27correct. Atheists are like parrots, they all say the same things and go down the same logical fallacy rabbit holes in an effort to evade God. Whatever sound bites they hear from Matt Dillahunty (a failed atheist), Aron-Ra (laughably embarrassing) and the late Christopher Hitchens (an anti-theist who died bitter and angry), they regurgitate without actually trying to understand what they're saying.
What a brave young man, asking such a deeply troubling question in public like that for all to benefit.
I mean... it's just a question. At no point in an intellectually honest society should an individual feel hesitant or fearful to ask a question.
Brave young man?the guy who's teaching is much brave
@@encore4962 both of them are brave tbf
What a genuine and transparent young man. Great question.
That is a great young man, who genuinely wants to seek God. Love to see it
Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.
Yes Jesus never lied!
I watched a video yesterday of a girl who was a catholic and listened to her reasoning why and she was giving all this information and everything. I have grown up a Christian, non-denominational. I believe in the Word of God and I believe that Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. As I’ve gotten older I really love learning different ppls beliefs and their reasonings why. When I heard why that young girl was catholic I was shocked. In a 20 minute video she mentioned Jesus’ name twice and neither time talked about what He did. She focused on the saints and praying to them and books that were added to the Bible. I was a little angry and sad when listening to her because I was like why pray to the saints when Christ came and died and tore the veil so that way we could speak directly to God. We didn’t have to go through others anymore. I prayed last night and I said God if I am getting this wrong please show me the right way. Then I came across this channel today and I just happened to see this video and it has helped me to confirm my beliefs even more so! So thank you for having this channel and teaching and letting God use you!! It helps so much!!
Btw. Protestants took away books from the Bible. Catholics didn't add them:) Even Dr Turek would lose the Sola Scriptura debate. It is not a debate Protestants can win. Sola Scriptura and Apocrypha are losing points.
@@mattybla6274
False statement. The Apocrypha is pure contradictory towards the New Testament itself, yet you claim that Protestants would lose the debate? Highly doubtful.
Also, if the creator of the original comment sees this, I absolutely know how terrible it is. Catholics seems to worship Mary and the Saints far more than they do with Yeshua. Whenever I hear anything about Catholicism, watch videos, and etc, it’s always about Mary Mary Mary, saints saints saints. It’s just wild.
@@thomas7571
You’re lying. As a Catholic, I’m offended by how ignorant that statement is.
The Catholic Church is the first and only Church established by Christ. It’s so easy to show why Protestantism shouldn’t exist, and how WRONG it’s been since the 16th century, it’s still shocking to me that they still exist after 500 years.
@@dinopad10
No, the Catholic Church is not the “first and only church.” Started by Christ. You can not find one biblical scripture to support your claim which you base on the teachings of your Catholic doctrine. Fun fact, Christ wouldn’t have His first church Catholic because of many problems within the Catholic doctrine itself.
One of them would be how Catholics teach Mary is sinless. As for someone who was interested in Eastern Orthodox and did some study, I tried to find biblical scripture to support Mary being sinless, however, I only found scripture which teaches otherwise. The fundamental basis of her being sinless is taught from the ideology of man, not by biblical scripture itself.
Another problem would be praying to Saints in heaven. Again, I’ve looked into Orthodox and tried to find biblical scripture to support this. I find scripture which goes against it, or in short, it’s just not taught anywhere throughout the Bible. All, and I mean literally all throughout the Bible we are told to make our prayers known to the Father. Not once will you ever find a verse in the New Testament which teaches to make your prayers known to the Father and Saints in heaven. We are taught to pray for each other, but as for someone who stays as biblical as he can, no scripture seems to support the ideology doctrine of praying to Saints in heaven (or asking them to pray for you, and so on.)
Don’t assume I’m Protestant, because I’m not. Im not a follower of any denomination nor am I interested in being assumed into labels. The Bible itself teaches there are Christians (Christ followers) nothing else. Denominations are made to separate the Word of God. And within most denominations man’s thoughts, feelings, and/or ideas are thrown into scripture and twisted into man’s understanding, instead of biblical understanding.
So in short, the Catholic doctrine itself was not started by Jesus. Not one place in the original Greek/Hebrew text will you even find such a church being supported. The first Catholic Church movement (doctrine) seemed to have gotten rebuked by Yeshua (Jesus) in Luke 11:27-28. And if you’re going to refer to “Peter being the first pope” and him having the keys and etc. This entire thing seems to be based on the confession of peter’s faith. Yes, I’m aware that Peter means rock, however scripture says “upon this rock I will build my church” I don’t think there’s a way of understanding what the “rock” is truly referring to. But in my opinion it’s most likely referring to Christ. In the Old Testament God was known as “the rock” in the New Testament Jesus is God Himself. He then says “upon this rock I will build my church.” Now one can put two and two together at this point and see how “the rock” could be referring towards Jesus.
Having Peter at such a role makes no sense. Peter even got rebuked by Jesus in scripture I believe. And to even think Peter was a “pope” (which he was not) is just wild. John himself was the greatest disciple of them all. There’s just so much wrong and so much that could be said about this.
Be biblically correct. Not denominationally correct. God bless.
@@thomas7571
You’re a liar and a heretic. Nothing you said is based on scripture, and absolutely not based on anything scholarly or intellectual.
I’m not having yet another online debate that will go nowhere with a person who thinks they know more than me, based on bigotry and beliefs from ignorance.
Know at least this: once you become aware of church history, you cease to be anything but CATHOLIC. (Paraphrased from Saint John Newman, former Protestant)
And for the record, if you’re not Catholic, you’re Protestant. Even if you think you’re non-denominational, you’re still following non-Catholic heresy, and a “church” founded at least 1500 years AFTER Christ founded His Church.
Your ignorance is extreme.
Thank God for these videos. This has been on my mind since yesterday and it pops into my feed. He really does guide us if we ask.
The Council of Rome in 382 confirmed the same canonical books that Florance later did in the 15th century and then Trent again in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not add the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. If the Deuterocanon was added at Trent then why would the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches also both include them when they broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior to Trent? No, Trent did not add them, Luther and the protestants removed them.
As far as Protestants having the Jewish canon, that depends which Jewish sects we are talking about. Some Jews had a similar canon, but the Jewish canon was not set. The Essenes for example included most of the Deuterocanon, the Saducees only included the Torah, the Pharisees seemed to accept at least Wisdom of Solomon since they cite it while Jesus was on the cross. The Jews did not have a set canon. The current and most common Jewish Canon today is the same as the Protestants, but even to this day many Jews accept the Deuterocanons and some sects of Judaism have less books than the Protestants. But even if the Jews did and still entirely reject the Deuterocanon, which they neither entirely did nor do, that would still not disprove these books as scripture since the Jews are not the standard setters any longer, the Church is. The Jews also reject the New Testament and Jesus, so them rejecting the Deuterocanons is hardly a good argument against those books.
Historically Herot is right. Also early Christians did not entirely agree on the books of the New Testament but the Universal (Catholic) Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided. Christ established a Church not a book. That is why we can have confidence that the cannon used by the Christians around the 4th century is right. "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." St. Augustine . Like it or not historically we would not have the Old and New Testament Canon we use today if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. All you would have to do, to prove this right or wrong is to read history and historical facts are not opinions but are documented events in human history established by multiple references that is unchanging and can be objectively verified.
And of course guys like Frank Turek will never take into account everything you just said here even though it's true.
@@javierreyes623 I've seen Dr. Turek speak in person many times and have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with him two or three. Read most of his books too, more than once for some. He is a very reasonable person and has a lot of willingness and ability to have reasonable dialogue with Christians who disagree with him. The trouble is that the "mere Christian" apologists often have a mindset of wanting to focus more on converting non-Christians than entering into debates between Christian groups, so they rarely end up in settings where they can engage in these kind of discussions by nature of their focus. The nature of their focus also means they don't seem to spend a lot of time looking into this kind of thing outside of the random question they might get about it at their talks on other topics. I do hope one day both him and other great evangelists like him, such as Dr. William Lane Craig, take the time to look into the evidence for the Catholic faith and convert. They both have had a major impact on my life and I likely wouldn't be Christian, let alone Catholic, if it hadn't been for them. So I hope and pray they do take the time to look into it and give the evidence an honest evaluation one day, I could see them converting if they did. Very few reasonable and good willed people can look into these matters and remain protestant, hence why so many of the best protestants become Catholic.
Thanks Herot. I was aware of much of what you shared but you gave me a few more pieces of the puzzle I had not considered eg. what books the Essenes accepted and the Jewish quote while Jesus was on the cross. I'll save your post and look further into that. thanks again and God bless.
Came here to say this. The Deuterocanon being added in Trent is a common lie spread among protestants to slander the Catholic Church, and it's obvious Frank hasn't taken the time to verify that little "fact" that he was taught in Sunday School.
They for get to mention that the Holy spirit who inspired the scriptures also helps us decide what were the book to put together. Dont forget the Holy spirt was and is with us till the end of times
This is an important point. I believe the Holy Spirit guides certain individuals by giving them divine revelation.
@@jeanmichel8368 amen. He still does to this day.
Then why do some denominations include certain books when others omit certain books? The HS wouldn’t give conflicting information
I have to give my respect and gratitude to the Catholics and Non Catholics in the comment section for clearing up the error made by Dr. Turek.
God Bless you all.
What error??
@Artur
False. Protestants adopted a later Jewish cannon (from about the turn of the 1st century) that was adapted, because certain books they rejected were too close for comfort for supporting the new Christian movement. The Jews never really had an official cannon, but just used “commonly accepted” books. The Catholic Church solidified the cannon, and included the deuterocanonical books, which simply mean “2nd cannon,” which means they included the ones that were rejected by anti-Christian Jews of the 1st century.
“Once you study history, you cease to be anything but Catholic.” (Paraphrased from St. John Newman, former Protestant)
@Artur
I’m sorry if that was unclear. I meant that the Jews up to that point had never adopted an official cannon, but when they ADAPTED their collection of accepted books, they took out the deuterocanonical books, which were later REestablished as cannon (hence the “secondary” part of it).
What errow
@@jeffbogue4748
Read this stream, as well as other comments. Lots of people have pointed it out.
Catholic Christian here. Dr Turek you are true inspiration and my role model as an apologist. I have couple of friends who are atheists and I'm preparing to bring them to the Lord by watching your videos. Thank you very much for your hard work. And I love how you ended here "it's the New Testament that all Christians agree upon" God bless
He doesn’t believe the
Roman Catholic bible
@@PInk77W1 the Bible is one and the New testament is identical for protestant AND catholic christians.
@@caracal82 the Old Testament is different for Protestants
@@PInk77W1 I know that. It is also not as relevant to christians as New Testament, that's why Jews don't acknowledge it. So in the end the core teaching which is that of Jesus Christ is the same for Protestants and Catholics. Now the interpretation of said teachings is a whole different matter and source of schism between chrisrians.
@@caracal82 “not as relevant” ?
Where did u make that up from ?
Scary
Great question. Love the brothers heart.
That's my cousin Francisco from gmu!! Cool
.
A very respectful cousin you have therw
use to be a Catholic and finally sat down read the bible studied it with Christians and that was that I was in shock that I never knew anything about God. It was amazing how I let myself believe in the traditions man made idols it was a HUGE wake up for me I thank God in Jesus name Amen.
Sister just 1 question - why have Protestants or anti-Catholics conveniently omitted 7 precious Books from the Bible?
Frank takes a little truth to spin his yarns. You don't need a bible to know a god.
Just don't treat a bible as an idol. Compare the contradictions in the anonymous Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I hope you can learn how to think, not what to think. Good luck.
can you provide actual contradictions without recurring to a google search "contradictions in the bible"? if so, how did you find them and who told you so? just curious, since we are learning how to think
The new testament gospels. Bart Ehrman. Read them yourself. 'Read them horizontally,' or just write down what happens when in each.
That's a start...
How is he a false teacher? Who might be a 'true' teacher?
If you love the Father He will put into your hands what you need. He will also take away what you don't need.
That man asked an important question. For the rest of us who had the same question.
Man, I've been struggling whole night with this, it's 6 AM and just watched this few minutes long video and it all suddenly became very clear :D Thank you Frank for your work, God bless you!
Frank, if the Catholic church added books to her canon at Trent please explain to your audience which books she added that were not in her canon prior to Trent? Answer: there wasn't any because they didn’t add any!
As a Protestant, I also confirm this. The main reason why we removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament is because we wanted to be more in line with the initial Jewish canon. It’s actually a point of contention within both the Catholic and Protestant churches if whether the Apocrypha should be taught in the churches.
@@paulnash6944 Then you should also remove the entire NT for the same reason. The Jews did not accept either of them for the same “Christian” reasons. Using a reason to keep the Jewish canon and keep the Christian NT makes no sense when the church brought ALL of them, both the NT and the “Apocrypha” together at the same time at Carthage 397. If she was wrong on the “Apocrypha” she was wrong on the NT also.
@@srich7503 Indeed, also to add there were several Jewish sects besides the Pharisees and Sadducees, such as the Essenes who were likely the custodians of the Dead Sea Scrolls and have a much larger library of books they considered authoritative. Also fun note - it is heavily implicated that the Essenes were the monastic order of Jews that John the Baptist was part of - worth looking into.
Quick correction the council did not add books, when the church has meeting they usually do them when there is a movement against a belief and they meet and discuss the issue, and at the end they affirm the teaching or not. What the council did during the reformation was affirm that those 7 books were scripture, they did not add them
The Catholic Bible had had those seven books from the Concil of Rome 382 and Hippo 395 and were RE-AFFIRMED at the Council of Trent 1563. They were NOT added at Trent.
God bless you brother , you are really a man of God ,
Love you Mr. Frank keep preachings.
Trust in God who created the heavens and earth, can surely sway any man to make sure his word shall never change.
Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.
"THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
That just proves that the popes were fallible all men are fallible
The reason we do not believe in the apocryphal books is because they are contradictory to scripture
@@pauljohnson2191 Amen
According to their view.
Tell me, was the rapture the original view of the last judgement?
@Ελληνας Γραικος he didnt have all the books sorry
@@pauljohnson2191 how do they contradict
This was very educational
Thank you 🙏
God bless ✨
Excellent teacher.
Frank Turek, I just recently discovered you on RUclips and have been enjoying your videos. Saying that the Catholic Church added 7 books at the Council of Trent has a negative impact on your credibility. It was a reaffirmation of the original canon in response to the deformation that removed 7 books.
@Daniel Spaniel Wrong, the Catholic church is the only church that can traced back to Christ and his disciples.
@@l.t.1305 "ROMAN" Catholic church. Hmm. Wasn't Roman Empire the one leading the persecution of the disciples and first and second generations of Christians? Roman Empire absorbed Christianity when the movement became too big to contain, but brought their Roman paganism into it as well. That's why you see elements of the goddess worship (Mary), sun god worship (just google for the mountain of evidence), and blatant blasphemy of calling man-appointed men "holy father," vicar of Christ (acting in place of real Jesus Christ), etc. By 16th century, Roman Catholic Church so perverted and abused the Word of God that they were afraid of laymen reading the Scripture themselves, that they prohibited it and maintained exclusivity by restricting translation from Greek/Latin. Reformes protestant movement began when some people began to read the Scripture. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christus (Christ alone), Soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).
The Catholic Church idolizes Mary, they pray to her. Which is a sin. It’s idolatry.
@@l.t.1305 Satan can be traced back much further and was actually with God at one time... I am sure, despite that, he isn't approved of by Christ either.
But he was STILL allowed to reach Earth?
This is the clearest and most concise explanation of the apocrypha I’ve ever heard. I had some excellent professors and seminary. But they weren’t this clear
What’s apocrypha? And why are ppl saying he is wrong in this video, I guess he said books were added but really they were just kept
@@sammisaylor2173 Apocrypha means writings or reports not considered genuine. Basically, the apocrypha are the books the Roman Catholic Church added to the Old Testament in 1545 AD. Protestants only include what Judaism considers canon in the TaNaK. In the video starting at 5:08 Dr. Turek talks about this. The apocryphal books have things worth reading, but are not authoritative. For example, Bel and the Dragon is a work of fiction not an actual account, which is why it is not included in the TaNaK. But it is the earliest known mystery story. Like many non-scriptural books today, it has some good things to teach like don’t just believe the explanation you’re given but look for the real causes and explanations. But that doesn’t make it scripture.
Protestants removed 7 books. Not the other way around. Anyone can look this up. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.[The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
@@CPATuttle Close, but not exactly. The Muratorian Canon, AD 170, is the earliest canon of the New Testament and included 24 books. Hebrews, James, and 3rd John were not included. However, a discussion of the NT canon is irrelevant to this subject. What is relevant is the OT, which you only mention in passing. The fact is that the Apocrypha were never included in the TaNaK in Judaism. These books and chapters were additions to the OT. Protestants did not remove them so much as return the OT to it's original canon.
@@cmdrdatayt I was copying and pasting historical facts. To say Catholics added books is straight up wrong. Let’s go with facts. There’s no way to spin it. There’s not one early Christian Bible that matches the Protestant bible today. The Jews 200 years before Jesus was born added the second cannon which means the deuterocanonical scrolls. The Jews added them in the translated Hebrew Bible to Greek called the Septuagint. They added those books. Not the Catholic Church. The eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek. From conquering former land by Alexander the Great who spread the language there. Jesus and his apostles used the Septuagint. Many prophecies of Jesus are in the deuterocanonical scrolls. Jesus nor his disciples not one time ever said those books were “not scripture” or “apocrypha”, after Jesus was born, no other Jew that did not follow Jesus have any authority whatsoever on what the closed Old Testament should be. The Pope choose the books for the Old Testament because they were in the Septuagint used by Jesus. The Pope is the office established by Jesus to have this authority. That’s how we get a closed cannon. There’s no agreement with all Christians that make cannons. That’s impossible to all agree on it.
It’s awesome this guy has a utility belt of PowerPoints to QuickDraw from! I have to keep notes like this
I can see why Frank is not Catholic. He's not very educated on this topic. However, I listen to him daily and love his weekly podcasts on the Cross Examined app, and he will always be my favorite apologist for his impact on my faith life.
You are right. The two OT canons actually existed during the time of our Lord and the apostles. The septuagint (Catholic canon) was actually popular with Hellenist Jews while the more traditional canon of the Hebrew Bible was popular in Palestine. It is noteworthy that our Lord and His apostles quoted extensively from the Catholic (Septuagint) version in the new testament, so I wonder why Martin Luther rejected scriptures which Christ Himself and His apostles used and quoted from?!
hes not catholic bc he doesnt condone, genocide, murder, r@pe, ped0phiIa etc etc
@@xintimidate it’s a sin to misrepresent your opponent
@@DougWarner25 Yup, and i didnt do that. If you dont understand what I am referring to then you dont even know your own churches history. the catholic church is one of the most evil entities to ever exist.
@@xintimidate repent
Thanks Frank I needed this answer for my faith to grow but what about the account of Mark was he a eye witness or was he affirm by one of the apostle?
The gospel of Mark is basically the testimony of Peter.
Apparently, Mark was the young man who ran naked when Jesus was getting arrested.
That kid is right. And that man is wrong. He mentioned the 4th century cannons that determined scripture. And he totally ignored it and lied that the council of Trent in 1,500’s added books. When I’m reality Martin Luther removed books. The council of Trent affirmed the already cannon in response to the removal of books. The Old Testament used by Jesus and the disciples were the Septuagint that has the deuterocanonical books. And the Jews never had a closed cannon by the time Jesus was born. Anyone can look this up.
Open your heart young man
Awesome!
Anglican here (I hope the gentleman who asked the question in the video reads this). The fact is that Anglicanism does accept the Deuterocanon, just not as on the same level as the rest of Scripture. The 39 Articles talk about this.
Yeah, still just means it's not your Bible.
@@ljss6805 k
Actually, Frank Turek is wrong about the Old Testament. Jesus used the Septuagint, which is basically the Old Testament as the Catholic Church holds it to be. The Council of Trent has nothing to do with the Septuagint.
Ah no, the Septuagent was rejected and still is rejected by Torah Observant Jews due to where it was written and who the translators were. .
The Septuagent was the Hebrew text translated into the Greek language , this took place in Egypt , that is the first violation , the location where that translation was made - Egypt . and the second violation was with the translatoors not being experienced Jewish scribes to supervise that the texts not contain any errors .
Because of that , the
Septuagent text is never read or quoted from in a synagogue or Messanic congregation is it is considered corrupt .
the organial Hebrew text is.
Reason(s):
1) the Septuagent was copied in Egypt around 360 BC . This is in violation of the requirements that the Tanaakh is to be only copied in Israel.
2) the copyists for the Septuagent, were not strictly supervised by noted and experienced Jewish scribes, nor their manuscripts checked for errors in the spelling of words , or text .
For the above reasons , Jesus would have never used the Septuagent.
No, He did not. Neither Jesus nor any Jew with any measure of intelligence would ever use a corrupt mess like the Septuagint. Well into the New Testament era, while the Temple still existed, the Jews were still using the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apostle Paul addressed the Jews in Hebrew: "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence" (Acts 22:2, KJV).
@@berenc7619 it is easily proved from NT quotes of OT that they did in fact use it🤦♂️
@@berenc7619 Are you a Jew or a Christian lol 😆
I learned allot from this video
It has to be made VERY VERY VERY CLEAR to everyone that the NT for Christians is the same for all denominations.
All you need is faith .
Don't worry about God's word. That is God's problem and He has always kept His word safe and secure and it will endure when this old earth has passed away.
This!
So many people arguing over what was put in, what was taken out, this copy is correct and this copy is not... Do they not have true faith in Him, that He keeps His word secure?
The question was how can we be sure that the books in the bible belong... it’s actually not exactly Gods problem but for us to figure out. That’s why we had the church fathers for example
we have to worry about whats in our bibles some religions change words
Wow Frank really has a slide for every question!
That was good.That gives me security in believing the books of the old and new testament are the ones to believe and follow.
Jesus love you all
"How can I be sure?" is that a Tears For Fears lyric?
Before that the Young Rascals.
Im glad all that matters is the eyewitness accounts of Jesus ressurection and that He tell us how to be saved
Love all in the name of our god. Jesus Christ, holyspirit. The trinity. Made hard yet easy. I also love our mother Mary. She also gives me great comfort. Love you all.
I do hope and pray that he knows about the 81 books and not just the 66 the R.C.C.Roman Catholic church had given out. Because all of the books are inspired by God. Prior to the king James authorizing men to put in a single volume the books of the old and new testament. But what many don't know is that before even the Tyndale bible version there's the Ethiopian bible long before either of these were pit together. Within the Catholic archives exist the original Ethiopian bible which they get the complete scriptures. Every time something that is related to the Scriptures, an artifact of some sorts is found or come across it's the Catholic church that somehow gets this information way longer before anyone else hears or even gets wind of. But soon as people find out what they've done they do their best to get the information on what location and area in the Catholic archives to search for it. I believe that they did this to keep the truth from others because once others find out then their dark secrets and lies become apparent. One of the things that I love about God is that you can not show him up. When men decide to say what can and what can not be put in or used. God whose wisdom is greater than man always pit him on the chopping block hanging himself. God opens the understanding of the mind and heart. So what was and is hidden from oir eyes He reveals to let you know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.
Good One
Well, and not to state the obvious, those books of the Ethiopian Bible are not "hidden" or anything. They have been and continue to be part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christian tradition. Ethiopian Christians are still around---they never left.
i find it amazing that catholics love to argue over the OT . Dr. Turek being the gentleman he is . brought the discussion to a conclusion that the NT is the most important section ...that being Christs death and resurrection ...period . Which Jews totally deny
Not all Christians agree on the NT canon either, though. Ask Syrian Orthodox Chrisitians, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, etc. And yes, they also disagree on the Old Testament.
Thanks CE
Fab question, remarkable answer
I have a Catholic bible from the 1700s, I would like to see if it matches a new one word for word.
Anybody who believes the same Catholic Church who was burning people at the stake for reading the Bible in English, torturing people in dungeons who didn't agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures and hacking entire villages to death because they didn't attend the churches they built in their towns is just being willfully ignorant if they believe the Catholic Church wasn't making edits to the Bible THEY decided on.
Love you on atheist apologetics Frank, but you're off on the P vs C stuff.
So the Church added the Deuterocanonical books after Luther rejected them? How does that make sense?
The Church *reaffirmed* what had been there for 15 centuries only after the Protestants started throwing them out 30 years before Trent. Note that Luther tried mightily to toss James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation as well. He was tossing books that disagreed with his novel theology.
You won't find a Bible before 1517 that doesn't have the 'apocrypha," a derogatory term by the way.
And by the way, the councils this young man mentions (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) also affirmed the canon of the Septuagint OT along with the canon of the NT. This should go without saying but these councils were Councils of the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Damasus. I mean one was in Rome after all. If you accept the NT canon then you accept the infallible decision of a Pope.
Wrong Timothy not reason able enough to have a deeper answer.
Except the New Testament rejects the idea of an Infalable pope.
If the pope afirms what rejects him, he is not Infalable. Logic
the apocryphal books have some weird things in them that are more paganistic in rituals, spirit beings somehow managing to have sex with humans and producing children (how does a spirit being created by God produce sperm or impart DNA and start the cell division process?) when Christ said that the children of the resurrection are to be as the angels are, spirit-composed, and not marrying nor given into marriage, etc
Travid D Where is that in the New Testament?
@@bobbrockway453 Where does the Gospel of Jesus teach that all men sin?
Romans 3:23 for one.
Maybe you don't know the meaning of Infallible?
All men FALL. Able to Fall. Make Mistakes, Sin.
That is why God is God, and Men are men.
Great points
Totally respect Dr. Frank and enjoy watching his videos and get good pointers from them to witness to others. Although the only thing that I must disagree with is that the Old Testament has passed away. Indeed it is still binding to all believers today. Jesus said do not think I came to destroy the law or the prophets. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until Heaven and Earth pass away. Paul clearly taught us in Romans 3:31 that we do not make void the law through faith on the contrary we uphold the law and that applies to every believer rather Jew or Gentile. May God bless you all and the truth will set you free.
I don't believe that is what he's saying. The moral law, the 10 Commandments are indisputably still applicable to Christians today, and I don't think Frank is dissing that. Instead, I believe he's referring to the practices of the old testament that temporarily resolved the sin issue before Jesus, and the many traditions that people lived by. The New Testament keeps the law, God's 10 moral laws, and Jesus (as Frank said) fulfilled everything else. Yes he said he came not to destroy the law, and he meant it. But he's talking about the commandments here.
I really appreciate this video! As someone who has a catholic friends and grandmother i wanted to know where the difference was in our bibles. I do believe that in some catholic versions they put a book of saints in the new testament which was also not something I'm familiar with. Much appreciated :)
Hello friend! No, Catholics and Protestants have the same New Testament. Catholics don't have a "book of saints" we add to it. God bless!
Hi. I'm Catholic and I've run across a number of Catholic Bible versions accepted by the Church but I have never heard of a 'book of saints' being added to any of the Catholic versions. Even if that were true for a particular edition, Church Tradition has not added to the official canon since it was first selected in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. I use one of the most popular which is the RSVCE 2nd Ed. The Ignatius Study Bible with Commentary is an exceptional Bible if you are interested in learning more about how the early Christians interpreted the Bible. God bless.
All 73 books in the Bible were decided on by the Catholic Church around 800 years ago, the Catholic Church didn't add any Books the Protestants removed 7 Books making their Bible 66 Books. So essentially the canon of the Bible you are reading was still determined by the Catholic Church they just have kept all 73 Books they initially decided on.
About 1700 years ago, the church only confirmed after the Protestant reform that they will be still using the old version because Luther claims weren’t valid
There are other books..Macabees, jasher,Enoch, Jubilees etc. 1. Does it agree with Torah? 2. Does it build on other books 3. Was book used by the early church.?
Basically, yes.
Great explanation by Frank, it seems he is also protestant, by the way he responded to the question. I understand he does not deal with differences between Christian denominations however it is important to clarify catholics did not add anything, Protestants dropped the books catholic teaching had always regarded as cannon and scripture due to those books including things which could imply to go against certain protestant beliefs by Luther. They realized including them would cause an issue.
Well put.
The original KJV Bible had all the Catholic books in the Bible.
Loved when you said "Eucharist" and then quickly said Last Supper. We all know the last supper is the exact same thing as the Holy Eucharist. Found in the Holy Catholic Church. Love you videos though! God bless
The Catholic church traditions are constantly changing and go against the bible.
In The last Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" ony a remembrance not a critical part of Salvation but only remembering it whereas the Eucharist believes it is the act of receiving Jesus literally and physically (but John 6:63 says otherwise). It is the difference between a vicrory and remembering the victory.
@@joshportie Liturgical traditions may change but core Catholic doctrines remain the same, century after century.
@@jehielmutia1744 The Eucharist is a remembrance but It is also the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Why can't It be both? Only in Protestantism does "do this in memory of me" mean "don't do this".
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh
Do this in remembrance of me is funnily not the same as not doing it. Not believing it is literal is not the same as not believing as it is really is it (the bread described in John). It is like Celebrating victory compared to the victory itself.
Great information!
*_God Bless_*
Sorry but the septuigent included the books that you claimed were added. Whereas Luther was caught trying to change translation and was refuted by his supporters and cohort at the time when those books were removed to support his new theology. Even to the point where he wanted to remove part of James.
He also said he hated Esther so much he wished it didn't exist. It's incredible for someone who hated Jews so much to be a professor of Hebrew.
Luther also wanted Hebrews and Revelation removed as well!
Luther called James the "apostle of straw' because he didn't understand the correlation between James & Paul's testimony. Turns out he didn't understand James was talking ab what genuine Christians do & should do & Paul taught how we're actually saved & become a child of God. James deals with how genuine Christian's act, Paul deals with the way in which we are genuinely saved. Luther had his own struggles, he's human. Noone cares ab that aspect in debate because of bias & lack of actual knowledge.
Which one though says WHY rebel angels were allowed any access to Earth?
Have they? And were Adam and Eve given MORE free will, but less knowledge of being able to alter or redefine free will, of their descendants?
Great. But the Old Testament law part isn't that simple.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
t bishop Exactly.
That music at the end reminds me of a Bizzle song.
Frank explains god and jesus and answered questions that make sense helps my faith
@@tonarutayisire2465 u talking to me
@@tonarutayisire2465 im sorry i upset u
So what if an extra canonical book (Enoch) IS quoted in the new testament, by Jude and Peter directly, and by Christ himself through several comments he made directly relating to passages in Enoch. How is this book not included in our version of the Bible today? For me this opens questions of what may we be missing? For me Enoch opens several possibilities to end times deceptions mentioned by New Testament authors.
Ive learned from a video some time ago on youtube, that the book of Enoch, although very insightful and intriguing, has some contradictions from the Bible. So maybe its not the same Book of Enoch that Jesus was referring to and it is apocryphal. I believe the book of Enoch is a mixture of truth and fiction. And its difficult to separate the two. Its not inspired or edifying for salvation. So be cautious in your quest for truth. But this is just my humble opinion. Godspeed
Yes, scholar Michael Heiser covers this subject extensively. Google him and be prepared to be amazed at his scholarship. The author of the Book of Enoch had no Apostolic connection and so it was not considered to not have the authority of scripture. Just as modern writers may refer to present day popular readings in their works (that everyone of our culture would be very familiar with), so too the ancient writers. We have to remember that the writings of the Bible were written for us but not to us.
Jewish oral tradition is also quoted in the Bible, but we do not consider the Talmud to be scripture.
Paul also quotes Epeminides a pagan philosopher
Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.'” 1 corinthians 15:33
Paul makes many Greco-Roman references. In one of his epistles, he has a poetic portion that mimics the famous epic poem of Pericles. These were real people who lived in a cultural setting that affected how they wrote and what they referred to.
I really like Frank's videos, but this is wrong. The Catholics didn't add books, and the clear to anyone who has studied this. I'm not even Catholic and I know this. Luther also tried to remove books from the NT as well.
@@aibelzoe No. The Bible was completed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation in 95 A.D. Roman Catholicism was begun by the heretic Constantine around 325 A.D. Roman Catholics are not real Christians.
@@davidlafleche1142, sorry for contradicted your version friend, but when Constantine allow the freedom of religion, the Church it was in the 32 Pope already. The incredible part it's that you have internet and you not used to find the truth, it's so easy, just google ; " The first 10 the Popes of the Catholic Church and what year." Then finally you are going to see the truth.
@@aibelzoe So what? There is no "pope" in the Bible. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment). You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@Peter Cho Jesus never said that, and He has no "vicar." The 9th Commandment warns, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@ManSon Rising Figures. My Dad (who is now burning in Hell, but probably thinks he's in "purgatory") followed a lady liar named Dr. Mary Jane Even. She called herself "The secretary of Jesus Christ," but she was a servant of Satan, and I told her so. That's what happens when you have female pastors: heresy is inevitable!
The apocryphal books were not added in the council of Trent. Luther removed these books during the reformation. The catholic canon was set at the council of rome in ad 382.
Amen 💯💯💯
That is demonstrably false. Luther took the 7 books out because they mentioned purgatory and he was about to take out James, Jude and Revelation when fellow protestants stopped him. Those books had been in the bible since the 4th century.
Martin Luther wasn't saved.
@@davidlafleche1142 If you think protestants aren't saved, you are truly delusional and in need of true salvation.
@@aaronsahipakka3224 Martin Luther hated Jews, and he did not believe the book of James belonged in the Bible. Worst of all, his cult (Lutherans) practices the heresy of infant baptism, because it did not make a clean break from the Roman Catholic "ho" of Babylon.
@@davidlafleche1142 what would you say to someone who claims to be Christian but says the bible is corrupt? thankyou and God bless. Im dealing with a family member who believes in Martin Luther and such. Thankyou again
@@nanazbound "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9, KJV). Those liars claim, "The Bible is corrupt," simply because the Bible doesn't tell them what they want to hear. And how do they know "the Bible is corrupt"? Because some unsaved person told them! They reject the Lord Jesus Christ, but they'll take the word of an unrepentant heretic? How typical. If you have any questions, feel free to ask anytime.
I like to have the bible by Jesus himself not according to Paul or anyone else. Do you have any?
Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, so his bible was the Hebrew Bible(Torah/Tanach) which is what the Jews believe in to this day.
No the original gospel has been lost.. they were written way after jesus had died.
Very informative brother, um that very last part though..the old covenant Law is not done away with finished, its finished as fulfilled (like you said) but He upgraded the old covenant (the same way He upgraded The temples His Holy Spirit dwells: from tabernacle-to Christ-to believers) the same covenant upgraded to a 2.0 version. Its most Spiritual applications now. (where in old times they did first before it was sin, now if you hate your brother, you've already committed murder) We worship in Spirit and Truth.
That was a very wise answer at the end
The First king James Bible had the same books the Catholic Bible had. 73, it was till the 1800s that Bible societies removed 7 books. The Lutheran Bible also has 73.
Those 7 books have no bearing whatsoever on Christianity or Christianity doctrine.
And what of key backstory details?
Actually no they were removed in the 1700s and were never considered cannon by Christian's. They contradict the true bible.
Great lecture with the exception of one point! The deuterocanonical books in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were NOT added in 16th century in response to Reformation but were based on the Septuagint (Greek edition of Old Testament). The reason these 2 groups use Septuagint is Bc this is what early Christians and disciples of Jesus used. Research it yourself.
The oldest septuigent is from the 4th century and the new testament never cites any apocrapha. There's no reason to believe that Jesus's Bible had the apocrapha.
And the septuagent is another Catholic forgery.
They also claim Jesus read from the septuagent when of course he wouldnt read Greek to hebrews whether they spoke Hebrew or aramaic.
@@joshportie it was used by the apostles , six of its books are found in fragments of the dead sea scrolls
@@bradspitt3896you really need to get your history sorted. The Septuagint was written in the 3rd century BC
Maybe I misunderstood him but I think Jesus said the law would never pass away. I think he meant that it's just fulfilled, not destroyed by Jesus.
How can I ask questions if I live in Europe?
The Septuagint has all 17 of these books. This is what the Orthodox Churches accept. Anglicans accept 14 of the books and Catholics accept 7. Protestants accept none. Catholics didn't add books, Protestants threw out books.
Hi Rev, I got the Orthodox study Bible and I love it.
God bless you mate
@Dd S Exactly. If God's message is important, he'd have told us himself. Either he doesn't care, he wants us not to know, or he doesn't exist.
Reverend? Mr. J Roger Allen sir, are you not aware that wearing religious titles is expressly condemned? Jesus forbids the practice when He said, Matthew 23:8-10 ("But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no man your FATHER upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called MASTERS: for one is your Master, even Christ.") This practice of elevating one brother above another is contrary to the spirit of Christianity that "ALL YE ARE BRETHREN."
In the old testament Job new that exalting man displeased God, when he said, Job 32:21-22("Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, neither let me give FLATTERING TITLES unto man. For I know not to give FLATTERING TITLES; in so doing my maker would soon TAKE ME AWAY.") Gods Word does not teach we are to form a clergy- laity in doing so we violate Matthew 23:8-10
Gods Word teaches that All christians are priests. 1Peter 2:5 ("you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy PRIESTHOOD...") And 1Peter 2:9 ("But you are a chosen generation, a royal PRIESTHOOD,...")
1 Corinthians 4:6 ("....Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be PUFFED UP in being a follower of one of us OVER AGAINST THE OTHER.")
@Dd S James 1:21 "if anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is USELESS."
You mentioned 1 Corinthians 4:15 ..."I became your Father..." Now show me just one verse in the Inspired Word of God where the Apostle Paul is referred to as Father by a fellow brother in Christ. This is what Paul really thought of being exalted above his brother's and sisters in Christ, 1Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have FIGURATIVELY transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you be PUFFED UP on behalf of one AGAINST the OTHER."
@@Eisho.G As a Catholic I sadly agree with the Orthodox Church about the Papacy. Because in reality the Papacy is what CAUSED the Protestant Reformation.
The Bible written by about 40 most unrelated people, lived 1600 years, and still has a Common Thread, carries common message.
Most authors martyred. Willing to die for what they witnessed.
Amen!
Yes this is true
The books weren't "added." The Septuagint and Latin Vulgate are older than the Mesoretic text.
Wrong
KingJames BibleBeliever the septuagint is older than the masoretic text. I read the KJV. Its my favorite bible. However the septuagint came before the masoretic. Even the kjv translators spoke of this in their introduction. Look it up. The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint for the most part. We need to use both the septuagint, and masoretic. I think the problem is we forget sometimes that each of the books of the bible were written on scrolls. They didn’t have books. So we get stuck on this idea that there has to be a perfect compilation of scripture. I believe it is achievable. However we haven’t gotten there yet. We need to be honest as use all the text families and use whichever is more reliable. We can’t accept a manuscript just because it’s much earlier. We also can’t deny a manuscript, because it’s much later. We need to compare scripture with scripture to come to a final conclusion.
@@livepoetic390 wrong there are other bibles are older than the kjv and yes I think them books shouldn't be remove
@William Toy well it's not the language it's all about accurate or not
Wow first time I heard Turek say something factually false.
yes i agree..im astonished actualy
Then just watch any of his other videos lol
@@hyronvalkinson1749 what does that mean?
@@jasonquick1094 He makes pretty rash generalizations of his opponents and touts his opinions about Christianity around like they're undisputable by all. I understand he's simply being religious but he argues with the weakest opponents and starts feeling like his circular arguments are impressive.
Watch him debate/discuss with people who have established themselves and he just looks incompetent. He looks good until he leaves his echo chamber.
@@hyronvalkinson1749 I'm not sure what debate your referring too specifically but even though he and I disagree on things that doesnt make his arguments circular. He debated Christopher Hitchens and pretty well held up his position while Hitchens had a pretty bad showing dispite usually debating effectively in other cases
I love watching Mr. Turk, somethings I agree with and somethings I do not.
21:10 Cannonization Questions:
"Was it written by a prophet of God?"
"was the writer confirmed by acts of God or someone who was confirmed as an eyewitness (ie. Paul confirmed Luke)?"
"Was it accepted by the people of God?"
only the las question is actually falsable.
Maybe a good way to think of this is generally speaking is the least common dwnominater.
Christians and Catholics agree on the New Testament books.
Jews and Chrustians agree on the Old Testament books
Who has the authority to say which books are inspired by God and which ones not? Only the Catholic Church, the Church that has the authority to loose and to bind (Matthew 16:19). The Catholic Church said, at the Council of Rome in 382, that Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees are inspired by God. Therefore they are inspired by God.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh Unfortunately not a single scripture says the Catholic Church is inspired by God.
@@travisdempster4693 Jesus said, at Matthew 16:18, ".... upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", andvwhen He said in the very next verse that the Church would have the authority to loose and to bind, Jesus was saying that the Catholic Church would be given infallible teaching authority. With that authority the Church proclaimed, at the Council of Rome in 382 a.d., that the 46 books of the Septuagint Old Testament, together with 27 books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude would make up the Christian Bible, and that is how the world got the Christian Bible.
First came Jesus, then came the Church, then came the Bible. Whenever you crack your Bible open thank the Catholic Church, because that's where it came from.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh George Jesus DIDNT say Catholic Church.
He was not "saying".
Anyone can say Jesus was "saying".
You could say Jesus was saying the Lutheran Church had authority.
Or that pigs fly
That is what Jesus was "saying"
But that is not ehat Jesus said.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh George the Scriptures came from the Prophets, No Church.
No where in any scripture is the Catholic Church listed as the author or writer.
Paul, Peter and John belonged to the Church of Christ and the Way.
Not the Catholic Church
this seems like a very fallible method of determining which books are inspired by god(why there should be any question at all whether or not a book was written/inspired by god or is merely the writing of a human I don't get at all either.)
he says some of the non-canonical books were attributed to authors that didn't really write them years after they were written, but this also applies to the gospels as well. he even says opponents agree the gospels were written by the authors the bible describes(unless I misunderstood him), but even most christians(at least those aware of the facts) admit that is not true.
not to mention we know many of Paul's epistles were not written by Paul. that's why we divide them into genuine and non-genuine Pauline epistles.
What epistles were not written by Paul and what is the source?
@@stevecoyle1 most copies of the manuscript are not signed by the authors. The early church fathers decided to give authorship to the books. For an example, the book of Romans is not signed by Paul. Biblical scholars and church fathers made these decisions of authorship through meeting and a vote of hands. Go do some research and you will be amazed of how our faith was decided by individuals.
If the books were added in the council of trent after the reformation how did the reformers remove them to begin with
How can something be added in the 17th century when it was in councils from the 4th century?
I want to have lunch with this man, strong minded man of God.
God actually gives us a litmus test for testing the validity of books for the Bible.
Some of which is...
✝✌😇Has to agree with the rest of scripture.(there may be explanations for perceived differences, but those explanations still have to jive with the other books.)ie: no saying Jesus had a wife(or husband), without supporting scripture.
✝😇✌Generally has to either fulfill/reinforce/expand upon the specifics of earlier prophecies of Scripture, or make its own prophecies that later scripture then fulfilled.(many times both.)
✌😇✝Has to generally be historical.(Can't say that a major volcano erupted north of Jerusalem, and is still outgassing to this day. Or that it it kills Judas', so Jesus brings him back to life. As a Robot jackass. Etc.)
It has to lack major omissions, too?
Did they “add” those apocryphal books , or were they already in use and officially not excluded
Hey guys question, I keep seeing ppl say Catholics (prob old style not new style) decided the canon. Why is that? Why not Christians?
Frank, I love you man, but you say things which are factually wrong on the issue of the difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles...
The OT canon was *not* settled among the Jews at the time of Christ. To see this, simply compare the canons of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes - they're not the same. Protestants accept the canon decided upon by the Jews left alive *after* the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. If these people didn't recognize the Word when he turned up and preached to them, why would we expect them to perfectly recognize God's written Word?
Although there was some disagreement over particular books by certain Early Church Fathers, you certainly find the Deuterocanon generally being quoted as Scripture in the Early Church.
The Catholic OT aligns itself to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT which is the translation most quoted by the New Testament authors themselves. This is the canon declared by the early councils of the Church, as well as later ones such as Florence. You *don't* have to wait until Trent for this. Catholics did not *add* books to the Bible, Protestants *removed* them. If you want proof of this, ask a Coptic or Eastern Orthodox Christian (who split from the Catholic Church long before the Reformation and Trent) if they have the deuterocanonical books - they do.
Some Reformers, such as Luther, tried to remove books from the New Testament as well, such as the Epistle of James because he couldn't reconcile it with his theology of Sola Fide...
Perfectly said (regarding 1st century Jews): "If these people didn't recognize the Word when he turned up and preached to them, why would we expect them to perfectly recognize God's written Word?" A most excellent point, Theology With An English Accent.
Jude practically cut and pasted sections of 1 Enoch in his short epistles. Jesus makes a direct reference to Enoch with regards to those taking part in the resurrection as being made like unto the angels (Jesus reprimands the Sadducees for not knowing this because they didn’t know the Scriptures - meaning Jesus called Enoch Scripture as that detail pertaining to our resurrection bodies being made like the angels is ONLY found in 1 Enoch).
Bingo. Jewish scripture was fluid at the time of Christ. You can see it in the DSS with alternative versions of the Isaac and Abraham, and David and Goliath, to name just a few. The Septuagint was by and large the Scripture of the 1st century Jew (and Christian). The LXX included the apocrypha, which Protestants today reject as being “fanciful” or “unorthodox”. To the modern mind, maybe it was a point of embarrassment to admit Jesus and his followers would have considered the apocrypha scripture, nonetheless, his answer is a whitewash of history.
Hmm, much has shifted, yes.
And I notice there often still seems to be OMISSIONS in the backstory, itself?
The septuagent is a false bible. You guys are listening to Catholic lies. There was no septuagent in Jesus time.
The reformation altered the Bible. This is specifically forbidden with the promise of damnation for doing so.
You mean the protestant deformation and abomination.
Is tithes prescriptive. Been struggling with this one.
Shane Rider it should not be a requirement, It only applies to the OT.
I'm not sure Paul quoted from the gospel of Luke. The words were pretty well known.