Hey, he said right at the beginning he'd try to keep under 20. It's always really been the on-the-order-of-ten-minutes-bible-hour, but otOoTMBH isn't quite as catchy.
Loved it Destin! I was watching your eclipse episode and saw the plug for Matt's ten minute bible hour and had to check it out! Thank you!! How is the orphanage doing? Love what you and your other half are doing with the patrons for them! Two big Thumbs up!!
Matt, thanks so much for making these. I can’t articulate just how refreshing it is to hear another believer like yourself explain complicated concepts of the Bible while maintaining a rhetoric that folks outside of belief can respect as well. You’re really inspiring for me and your videos have begun to add a depth of understand for my own knowledge of the scriptures as well.
One little detail, Matt. You said the Apocrypha is stuck between the Old Testament and New Testament in Roman Catholic bibles but omitted entirely from Protestant bibles. Actually, the books of the Apocrypha are interspersed in the Old Testament in Roman Catholic bibles and placed between the Old and New Testaments in the bibles used by certain Protestants such as Episcopalians (my own faith tradition). Remember how Will Rogers said, "those who respect the law and love sausage shouldn't see either being made?" I think the same goes for those who love the bible maybe a little too much; they would also be upset to look too deeply into how it was compiled and canonized. God's peace!
@Goodtogo4567 Jesus probably read many books just like we do. Doesn’t mean it's an instant endorsement of the whole thing as God breathed and authoritative just to quote something from it.
Bro revelation needs understanding of what was going on in that time, you will understand the meaning behind the imagery if you understand the lingo in that day and age. Just like how most scriptures written was to the people of that day not us but we read to get inspiration from the examples given
I just finished the book of Revelations yesterday, for the first time. I thought it was quite good but am not sure what's to be confused about? To me, it was probably the most straight forward book in the New Testament (just starting the Old after finishing the New). To me, John simply explained all the things that will happen on the second coming. Is there something I'm missing or a big question most Christians have? Genuinely interested.
It isn't that they rejected them but rather the Jews rejected them when they compiled the Mesoretic text. The Vulgate kept these books though despite the rejection which is why they are part of bibles until this day (catholic bible versions). The protestants knew they were apocryphal and in the case of the original kjv they kept the apocrypha in one section and noted the status of those books. But the interesting part is almost all Christians agree on the Canon of the NT.
@@kles44 lookup the timeline if when the Jews rejected them. It was after Christianity began and they wanted to be separated so they rejected anything that was on Greek. Fascinating stuff I learned from a Jewish sight. The Macabees story is how we connect Jesus to the old testament. It shows why he was at the temple in winter. It's a shame protestants rejected parts of the bible 1500+ years later.
@@kles44 The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.
kles44 - the Jews never denied the Deuterocanon. It was only after Christ they fully rejected them, like they rejected the two powers of heaven, declaring it a heresy. The Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon.
Very detailed my man I appreciate it I once asked one of my Bible college professors about the other books and the only thing he told me of course it was a question in front of the entire class was that those books were a waste of time and I should just spend more time reading the real word of God. Which never satisfied my question I always wanted to know why certain books were left out. Hopefully I can find another one of your videos where you talk about the book of Enoch and some of the older books of the Bible.
Funny. I thought Antilegomena was a cult that condemned plastic colored bricks as Satanic. "Thou shalt not use thine toothed bricks of plastic and rainbow colors, else thine path shalt become like sharp rocks, and thine feet shalt be subject to be marred."
Canonical by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: Tobit Judith 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) Baruch including the Letter of Jeremiah Additions to Esther Additions to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Septuagint Daniel 3:24-90) Susanna (Septuagint prologue, Vulgate Daniel 13) Bel and the Dragon (Septuagint epilogue, Vulgate Daniel 14) Canonical only by the Orthodox Church: The Prayer of Manasseh 1 Esdras 3 Maccabees Psalm 151 Most found written in Hebrew found in the Dead Sea Text. Where is it the TANAK, “The Seat of Moses” in Matthew 23:2?
Marko J. My tradition is in the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church. We don’t call them Apocrypha the Protestants due and in their bible. We she called them canonical, Catholics called deuterocanonical books and simply part of scripture. The elephant in the room, why did Martin Luther take them out of the Bible and why did he want to take books even out of the New Testament? That is for another video, I guess.
Daniel Davila the books that were removed were books he couldn’t argue against. To be so prideful to change the Bible? Oh, may God have mercy on his soul. 🙏🏻
Even though im not protestant and disagree with a little few things in doctrine, i love your videos and subscribed God Bless you. ( im a Maronite even though i dont really label myself , just a follower of the way Jesus's way) :)
I appreciate your video especially talking about all the rejected books from early christianity and being honest with it but I think it's important to note that James was never disputed until Luther decided he wanted to break off Catholicism. The others he didn't agree with were also disputed by him in the 1500's not the first centuries because they didn't conform to what he wanted. Please don't make it seem like the books rejected by protestantism were rejected by the early christians because they weren't.
It was rejected by Saint Jerome. And stop spreading lies. Luther didn't want tk break out of the church that's false, he wanted to reform the corruption in the church, and was excommunicated and was a wanted man to die. And he didn't remove the apocrypha he removed it from the old testament Canon and placed it in between
This is the first video ive seen of his🤔and with my new found faith it has done a pretty good job@ opening my eyes👀.. look forward to more🎲🎯.. glory to God🕯📿🕆
1 Enoch was originally included in the Old Testament - that's why Jude refers to Enoch. In fact, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church still accepts Enoch as cannonical.
This is well articulated. I'm interested though that you mentioned "The Early Church", and St Irenaeus. You being a protestant christian, have you ever read writings from the likes of Polycarp (student of Paul) or Ignatius (student of John)?
Thanks! I have read all those guys. My degrees are in history, theology, and church history, so those are guys I've enjoyed learning from for a long time.
@@zayan6284 Coz he must have got his degrees from a protestant university. So he must have studied their theology etc and got a degree in it. They have their own instututions.
I'm reading through the whole protestant canon this year and just discovered some other lost books referenced in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles that I've never heard of before. A mere reference doesn't mean inspired work of course, but it still has left my mental wheels turning in regards to how the whole canonization process. I suppose we just have to trust the judgement of those who came before us who didn't find some books necessary to preserve.
Christianity is simply trusting that the Bishops of the early church of The Roman Empire made the right decisions and hoping that the hand of their the Roman rulers did not supervise and influence the process and content of their doctrines
If you picked up a King James Bible in 1611, it contained the "Apocrypha," or "2nd Canon" (deuterocanonical books) as the Catholics call them. It wasn't until much later that Protestant *Bible Publishers* chose to start excluding those books. I don't think you can find any declaration by any Protestant church to mandate the exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Bible.
@John in PA I have the 1611 KJV and extra books are there and not named differently, in total it has 81 books. I also have The Cepher which has 87 books. If you do just one thing get the 1st Book of Enoch it's amazing and is leading many people to God and to start reading other parts of the bible.
I don't know Wat the dude said in the book, but I see alot of things in revelations as things being described with what was know at the time. They nvr ever dreamed man would be able to fly or have mechanical transportation, so if he's having a dream about a battle happening with tanks and Apache attack choppers ...well he must of just woke up thinking Monsters must take over in the future. Attack choppers suddenly Become 'locusts the size of elephants. " "But this locust has a stinger in his tail and belly that sends fire rain at his enemy's" as he's describing misles , rockets, and bullets. That's how I took it anyway
Matt, love your videos, but you made an odd statement towards the end about the Roman Catholic Church didn't have that much power. The canon of the Bible was organic, using the term liberally, but the canon was set forward by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367. Later the Council of Rome in 382, overseen by Pope Damasus I, officially "canonized" the list in 382 with his decree Decretum Gelasianum.
@@thewhisper417 I'm aware of who he is. He is a Catholic Saint and Father of the Church. My point still stands. Everyone was catholic then. It just meant universal. Any race, language, power, etc. All were catholic. Universal. There hadn't been a schism yet. The Coptic and the Catholic(big c) division didn't exist. Sure he lived where the Coptic religion exists now, but he ceded to the power of the seat of Rome.
The debate in the early church wasn't about faith vs. works. The idea of being saved "sola fide" didn't even exist until the 16th century, over 1000 years after the Biblical canon was assembled.
@Allen Clark "Doesn't Ephesians 2:8-9 support "sola fide?" Are you going to just take ONE single verse and says it's doctrine? Then what about what St James said about "You have faith, good, show me your works!" Faith without works is dead! It's like imagine your tire got punctured in the middle of nowhere and sola fide is basically, "Nahh I will just believe that my tire will be fixed by itself!" What St James was referring to in this case is, "Well looks like I have to get out my spare tire and fix it up and believe that I would be able to drive up to the next petrol station to get a proper one!"
@Jay Bee I have read it. And it does seem to explain things that are alluded to in the bible. It is quoted by Jude and Peter, and even Jesus seems to refer to it. The term 'Son of Man' is not common in the Old Testament but is common in Enoch.. It seems to have been a common 'scripture' at that time..
@Jay Bee The term 'Son of man' was Jesus favourite term when referring to Himself, but apart from the book of Daniel, that term is rarely (if at all) used to refer to the coming Messiah, they more often use the term 'Son of God' or other terms. However the book of Enoch regularly uses the term 'Son of man' when referring to the coming 'Messiah' (not a term at the time of Enoch) I wonder whether Jesus uses the term because of all the references and prophecies to the coming 'Son of man' in the book of Enoch...
Thank you for covering all this stuff! Great info! A question though: if the reformation happened only 500 years ago, how did Protestants decide to reject the apocryphal books when they were starting from Catholicism?
Why do you reject the perpetual virginity of Mary? The only person I'm aware of who rejected this teaching before the Protestant reformation is Helvidius, and he was clearly rejected by everybody else from the time. Ezekiel 44:2 prophecises it. If Mary was not a perpetual virgin, Jesus was not God.
@@stephenwilkins6085 Well when I was trying to figure out who's right, I gave myself a challenge. Identify exactly who is who in the bible. I looked at each instance when we are given a list of apostles, every time a brother of our Lord is mentioned, and every time they and their relations are mentioned. Well it didn't work out. I cannot at this moment show you everything I went through, but I'll go over one piece of it. Let's try to identify James, the brother of the Lord. Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. Here we see it clearly spelled out. James, the Lord's brother, is one of the apostles. And in fact there are two apostles named James. One is James, son of Zebedee and brother of John (Mat 10:2). In this same list is James, son of Alphaeus (Mat 10:3). We already ran into a problem. James the Lord's brother is either James, the son of Zebedee, or James the son of Alphaeus. But how can he be the son of Joseph? One is the son of Zebedee and the other of Alphaeus. We need to narrow this down more. Let's find this James again. Mark 16:40, the people at the foot of the cross. Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James the less and Joses, and Salome. Well there we have it. He must be the son of Mary through a later marriage with Zebedee or Alphaeus. And Matthew 27:56 gives us a clearer picture, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. This means that we have Salome, wife of Zebedee, parents James and John, and we have Mary, mother of James, widow of Joseph and spouse of Alphaeus. Except that doesn't work either... There's another monkey wrench. John 20:19. Jesus's mother, and HER SISTER, Mary wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Who is CLEOPHAS Cleophas is clearly not Zebedee. I had to dig deeper. Cleophas and Alphaeus sound really close, and indeed, they are both Graicizations/Latinizations of the Aramaic name 7lofa, חלופא. Now, 7 is CLEARLY not a sound in neither Greek nor Latin. It's a voiceless pharyngeal fricative. It's like a harsh H sound, similar to the Ch sound in german and scottish and other ones. What normally happens with that? Well sometimes we turn it into H, like the Ch in Chanukah. Other times, we try pronouncing it and get a K, like in Bach. Alphaeus and Cleophas are two different renditions of the same Aramaic name. Now we are back to the beginning, aren't we? Well no, not really, we came a long way. We know who isn't who. But there's an important cultural detail we're not taking into account. Familial relations. You see, in Jewish (and indeed also Hellenic) culture, "brother" refers to more than just your actual brothers. After all, Abraham is Lot's uncle, but they are called brothers in multiple instances (Gen 14:14 for example). Your a7 (in Hebrew) or adelphos (in Greek) isn't necessarily the child of one of your parents, but a close relative. Usually, what we call a brother, or a cousin. Now it makes sense. We have James and John, sons of Zebedee. And we have James, the brother of Jesus, son of Alphaeus and Mary, sister of Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary is cousins with Mary, who married Alphaeus/Cleophas. And Mary and Alphaeus bore James, second cousin of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I checked every other account, this is literally the only way this family tree makes sense. And I did the same for every other brother of Jesus. All of them checked out. Not one of them could actually have been a son of Mary and Joseph, parents of our Lord. I looked to see what early christian authors had to say about it, and then I found that Jerome came to the same conclusion I did. It was after this that I decided to reinvestigate Catholicism. Don't trust me though, do the experiment yourself. Try to identify exactly who are the brothers of our Lord. And if you find a flaw in my reasoning, or you come to a different conclusion, please let me know. I might be wrong, after all, and truth should be our goal. Pax Christi
I was audibly crestfallen when the Apocrypha didn't get airtime. This is super relevant to me right now, so thanks in advance for the next episode, Matt!
According to Timothy, the Church is the bulwark of truth. So, no, the Church is never trying to suppress truth, but to spread it and destroy heresy. Remember that Jesus gave Peter, the 1st Pope, the KEYS. (His bones are below the altar in St. Peters in Rome.) According to the old testament, this meant that when the master was away, this person was the head of his house and had full authority. Whatever he did- the master on his return would respect. Whatever sins the Church forgives are forgiven in heaven, whichever ones are held bound are held bound in heaven. Jesus said you are Peter and on this rock I build My Church. After Peter the next Pope was St. Linus, and so on down to today. Just as Judas was replaced, bishops have been ordained by laying on of hands continuously to the present time. This is called Apostolic Succession. When Fr. Martin Luther left the Church in the 1500's he separated himself from the line of Apostolic Succession. He carried with him no authority to ordain priests. (Sidebar - People today would be surprised to hear that he said our prayers should always include Mary.) So the Church has authority given by Christ. When they gathered in a Council, I think in 385, they established the canon (books) of Holy Scripture. They were looking at scriptures that were commonly used in many of the early churches and that were believed to be divinely inspired. This is where, as a Catholic, I have to explain why I trust that they made the right decisions on which books to include. Remember when Jesus gave Peter the keys? He also said he would send the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) to guide the Church in all truth. All truth. Whenever the bishops are gathered together with the Pope they are unable to make a decision that is in error regarding faith and morals. I never worry about the Church failing me, because I never worry about the Holy Spirit failing me or the Church. Persons in the Church can fail us just as Jesus had Judas, but Jesus won't fail us. Just because the Bible was not assembled in the first centuries, does not mean that the Church was unorganized and not clearly defined. The Epistles were letters written to the early churches. There had been over 30 Popes by the time of that Council. I would never dare to look any any book of the Bible and decide for myself that the book was not divinely inspired. I have no authority.
The canon of Scripture is the list of 73 books that belong to the Bible. (The word "Bible" means "the Book.") The earliest writings of the Bible were likely composed in the 10th century B.C. The writing of Scripture continued until the first century A.D., when Revelation was complete. Seven books of the Bible, all in the Old Testament, are accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but are not accepted by Jews or Protestants. These include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and Orthodox and Apocryphal by Jews and Protestants. These were the last books of the Old Testament written, composed in the last two centuries B.C. Their omission in Protestant Bibles leaves a chronological gap in salvation history. The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D. With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew. (In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek. The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. This list, as accepted by the Catholic Church, was affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books. In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books. Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.
I appreciate your work Matt. I first learned about tmbh during coursework for university, OCU where we were required to view the episode in acts, "what sorcery is this?" Peter vs red mage. Anyway, awesome material!
The Ten Minute Bible Hour the course curriculum for one of the weeks had an assignment requiring discussion on Acts and they directed us to a link with your video. It's been a couple months since that class but if you'd like to see the exact assignment sourcing you, I can send that to you sometime. Im glad for it because it introduced me to tmbh. Great articulation brother. Thanks again
I appreciate your educational video. It was non-biased. I too have read all of the non-accepted books of the bible and also came away with the same view. I believe this is what is called, "Allowing the spirit of truth" help guide you through this question about these books.
"It has a magical talking cross." I laughed way too hard at that. I think there may be something wrong with me. :) But seriously, am I the only one who wants to turn that into a video? :)
You can see the actual talking cross that spoke to St Francis of Assissi at St Damieno cathedral in Assissi. It didnt speak to me but i hoped at the time i visited that it would.
As someone who has grown up a Christian, I have always wondered about this issue and am thankful for this video! Thanks Matt! This seems like it could also be an awesome NDQ episode as well. . . :D
The original KJV had all the books in the Bible, Martin Luther removed them because they didn’t fall in line with his teachings. He also wanted to remove Revelation, James, Hebrews and Jude... they also didn’t conform to his thoughts... but there was big enough backlash that he put the 4 back in.
Matt, I have only recently discovered your channel and I’ve been enjoying it very much! I’m having the toughest time reconciling the passages about Salvation by Faith Alone, and Salvation by Faith and Works. Because 2 Peter, Revelations, and other parts of Scripture have eventually been included in the Bible, I was wondering if you could tell me about any source of info that I could consult about it (perhaps you’ve even already made a video about it). I come from a Roman Catholic background, and the more I learn about Christianity, the more confused I seem to become. Ironic, I know... but painful, too. I believe in Jesus, that is all I know. God Bless you and yours!
I wonder why he never mentions councils. He should read St. Ignatius of Antioch's affirmation of the holy eucharist and the primacy of the See of Rome.
@@ProximaCentauri88 [1] st. Ignatius wasnt in the bible I believ the word of God is in writing and always was. A council of self appointed men declared they're interperitaion of bible to obtain power and Satan used them to push disfunction in Gods word. [2] st. Ignatius was considered a Saint by Roman Catholic and Orthadox Churches, not the way the word would consider him. The word of God is ultimate truth, proof and answer key. Not a "never mentioned" saint in bible.
@@ProximaCentauri88 anything he wrote in a letter has no spiritual authority. He uses fleshful authority. And one might ask "how can you determine fleshful and spiritual authority?"... Read the Bible.
Matt, I recently discovered you on YT. I was inspired by what I describe as your ability & desire to lay the facts, as you see them, on the table and let others make up their own minds. As a Baptist to Catholic convert, I've been working through what I now view as my lingering animosity toward my previous Baptist faith. God's grace has finally gotten me to a place where I want to be content with my beliefs w/o always feeling I need to try to convince someone else. I've just recently reached this thinking so I know I have a was to go. :) From the Catholic side, I was hoping you would have mentioned 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. You sound better read than me but I seem to recall that some in the church wanted them included and they are still considered good reads. The other thing I would have liked to have heard is one thing about the larger Catholic and Orthodox canons. Most Protestants probably just assume that there have and should have always been 66 books. Thanks for all you do. God bless.
A) God includes in the Bible what He wants us to know and excludes stuff we don't. Not much detail is given on how Noah's ark took place but gives a lot on why it happened. B) Jesus spent these years as a carpenter, not as a miracle working Messiah. The priests of the Old Testament took up office at age 30. C) The fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 9. When He was baptised He received and was baptised in the Holy Spirit. This reception of the Holy Spirit was His anointing and the title Christ means, "the anointed One". The prophecy predicted the ministry of the Messiah for three and a half years and the time it would occur. This is why Luke gives a detailed explanation of the time when Jesus was baptised.
I’m a youth pastor and your description of Song of Solomon gave me a good laugh thinking of my students reading that, and why I wouldn’t teach on it unless it was with specific students
Your missing Macabee and other books from the Old Testament. Time to read up on how the Church picked those books because Jesus and the apostles quoted from them
All of those books were undisputed by early Christians. They were removed from the Hebrew bible by the Masoretes after the VI century rabbis for other reasons. Later the Protestant reformers followed the Jewish canon. That was an awful mistake!
@@almostordained88 also called the deuterocanonical books. Protestants claim they want to use "the old testament that Jesus used" and therefore, use what the ancient Jews used. However, due to their lack of knowledge of ancient history, many Jews used and kept these books after certain Jews took them out. The Essenes of Kumran kept these books in the old testament and documentation shows that this is also what Jesus used. For example, the dead sea scrolls show mention of this. Plus , Jesus and his apostles and the Church fathers quote from the deuterocanonical books. After the great schism, John Calvin removed these books. But, what's important to know is that the true "universal" Church of Jesus Christ, is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The word Catholic means universal. And the Church was called Catholic as early as 107 AD by Saint Ignatius of Antioch. The Bible was written by Catholics, for Catholics , and for over 2000 years has been preserved by Catholics.
I know a few Catholics who have deep faith and love for God, but I have experienced many priests with absolutely no faith at all. Anyone who truly believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth (living a changed life that proves his faith through gratefulness) that Jesus is Lord shall be saved, being born again, by faith, catholic or non. We should not worship a man made institution or people or things. We should worship God alone and are called to have a personal relationship with Him and obey Him through the help of Holy Spirit. Christ did not come to build an earthly kingdom with all that power and might, it always corrupts the soul. There is also way to many unbiblical pagan Roman traditions within that organization to truly call it the only true church... ❤️
If the book of Daniel was never disputed, then why does the Protestant Bible omit 90 verses of that book? Daniel Chpt 3 in my NIV Bible is 30 vs long. Daniel Chapter 3 in my Catholic Bible is 100 vs. long. This is the fiery furnace section - not even talking about chapter 13 and 14 which are 64 vs and 42 vs. respectively. I just don't understand if "all scripture is God breathed" and we all agree that the book of Daniel is God breathed, how some verses can be canonical but other verses cannot, or at least other verses were judged to not be canonical 1,500 yrs AFTER Christianity began. Your thoughts?
love Truth I was an anti- Catholic Protestant, that became Catholic because of a hot lookin Catholic girl, that just just happened to teach RCIA . And because of this hot lookin Catholic girl ( and Gods grace of course), I now have the most awesome relationship with Christ that I didn’t have as a Protestant (The holy Eucharist), I read my Bible daily, pray the rosary every morning while drinking my coffee, and take Holy Communion to the sick every Sunday. All because of a hot lookin Catholic girl, ( and Gods grace of course). 😬✝️
Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382 ratified the first ever formal canon for the Church, and that same canon exists to this day. During the Protestant Revolt, the revolters tore 7 books out of the bible. Hence, Catholic bibles have 7 more books than Protestant bibles.
Whats interesting is that the gospel of truth talking about Jesus being created by God is exactly what Muslims believe and the gospel of thomas talks about some Miracles of Jesus that arent mentioned in the bible but are mentioned in the quran
That is interesting, but there are somethings that push me away from thinking that the Jesus in the Quran is legitimate as I believe it contradicts what is in the Bible. One good example would be, the story of Jesus and the third loaf of bread. It is mentioned in the Quran and is not mentioned in the Bible. The story goes that Jesus and a companion were traveling and they stopped to eat bread. They had 3 loafs. Jesus ate one and his companion ate one. Jesus went to wash his hands and when he got back, the third loaf was gone. Jesus asked his companion where it went and he claimed to have not known. Then they find three deer. One adult and two fawns. Jesus orders one fawn over, and then kills it, cooks it, and eats part of it. Then he bring it back to life. He then asks his companion who took the third load of bread. His companion says he doesn’t know. They go to a river and shows the companion that he can walk on water, and asks the companion who took the last loaf of bread. Again the companion says he doesn’t know. Then they went to a plane and Jesus made a mound of dirt and turned it to gold. He divided it into three parts and said, one part for me, one part for you, and one part for the man who took the last loaf of bread. The man admits it was him, and Jesus decided to give the whole loaf to him and they parted ways. After that, the man met two others who wanted to kill him for the gold, but they agreed to take one piece each. Greed kicked in and they all ended up dying to poisoned food. Then Jesus just dies. There are a few things in this story that makes me think it’s fake. Firstly, why would Jesus make a lump of dirt turn into gold just to prove that the man was lying. He wouldn’t even turn stone into bread while under the heavy temptation of the devil in the desert. Secondly, Jesus just dies instead of being crucified like in the bible. Thirdly, I don’t think Jesus is the kind of guy who would tempt a man into telling the truth with gold. There are some other things I could talk about, but my point is that I believe that Jesus in the Quran is made up, or at least not the same person as the one in the bible.
@@bibbedcracker121 we dont really believe in that story as muslims because that story is a weak hadith that means it is not a trusted hadith meaning it is not followed and not used a hadith is a book that contains what the prophet peace be upon him did and said and there are authentic hadiths that were narrated by people who can be trusted and a weak hadith is narrated by people who cant really be trusted as they may have lied a few times in front of witnesses etc do you have instagram id love to carry on our interesting convo over there
@@bibbedcracker121 Muslims in fact follow Jesus more than christians for example muslim men have a beard just like the image that christians have created of Jesus shows even though Christians created that image of Jesus themselves and also that fact that Jesus was circumsised and muslims must be circumsised too and also the way Jesus prayed in the bible was with head on the ground and muslims pray exactly like that too. Therefore we, as muslims, believe in Jesus peace be upon him however we believe in him and follow what he told us to follow he told us to believe in One God who has no partner and no children as God and All Mightly, all hearing all knowing and is not dependant on anything it was only 325 years after Jesus at the treaty of Nicea under the roman emporer Constantine that the idea of trinity was born. Before that, even the christians believed in Islam as both religions used to believe in only One God who has no partner or children and that only he must be worshippped but now only Islam believes in that and things like the Trinity and original sin has been introduced by the churches as the original sin and trinity isnt mentioned anywhere not in a single unambiguous verse in the bible
I see. I don’t really study the Bible or Quran because I’m still in high school rn and I just like to venture out of Catholicism to other religions to understand them. I when I heard of that story I immediately thought that it was something that all muslims believed in. Thanks for your insight
@@bibbedcracker121 No problem bro if you have any other questions let me know and if you want to talk about religion privately my instagram is @itz_isaac1 i have lots to ask you about your religion too pretty interesting and quite similar to Islam i must say
Who has the authority of rejecting books from the Bible, and turning the question around , who has the Authority of deciding which books go in the Bible. I think this should be the questions that people should ask for themselves
Love what you do Matt, I'm doing a video binge on ten min bible hr. Your a un-biased blessing to all religions. May God bless you and keep you, with your eyes wide open
How is this misinformation “a breath of fresh air”? You must know, that just because someone makes a video in front of an impressive bookshelf and uses critical terms like “Homologoumena”, doesn’t mean he’s giving you correct information. His commentary is ludicrously off the mark, and this is clearly seen first at his explanation of why the epistle of James was disputed.
You left out one of my favorite books Luther left out, the book of Wisdom. It is still in the Catholic Bible. That was one of our readings just recently. If you haven't read it you should. Luther wanted to also keep out another favorite of mine, James. He tried to remove it because James speaks of faith and works, plus James was a realist. I do not consider the KJV the inspired word of God because Luther chopped up the Catholic Bible and reworded it. I learned more about religion in 6 months of RCIA than in a life time of being raised Methodist and other religions including non denominational.
Saw a video of your interview with Doug Clay, and I appreciated your honesty and respectfulness. I've since subscribed and really enjoy your style and content.
Thanks! As a Catholic who loves theology, Church History and (of course) The Bible, I was super nervous about what your position might be. VERY thankful you aren't rude or dismissive to the Catholic view. Now, I will definitely check out your 'apocrypha' video. One other thing - 'apocrypha' means hidden. Catholics and Orthodox call these books 'deuterocanon', literally 'the second part of the (OT) canon', -- not apocrypha.
Even from the position of not being of the Catholic faith, myself, I will agree with you 100%. It was refreshing to see him treat these different books and the reasons why they were rejected, as well as acknowledging that people do have different views (such as the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism) in a respectful, straightforward manner. I don't think it helps anyone to go on a bashing crusade, when all is said and done. Kudos to him for that!
I hope you do get into the Apochryphal books! I once had a Catholic friend ask me why my church used KJV when there were so many books missing from it.
Hi, I can't spell or pronounce that word either, that's why I call them Deuterocanon like the Catholics do. :-) But the KJV originally did have the Deuterocanon in, it just labelled them as useful to read but not scripture (like its predecessors did). Many modern editions of the KJV, like the one it sounds like you have, however, skip the Deuterocanon.
The KJV is the worst possible translation you could use. It's not a bad translation, but of all that is available - it is the worst. This is because it is based on a very small number of very late manuscripts. It is what was available back then. Now, we have a lot more manuscripts which dates much much earlier, and, using the same methods of scriptural comparison that the KJV authors used, we can have much more accurate translations today.
There's a study I found years ago - a book titled "The Tabernacle of Moses" that goes deep into every aspect of the Mosaic tabernacle, its construction, and the furnishings. A very exhaustive, scholarly publishing. Within this study, we see the details of the Golden Lampstand. The Bible describes its construction having the elements, or likeness of olive branches. Reading, we see that these branches are allocated as 3 branches on either side of a single branch - a center stem. This is significant. Each branch, and center stem, contains what the scripture calls bowls, knops, and flowers. Different translations use different nomenclature, though the concept remains. Doing the math, we see that each of the 3 side branches, with its bowls, knops, and flowers equals 9 segments on 3 branches; multiplied, shows 27 elements, right side, and left side. The center stem of the Golden Lampstand describes 4 groups: 4 times bowls, knops. and flowers. This equals 12. To summarize, 3 X 9 (27) + 3 X 4 (12) and 3 X 9 (27). Add these and we see the Old Testament books with the 12 Minor Prophets, then the New Testament books (27) all in completion. Divine appointment.
Most of the books of the Bible were probably lost - do you really think that St Paul only wrote a handful of letters? They never intended them to be used as they were. If you really believe that the Holy Spirit is alive and well then the Gospel lives on - I tell people that we all could write a Gospel of our experiences with God. The Catholic Church which translated and numbered the Bible feels it is a good tool but not the entire picture of faith or of God. As I always tell people, Jesus never once told people to read Scriptures. He never set out to write a single word of scripture himself. The call of Christianity is not a call to the intellect but to the spirit - a call to act not sit and read.
He says: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29 ESV) Jesus quoted scripture, studied it heavely and spoke from it. He finds value in scripture and encourages us to do the same
He also knew that the holy spirit would inspire new truth and wisdom to his Apostles after he assended. As a Jew who studied written truth, I would say that He expected someone to write it down
Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:45-47 ESV)
The Gospel of Thomas brought me to both the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I had multiple supernatural experiences along the way including a visit from the angel ophanim (aka the wheel that Ezekiel described). It's legit.
Some of the "Gnostic" gospels aren't very Gnostic; there are actually few books which are purely Gnostic. And some actually do contain truthful history. 😍
Keep up the good work. I enjoy your videos. I grew up in a very strict Christian home and was a very strong believer. Over time I have been on a search for truth and have been very skeptical of so many parts of the Bible. Your videos have been a good counter balance to what I have heard. I’ll keep watching.
Hi. The ten minute bible hour, I am wondering, I've just read the first 10 pages of the book of Mormon for the first time and to me it looks like fan fiction that doesn't reflect the style of old testament teaching, as it's meant to be a 600bc book but yet twists Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah and revelation into a "dream" and reflects too much new testament. I have no American cultural heritage understanding as I'm Australian. But I'm pretty sure these Mormons are apart of a "book cult".
Matt I Love it! I like how well yo break it down and leave it open for people to really take the opportunity to really dive into the word of God. Well sir I was watching smarter every day and the solar eclipse episode and saw your plug for the ten minute bible and I was hooked! Matt you have a new subscriber! Two thumbs up!
Matt your style is crafted well and is very accessible for the casual viewer which is why I show your videos to Catholic youth. Your sincerity is also commendable. Bare with me for a moment if you will because this video has stirred up some considerable inspiration in me. I see the date of this video is 2017. Have you since gone any deeper into the history of the origin of the bible? Specifically the Council of Hippo in 393AD. It was a Catholic council which had authority to say yeah or nay to what was included in the Bible. The final decision was 73 books. The protestant revision removes 7 books to make the Protestant King James version of the bible only 66 books. That was just the setup for my statement and challenge to you and any other readers now. Sacred Tradition existed before the bible. It is from the Tradition that you even have a body of authority that can decide (in the year 393) that this collection of writings will be the bible. Martin Luther didn't have that authority. He came up with an understandable reason for his selection. He pointed to the absence of Hebrew originals for those 7 books he rejected, but now we know he was wrong. They found Hebrew originals in the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran. Jesus didn't hand us a bible or a doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Jesus handed us a group of 12 bishops and those bishops knew that they had been given an office of authority by Jesus. In the book of Acts we see the Apostles elect a person to replace Judas who had abandoned his office. Matthias becomes the first apostolic successor. For almost 400 years Christians lived without a bible, in unity with Jesus and knowing so through these Apostolic successors. Yes there were writings, and as your video demonstrates, there were many many more writings than the average Christian of 2020AD knows. Martin Luther in the 1500s was 400 + 1,100 years after Jesus and the Apostles so it is understandable that the Archaeological findings of Qumran in the 1970s reveal that Luther's judgment was wrong even if his personal devotion to Jesus was sincere. Now I'm a convert from atheism. I was at odds with Christians because of the... what I now call "relativism of Christianity". On one street you can have multiple buildings all claiming to be Christian but all having significant enough disagreements with one another to not be united with each other. As I look out from my Catholic office window now, I can see a Methodist Church (not Catholic, not Lutheran, etc.) , and that Church is currently in the process of splitting because of the "LGBTQ+" issue. So the question then, the question which your video also begs is, who has authority to say, "These books and this doctrine"? I hold that it has only ever been the Catholic Church (Though sincere lovers of Jesus can and do exist in all of the others). The Bible comes from the Tradition and logically not the reverse. The liturgy existed before the Bible. The early Church writings of St. Justin Martyr, who wrote 250ish years before the Bible was compiled, describe the liturgy of a Catholic Mass (First Apology to Titus, starting at Ch65). www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm Why am I being so long winded? It's because I've watched several great videos from you now. Your work is inspirational. I hope my longwindedness is viewed as a complement as well as a challenge.
Your referring to the catholic bible which was canonized at the council of rome in 382. It wasn’t until the 1500’s that Protestants rebelled and separated themselves from the church. They modeled there bible (at least the Old Testament) after the Jews version/canon “Old Testament”.
Andy Stanley has a great series called The Bible for Grown-Ups (4 part sermon available on RUclips) that really helped me understand the history of how the Bible came to be. In it, he also mentions John Lennox's book Seven Days that Divide the World (also available as a lecture on RUclips) which helped reconcile my scientific understanding with Genesis.
Thanks for making this, I really enjoyed it. I would never have thought to describe certain noncanonical books as "fan fiction" but that term really does fit sometimes! This is the first of your videos that I've watched so I don't know the wider context. But with that in mind, the only thing I would criticize is this: You use the passive voice too much. :-) Specifically, you talked mostly about books that "were approved" or "were not approved", while skirting around the extremely important question of who exactly approved them (or didn't approve them). And that's a key issue, because the Bible we now have is a product of the "catholic" church. (I put Catholic in quotes because before the Council of Ephesus in 431 there was only one church that became the ancestor of Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Monophysitism and Nestorianism.) The point is, and here's where Protestantism doesn't make a lot of sense, you have a Bible that was approved by men who believes the Church should be run by bishops with apostolic succession, and who believed that Jesus was physically present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist -- two doctrines that are anathema to most Protestants. The claim that Protestants make, therefore, has to be that God preserved these blood-drinking bishops free from all error when it came to their decisions about the canon, and on no other issue. Which is certainly a position you can't justify from the Bible itself. (As an Anglican I have no problem with the blood-drinking bishops being right on the canon and on the blood-drinking.) Well there's my rant. Looking forward to the next video!
@Jim Parker That's certainly a big part of it. Someday I will get around to researching my thesis that the Protestant idea of Scripture was adopted from Islam.
@Jim Parker Yeah, France always tried to have it both ways when it came to the Reformation. Have you read "The Myth of Religious Violence" by William T. Cavanaugh? A brilliant work on Europe's so-callled "wars of religion" that shows how little religion actually factored in them; the name "Wars of Religion" was Enlightenment spin doctoring designed to make religion look bad. Personally I'm Anglican not RC but my church is rooted deeply in pre-Reformation Christianity and we accept a lot of the historic doctrines (like the real presence) that "Bible" Christians cross out of their Bibles.
Hi Matt, love what you and Destin do with No Dumb Questions. That's actually what brought me here. You may or may not see this since this video is a little older, but I'd love to get your take on the Book of Enoch. I don't know much about it at all, just that some people think it proves the existence of giants and a global flood while others say it's just sort of a fantasy book. Your way of explaining things jives with my way of understanding things so it'd be cool to get your views on it! Thanks, Dave from Massachusetts
Kinda odd to hear you say, books that God rejected. Was it books that God rejected or books that man rejected? You do know that those within the Canon wanted to show certain aspects of the Bible and leave other parts out. From which I believe was man driven and not God driven.
Hey Matt, I really like what you're doing and the way you're doing it! I'm just getting my own bible teaching channel going and I'm kinda stumbling my way forward, experimenting with what I what my videos to be like. Well, in a lot of ways I want to be like you ... I'm mean be me of course, but genuinely me like you're genuinely you while teaching some very helpful stuff. So thanks for what you're doing!
im just wondering about the books mentioned in the bible such as: book of the wars of the lord, book of Jasher, acts of Solomon, the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the Seer, the book of Shemaiah the prophet, the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, the book of the words of Esaias the prohpet. These books are spoken of in our KJV bible and not considered apocrypha either. They are just missing
You guys are cruel, but yeah, lets make Matt sort out Revelation. We'll chip in for a nannie to raise his kids while he spends the next decade figuring out the antichrist, the great prostitute, colored horses, scrolls, seals, trumpets, and multiheaded sea creatures. Wouldn't it be easier to just blame Trump? Surely some combination of his name, birthday, inauguration dates and favorite breakfast cereal when transferred to Greek or Hebrew will equal 666?! If not, try Nancy Pelosi. You can't tell me she isn't hiding 30ft bat wings folded behind her back. Revelation shouldn't be in the bible anyway, and Matt explained why. How can it address the Church of Philadelphia when Philadelphia didn't exist until 1700 years later?
I think that if Matt tried to explain Revelation with his typical 'just the facts' style of teaching, it would be a nice refresher from all the interpretation that's gotten mixed up in the whole thing.
GEN 5:24 Enoch walked with God, then he was no more because God took him” The book of Enoch is a book that is more popular today than it has ever been. Enoch is also mentioned in Jude 14-15.. the book of Enoch, as many have commented, is applicable and speaks to this current generation.
Trust in the words of the Lord: "Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away" Of course the 66 books of the Bible which we have and have been using are blessed by God for century upon century upon century and now in the latter days of apostasy there are those who want to try to destroy the faith of God's people. There's nothing wrong with your Bible I use the King James Bible it is proven itself to be the word of God to the English-speaking people, and if it worked 50 years ago and it worked a hundred years ago and it worked 200 years ago and it worked 300 years ago and it worked 400 years ago, it will and does work today. "His truth endureth to all generations" Psalm 100 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31
Althogh I do agree with much of your statement, that it is the word of God, why didn't you go all the way back to mid 4th century? Because the Catholic canon was the canon for the first 1,200 years before the reformation. And using your own admission, if it was good enough back then, why is that same canon not good enough now for Protestants? It's not an attack on you. I am genuinely interested in your respone and your viewpoint.
Dang man, I went off and read Thomas & Infant James Gospel and came back to the video! Read them, they are worth it. Still more good info than contradictions. Read Enoch/Watchers/Nephilim combo too!
Dr Brandt Pitre gives an excellent talk on this. Also, another good talk he gives is The Case for Jesus. .....and. The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. It is proven that Mary didn't have any other children. This guy clearly doesn't know ancient Jewish history. I would suggest people listen to Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Brandt Pitre, Edward Sri, and many others that were protestant and came to know the fullness of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church.
Cousins and relatives were often called "Brothers " in ancient Jewish history. And, the ones named as brothers, are mentioned again and their parents are named.
@@med4699 I have and I guess that's like your opinion man but if your pastor says something ungodly does that mean your entire denomination is not Christian? Kind of the same thing with the Pope even if the pope is wrong he is nothing more than the leader of our church a leader that can be dismissed at any time you should really look up the role of the Pope before you start criticizing what he does and what that means for the Catholic faith Catholics are the original Christians read the early church fathers he actually references one in this video and they were taught by the apostles and they use the term Catholic to describe Christians a.... Universal..... Christian church.... all of us following the same doctrines and worshipping Jesus Christ in the same way
Some of the Books that you list as included but "debated" were debated only by heretical Protestantism. They were never questioned in the first 1,500 years of the Church. Further, Protestants contemplated tossing out more than just two books of the New Testament. Several books in the NT are pretty difficult for Protestants to swallow, especially several of the Pauline Epistles. Basically, Paul looks kind of inept to those who embrace the Protestant once-saved-always-saved formulary, i.e., once you have saving faith you can commit all of the egregious sins you want without eternal consequences. [This replaced the historic Christian doctrine of sound faith (also accomplished by the grace of God) following by a life of obedience to God's Law, confessing and seeking forgiveness for sin, especially for mortal sins, from the Church (John 20;23). I only include this only because most Protestants misrepresent traditional Catholic teaching on this point in several ways: (1) pointing to legitimate errors into which the Church militant had lapsed before the so-called Reformation; (2) claiming that the Church does not require a sound faith (or by claiming that traditional Catholics don't believe that a sound faith comes about by the grace of God); (3) implying that "works" required after sound faith are rather like the good deeds that one might expect from a boy scout, neglecting to mention that the primary business of works is the Christian's daily struggle against sin and performing your Christian duties. On the last point, yes, loving (charitable) deeds are to be included in works; it's just not the primary business thereof.] Both Lutherans and Calvinists struggled with Paul going about, while clearly speaking to the faithful, and listing sins that will get you thrown into Hell (what the Church calls mortal sins). If Paul were speaking to believing Christians, why would he exhort them is this way? After all, according to Protestant thinking, all that matters is saving faith after which sins could only lead to earthly consequences, one's eternal salvation being ensured. On the other hand, if Paul were addressing unbelievers in these instances (unlikely), why on earth would he focus on mortals sins, and neglect the paramount importance of seeking saving faith, when saving faith is the only relevant issue with regard to eternal damnation? This is a persistent problem for Protestantism. Indeed, since the apostasy of the Papacy in 1958, traditional Catholicism has been reduced to a mere remnant, but still, the vast majority of Protestant converts to Christianity will tell you things like, "I just don't see how any honest reading of the NT gives us Once Saved Always Saved." What is particularly exciting about this is that most of these new Christians come to the Christian Church from the more so-called "traditional" forms of Protestantism, not the Modernist forms. They were rightly taught by their Protestant masters that the Bible is God's Word and is totally True. Even more, God's Word is eminently reasonable at a basic level. Even when people were propagandized and led astray by growing up in "traditional" Protestantism, the plain truth of the Gospel can still lead them to the Church. Although I'm sure that the grace of God, not mere reason, is the primary mover here.
@Cristian Feher That's not an argument. (By the way, the Church venerates St. Mary, we do not "worship" her.) Even so, like all Protestants, you have no argument here. The truth is difficult to swallow. Protestants continue (roughly) in the paths of Calvin and Luther, not because of sound reasoning from Scripture or History, but merely because they are Protestants. They defend their errors like a drunk defends his drinking. When I tell Protestants that Luther seriously sought to through out several books of the NT because they clearly did not teach his novel understanding of God's Grace, they will frequently deny it. If the evidence is subsequently put in front of them, they will either react with anger or go silent. I honestly feel sorry for Protestants, because I believe that these are the people that my Lord Jesus was speaking of then he said that in the final day there would be MANY who said "Lord, Lord" but He knew him not. "...There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Jesus was, of course, speaking of false believers. They use his name, but they have invented a new Jesus of their own liking, a false God that they arrogantly call by the Lord's Name. Look, if you seriously want to believe that the Church that Christ established on Earth was everywhere wrong for 1,500 years, but that Luther and Calvin straitened that all out, go ahead. You've been warned.
Awesome..finally a sage and perspicacious guy to outline the multiple questions regarding the gnostic "gospels"..and of course their pertinence to the body of scripture. Thank you for the expedient and easy listening delivery..and the soundness of your erudition is a much welcomed ease amongst the otherwise blather of most biblical video commentaries..cheers !
I love your non offensive and curious approach. And I hate the perpetuation of the catholic-protestant conflict that took place 500 years ago. I am not in that fight, neither should anyone else. We can share our differences in a friendly and not in a hostile manner motivated by love. And if we talk about these books in the OT that protestants refuse: These books are really not so important. We share the whole New Testament. So there is no need to fight.
I enjoyed the video and getting to see my wonderful son. Love, Matt's Mom.
Mom, seriously this is like pinching my cheek in public but on the Internet.
Harrison William
And it's great! Hahahah
Love this! Go mom!
@@tribequest9 Its an example of pseudepigraphy, I suspect.
Awwwww pinch those cheeks 😁
More like 19 minute Bible hour... amirite?
More like 19 Minute Bible Every Month.
Did not even notice! Matt this is so amazing! Keep up the good work! Got a bible verse for you! Proverbs 20:15
Hey, he said right at the beginning he'd try to keep under 20.
It's always really been the on-the-order-of-ten-minutes-bible-hour, but otOoTMBH isn't quite as catchy.
Well the tenish minute bible hour wouldn’t really sound right.
Loved it Destin! I was watching your eclipse episode and saw the plug for Matt's ten minute bible hour and had to check it out! Thank you!! How is the orphanage doing? Love what you and your other half are doing with the patrons for them! Two big Thumbs up!!
Matt, thanks so much for making these. I can’t articulate just how refreshing it is to hear another believer like yourself explain complicated concepts of the Bible while maintaining a rhetoric that folks outside of belief can respect as well. You’re really inspiring for me and your videos have begun to add a depth of understand for my own knowledge of the scriptures as well.
One little detail, Matt. You said the Apocrypha is stuck between the Old Testament and New Testament in Roman Catholic bibles but omitted entirely from Protestant bibles. Actually, the books of the Apocrypha are interspersed in the Old Testament in Roman Catholic bibles and placed between the Old and New Testaments in the bibles used by certain Protestants such as Episcopalians (my own faith tradition).
Remember how Will Rogers said, "those who respect the law and love sausage shouldn't see either being made?" I think the same goes for those who love the bible maybe a little too much; they would also be upset to look too deeply into how it was compiled and canonized. God's peace!
It's not up until 1880s that the apocrypha was completely removed
Note that the Apocrypha isn't included in the Hebrew Bible either- authoritative but not biblical.
@@allansluis4268 this is a good point that I had read. Was Israel reading these texts. Because they all take place before the new testament right?
Jesus recites from the apocrypha.
@Goodtogo4567 Jesus probably read many books just like we do. Doesn’t mean it's an instant endorsement of the whole thing as God breathed and authoritative just to quote something from it.
"I'm not a genius, what I am is literate." ...oh my, love that comment. Great video.
The Gospel of Thomas was brought up, but some had their doubts.... :D
Do you write your own material? ;)
Hahahaha touché
(to the tune of manamena)
♬ Anti-le-gom-ena ♬
SmarterEveryDay do doo duh doo doo
heahhheheheheh... homo... legomena... heheheheheh
“Some people had trouble with revelation” understatement. If anyone says “I figured out what revelation actually means” I doubt that they actually do.
Bro revelation needs understanding of what was going on in that time, you will understand the meaning behind the imagery if you understand the lingo in that day and age. Just like how most scriptures written was to the people of that day not us but we read to get inspiration from the examples given
I just finished the book of Revelations yesterday, for the first time. I thought it was quite good but am not sure what's to be confused about? To me, it was probably the most straight forward book in the New Testament (just starting the Old after finishing the New). To me, John simply explained all the things that will happen on the second coming. Is there something I'm missing or a big question most Christians have?
Genuinely interested.
Also Paul renounced Gnosticism in 1st Timothy when he said stay away from what is falsely called knowledge in the Greek Gnosis
Only rejected by Protestants, good enough for all Christians for 1500 years until Luther. Still considered canonical by Catholics and Orthodox.
It isn't that they rejected them but rather the Jews rejected them when they compiled the Mesoretic text. The Vulgate kept these books though despite the rejection which is why they are part of bibles until this day (catholic bible versions). The protestants knew they were apocryphal and in the case of the original kjv they kept the apocrypha in one section and noted the status of those books.
But the interesting part is almost all Christians agree on the Canon of the NT.
@@kles44 lookup the timeline if when the Jews rejected them. It was after Christianity began and they wanted to be separated so they rejected anything that was on Greek. Fascinating stuff I learned from a Jewish sight. The Macabees story is how we connect Jesus to the old testament. It shows why he was at the temple in winter. It's a shame protestants rejected parts of the bible 1500+ years later.
@@kles44 The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.
@@LauraBeeDannon You are referring to the Council of Jamnia.
kles44 - the Jews never denied the Deuterocanon.
It was only after Christ they fully rejected them, like they rejected the two powers of heaven, declaring it a heresy.
The Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon.
Did you go all the way to Mount Rushmore to make a point?
I think he was in Rushmore and realized this point, and decided to take a vid of him and later on make a video about it
of course he did. lmaooooo
Very detailed my man I appreciate it I once asked one of my Bible college professors about the other books and the only thing he told me of course it was a question in front of the entire class was that those books were a waste of time and I should just spend more time reading the real word of God. Which never satisfied my question I always wanted to know why certain books were left out. Hopefully I can find another one of your videos where you talk about the book of Enoch and some of the older books of the Bible.
Never stop making these.
Antilegomena:
a condition of the feet caused by too many encounters with Lego bricks on the floor.
A callus/growth due to repeated lego related bodily abuse :v
ITPalGame llol
Lol
😂😂😂
Funny. I thought Antilegomena was a cult that condemned plastic colored bricks as Satanic.
"Thou shalt not use thine toothed bricks of plastic and rainbow colors, else thine path shalt become like sharp rocks, and thine feet shalt be subject to be marred."
Canonical by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church:
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch including the Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Esther
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Septuagint Daniel 3:24-90)
Susanna (Septuagint prologue, Vulgate Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Septuagint epilogue, Vulgate Daniel 14)
Canonical only by the Orthodox Church:
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Esdras
3 Maccabees
Psalm 151
Most found written in Hebrew found in the Dead Sea Text.
Where is it the TANAK, “The Seat of Moses” in Matthew 23:2?
Dniel. Thanks
No, there are no apochryphal books in the orthodox bible
Marko J. My tradition is in the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church. We don’t call them Apocrypha the Protestants due and in their bible. We she called them canonical, Catholics called deuterocanonical books and simply part of scripture. The elephant in the room, why did Martin Luther take them out of the Bible and why did he want to take books even out of the New Testament? That is for another video, I guess.
@@danieldavila6281 I have a serbian orthodox bible and there are no apochryphal books, I'm also an ex eastern orthodox
Daniel Davila the books that were removed were books he couldn’t argue against. To be so prideful to change the Bible? Oh, may God have mercy on his soul. 🙏🏻
Even though im not protestant and disagree with a little few things in doctrine, i love your videos and subscribed God Bless you. ( im a Maronite even though i dont really label myself , just a follower of the way Jesus's way) :)
I love Soeur Marie Keyrouz's recordings of Maronite chant
You're videos are really great, informative, and very engaging to watch. Thank you for putting these together!
I appreciate your video especially talking about all the rejected books from early christianity and being honest with it but I think it's important to note that James was never disputed until Luther decided he wanted to break off Catholicism. The others he didn't agree with were also disputed by him in the 1500's not the first centuries because they didn't conform to what he wanted. Please don't make it seem like the books rejected by protestantism were rejected by the early christians because they weren't.
It was rejected by Saint Jerome.
And stop spreading lies.
Luther didn't want tk break out of the church that's false, he wanted to reform the corruption in the church, and was excommunicated and was a wanted man to die.
And he didn't remove the apocrypha he removed it from the old testament Canon and placed it in between
If this was the first video I ever saw of yours, I'd be flipping out at how good it is. Now I just come to expect it.
You're good to me.
This is the first video ive seen of his🤔and with my new found faith it has done a pretty good job@ opening my eyes👀.. look forward to more🎲🎯.. glory to God🕯📿🕆
It is the first video of his I've ever seen and I subscribed from how good it was.
The username was from when I was 12, ignore it lmao
1 Enoch was originally included in the Old Testament - that's why Jude refers to Enoch. In fact, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church still accepts Enoch as cannonical.
This is well articulated. I'm interested though that you mentioned "The Early Church", and St Irenaeus.
You being a protestant christian, have you ever read writings from the likes of Polycarp (student of Paul) or Ignatius (student of John)?
Thanks! I have read all those guys. My degrees are in history, theology, and church history, so those are guys I've enjoyed learning from for a long time.
@@MattWhitmanTMBH how are you still a protestant?
@@zayan6284 Coz he must have got his degrees from a protestant university. So he must have studied their theology etc and got a degree in it. They have their own instututions.
Zayan Watchel You can watch one of his videos on conversing with a Catholic priest why
I'm sure you know Irenaeus was the Catholic Bishop of Lyon. Quite a defender of our faith.
Hope to have you in our faith one day, soon.
God bless.
I'm reading through the whole protestant canon this year and just discovered some other lost books referenced in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles that I've never heard of before. A mere reference doesn't mean inspired work of course, but it still has left my mental wheels turning in regards to how the whole canonization process. I suppose we just have to trust the judgement of those who came before us who didn't find some books necessary to preserve.
all of the rejected works have divinely inspired echoes, but are not entirely divinely inspired if that makes sense
Christianity is simply trusting that the Bishops of the early church of The Roman Empire made the right decisions and hoping that the hand of their the Roman rulers did not supervise and influence the process and content of their doctrines
If you picked up a King James Bible in 1611, it contained the "Apocrypha," or "2nd Canon" (deuterocanonical books) as the Catholics call them. It wasn't until much later that Protestant *Bible Publishers* chose to start excluding those books. I don't think you can find any declaration by any Protestant church to mandate the exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Bible.
Original translators DID object to the inclusion of those books !
@John in PA I have the 1611 KJV and extra books are there and not named differently, in total it has 81 books. I also have The Cepher which has 87 books. If you do just one thing get the 1st Book of Enoch it's amazing and is leading many people to God and to start reading other parts of the bible.
I long thought Revelation was a 'strange' book, but after reading Scott Hahn's book 'The Lamb's Supper' it brings everything into focus.
I don't know Wat the dude said in the book, but I see alot of things in revelations as things being described with what was know at the time. They nvr ever dreamed man would be able to fly or have mechanical transportation, so if he's having a dream about a battle happening with tanks and Apache attack choppers ...well he must of just woke up thinking Monsters must take over in the future. Attack choppers suddenly Become 'locusts the size of elephants. "
"But this locust has a stinger in his tail and belly that sends fire rain at his enemy's" as he's describing misles , rockets, and bullets. That's how I took it anyway
Matt, love your videos, but you made an odd statement towards the end about the Roman Catholic Church didn't have that much power. The canon of the Bible was organic, using the term liberally, but the canon was set forward by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367. Later the Council of Rome in 382, overseen by Pope Damasus I, officially "canonized" the list in 382 with his decree Decretum Gelasianum.
Yea, the bishop you highlighted wasnt catholic, he was of a Coptic stand.
@@thewhisper417 um in 367 everyone was just of one Church. There was no Coptic and Catholic. They all were at the council.
@@trickster08311 google athanasius
@@thewhisper417 I'm aware of who he is. He is a Catholic Saint and Father of the Church. My point still stands. Everyone was catholic then. It just meant universal. Any race, language, power, etc. All were catholic. Universal. There hadn't been a schism yet. The Coptic and the Catholic(big c) division didn't exist. Sure he lived where the Coptic religion exists now, but he ceded to the power of the seat of Rome.
@@trickster08311 no, actually. He wasnt catholic. Check it again
The debate in the early church wasn't about faith vs. works. The idea of being saved "sola fide" didn't even exist until the 16th century, over 1000 years after the Biblical canon was assembled.
@@imagomonkei he also wanted to take out other books, look it up
Yep. If he had his way only romans would have survived
@Allen Clark "Doesn't Ephesians 2:8-9 support "sola fide?"
Are you going to just take ONE single verse and says it's doctrine? Then what about what St James said about "You have faith, good, show me your works!" Faith without works is dead! It's like imagine your tire got punctured in the middle of nowhere and sola fide is basically, "Nahh I will just believe that my tire will be fixed by itself!" What St James was referring to in this case is, "Well looks like I have to get out my spare tire and fix it up and believe that I would be able to drive up to the next petrol station to get a proper one!"
@J Don How about taking away from it?
@J Don Uhm. Yes it does!
Not sure if you have done any looking into this, or done any videos on it, but I was wondering what you know about the book of Enoch?
@Jay Bee I have read it. And it does seem to explain things that are alluded to in the bible. It is quoted by Jude and Peter, and even Jesus seems to refer to it. The term 'Son of Man' is not common in the Old Testament but is common in Enoch.. It seems to have been a common 'scripture' at that time..
@Jay Bee The term 'Son of man' was Jesus favourite term when referring to Himself, but apart from the book of Daniel, that term is rarely (if at all) used to refer to the coming Messiah, they more often use the term 'Son of God' or other terms. However the book of Enoch regularly uses the term 'Son of man' when referring to the coming 'Messiah' (not a term at the time of Enoch) I wonder whether Jesus uses the term because of all the references and prophecies to the coming 'Son of man' in the book of Enoch...
Looking forward to the Apocrypha video! More 80s style synth please :)
SteveK +
Thank you for covering all this stuff! Great info!
A question though: if the reformation happened only 500 years ago, how did Protestants decide to reject the apocryphal books when they were starting from Catholicism?
+EmethMatthew I cover this in the next video which is already finished and will come out next Sunday morning.
The Ten Minute Bible Hour Can't wait then! :-)
Why do you reject the perpetual virginity of Mary?
The only person I'm aware of who rejected this teaching before the Protestant reformation is Helvidius, and he was clearly rejected by everybody else from the time. Ezekiel 44:2 prophecises it. If Mary was not a perpetual virgin, Jesus was not God.
How do you account for Jesus' brothers? Also, what has that passage to do with Mary?
@@stephenwilkins6085 Well when I was trying to figure out who's right, I gave myself a challenge. Identify exactly who is who in the bible. I looked at each instance when we are given a list of apostles, every time a brother of our Lord is mentioned, and every time they and their relations are mentioned. Well it didn't work out. I cannot at this moment show you everything I went through, but I'll go over one piece of it. Let's try to identify James, the brother of the Lord.
Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
Here we see it clearly spelled out. James, the Lord's brother, is one of the apostles.
And in fact there are two apostles named James.
One is James, son of Zebedee and brother of John (Mat 10:2). In this same list is James, son of Alphaeus (Mat 10:3).
We already ran into a problem. James the Lord's brother is either James, the son of Zebedee, or James the son of Alphaeus.
But how can he be the son of Joseph? One is the son of Zebedee and the other of Alphaeus. We need to narrow this down more. Let's find this James again. Mark 16:40, the people at the foot of the cross. Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James the less and Joses, and Salome. Well there we have it. He must be the son of Mary through a later marriage with Zebedee or Alphaeus. And Matthew 27:56 gives us a clearer picture, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. This means that we have Salome, wife of Zebedee, parents James and John, and we have Mary, mother of James, widow of Joseph and spouse of Alphaeus. Except that doesn't work either... There's another monkey wrench. John 20:19. Jesus's mother, and HER SISTER, Mary wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Who
is
CLEOPHAS
Cleophas is clearly not Zebedee. I had to dig deeper. Cleophas and Alphaeus sound really close, and indeed, they are both Graicizations/Latinizations of the Aramaic name 7lofa, חלופא. Now, 7 is CLEARLY not a sound in neither Greek nor Latin. It's a voiceless pharyngeal fricative. It's like a harsh H sound, similar to the Ch sound in german and scottish and other ones. What normally happens with that? Well sometimes we turn it into H, like the Ch in Chanukah. Other times, we try pronouncing it and get a K, like in Bach. Alphaeus and Cleophas are two different renditions of the same Aramaic name.
Now we are back to the beginning, aren't we? Well no, not really, we came a long way. We know who isn't who. But there's an important cultural detail we're not taking into account. Familial relations. You see, in Jewish (and indeed also Hellenic) culture, "brother" refers to more than just your actual brothers. After all, Abraham is Lot's uncle, but they are called brothers in multiple instances (Gen 14:14 for example). Your a7 (in Hebrew) or adelphos (in Greek) isn't necessarily the child of one of your parents, but a close relative. Usually, what we call a brother, or a cousin. Now it makes sense. We have James and John, sons of Zebedee. And we have James, the brother of Jesus, son of Alphaeus and Mary, sister of Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary is cousins with Mary, who married Alphaeus/Cleophas. And Mary and Alphaeus bore James, second cousin of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I checked every other account, this is literally the only way this family tree makes sense. And I did the same for every other brother of Jesus. All of them checked out. Not one of them could actually have been a son of Mary and Joseph, parents of our Lord. I looked to see what early christian authors had to say about it, and then I found that Jerome came to the same conclusion I did. It was after this that I decided to reinvestigate Catholicism. Don't trust me though, do the experiment yourself. Try to identify exactly who are the brothers of our Lord. And if you find a flaw in my reasoning, or you come to a different conclusion, please let me know. I might be wrong, after all, and truth should be our goal. Pax Christi
@@jesusacuna309 thank you for extensive research on this matter.
I was audibly crestfallen when the Apocrypha didn't get airtime. This is super relevant to me right now, so thanks in advance for the next episode, Matt!
+Melody Brohinsky sorry for the crestfallenness. I think you'll dig next week's installment.
It’s so refreshing to hear a Christian being respectful of other people’s beliefs, but clearly distinguishing the differences in a respectful way,🙏
According to Timothy, the Church is the bulwark of truth. So, no, the Church is never trying to suppress truth, but to spread it and destroy heresy. Remember that Jesus gave Peter, the 1st Pope, the KEYS. (His bones are below the altar in St. Peters in Rome.) According to the old testament, this meant that when the master was away, this person was the head of his house and had full authority. Whatever he did- the master on his return would respect. Whatever sins the Church forgives are forgiven in heaven, whichever ones are held bound are held bound in heaven. Jesus said you are Peter and on this rock I build My Church. After Peter the next Pope was St. Linus, and so on down to today. Just as Judas was replaced, bishops have been ordained by laying on of hands continuously to the present time. This is called Apostolic Succession. When Fr. Martin Luther left the Church in the 1500's he separated himself from the line of Apostolic Succession. He carried with him no authority to ordain priests. (Sidebar - People today would be surprised to hear that he said our prayers should always include Mary.) So the Church has authority given by Christ. When they gathered in a Council, I think in 385, they established the canon (books) of Holy Scripture. They were looking at scriptures that were commonly used in many of the early churches and that were believed to be divinely inspired. This is where, as a Catholic, I have to explain why I trust that they made the right decisions on which books to include. Remember when Jesus gave Peter the keys? He also said he would send the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) to guide the Church in all truth. All truth. Whenever the bishops are gathered together with the Pope they are unable to make a decision that is in error regarding faith and morals. I never worry about the Church failing me, because I never worry about the Holy Spirit failing me or the Church. Persons in the Church can fail us just as Jesus had Judas, but Jesus won't fail us. Just because the Bible was not assembled in the first centuries, does not mean that the Church was unorganized and not clearly defined. The Epistles were letters written to the early churches. There had been over 30 Popes by the time of that Council. I would never dare to look any any book of the Bible and decide for myself that the book was not divinely inspired. I have no authority.
The canon of Scripture is the list of 73 books that belong to the Bible. (The word "Bible" means "the Book.") The earliest writings of the Bible were likely composed in the 10th century B.C. The writing of Scripture continued until the first century A.D., when Revelation was complete.
Seven books of the Bible, all in the Old Testament, are accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but are not accepted by Jews or Protestants. These include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and Orthodox and Apocryphal by Jews and Protestants. These were the last books of the Old Testament written, composed in the last two centuries B.C. Their omission in Protestant Bibles leaves a chronological gap in salvation history.
The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.
With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew. (In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.
The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. This list, as accepted by the Catholic Church, was affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.
Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.
I appreciate your work Matt. I first learned about tmbh during coursework for university, OCU where we were required to view the episode in acts, "what sorcery is this?" Peter vs red mage. Anyway, awesome material!
Seriously? They MADE you watch my video? Lol, that's awesome-ish!
The Ten Minute Bible Hour the course curriculum for one of the weeks had an assignment requiring discussion on Acts and they directed us to a link with your video. It's been a couple months since that class but if you'd like to see the exact assignment sourcing you, I can send that to you sometime. Im glad for it because it introduced me to tmbh. Great articulation brother. Thanks again
I appreciate your educational video. It was non-biased. I too have read all of the non-accepted books of the bible and also came away with the same view. I believe this is what is called, "Allowing the spirit of truth" help guide you through this question about these books.
I started watching this in 2020... and now I'm a full timer here.
"It has a magical talking cross." I laughed way too hard at that. I think there may be something wrong with me. :) But seriously, am I the only one who wants to turn that into a video? :)
You can see the actual talking cross that spoke to St Francis of Assissi at St Damieno cathedral in Assissi. It didnt speak to me but i hoped at the time i visited that it would.
Yall think a talking cross is weird and yet yall believe in the crazy stuff in christianity?
@@likache123 yeah. I believe God loves you as much as me. Crazee!
As someone who has grown up a Christian, I have always wondered about this issue and am thankful for this video! Thanks Matt!
This seems like it could also be an awesome NDQ episode as well. . . :D
The original KJV had all the books in the Bible, Martin Luther removed them because they didn’t fall in line with his teachings. He also wanted to remove Revelation, James, Hebrews and Jude... they also didn’t conform to his thoughts... but there was big enough backlash that he put the 4 back in.
Matt, I have only recently discovered your channel and I’ve been enjoying it very much!
I’m having the toughest time reconciling the passages about Salvation by Faith Alone, and Salvation by Faith and Works. Because 2 Peter, Revelations, and other parts of Scripture have eventually been included in the Bible, I was wondering if you could tell me about any source of info that I could consult about it (perhaps you’ve even already made a video about it).
I come from a Roman Catholic background, and the more I learn about Christianity, the more confused I seem to become. Ironic, I know... but painful, too.
I believe in Jesus, that is all I know.
God Bless you and yours!
Wow, never saw any of your stuff, but definitely will now! Professional, but not overproduced and very watchable! Thanks for this
Thanks, glad you like it!
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant” = Cardinal Neuman (former Protestant converted to the Catholic Church).
A week Catholic is a Strong Protestant. A week Protestant is a strong Catholic = More material one world order brainwashing dogma.
I wonder why he never mentions councils. He should read St. Ignatius of Antioch's affirmation of the holy eucharist and the primacy of the See of Rome.
@@ProximaCentauri88 [1] st. Ignatius wasnt in the bible I believ the word of God is in writing and always was. A council of self appointed men declared they're interperitaion of bible to obtain power and Satan used them to push disfunction in Gods word.
[2] st. Ignatius was considered a Saint by Roman Catholic and Orthadox Churches, not the way the word would consider him. The word of God is ultimate truth, proof and answer key. Not a "never mentioned" saint in bible.
@@ProximaCentauri88 anything he wrote in a letter has no spiritual authority. He uses fleshful authority. And one might ask "how can you determine fleshful and spiritual authority?"... Read the Bible.
To be deep in history is to have no foot in the future.
Matt, I recently discovered you on YT. I was inspired by what I describe as your ability & desire to lay the facts, as you see them, on the table and let others make up their own minds. As a Baptist to Catholic convert, I've been working through what I now view as my lingering animosity toward my previous Baptist faith. God's grace has finally gotten me to a place where I want to be content with my beliefs w/o always feeling I need to try to convince someone else. I've just recently reached this thinking so I know I have a was to go. :)
From the Catholic side, I was hoping you would have mentioned 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. You sound better read than me but I seem to recall that some in the church wanted them included and they are still considered good reads.
The other thing I would have liked to have heard is one thing about the larger Catholic and Orthodox canons. Most Protestants probably just assume that there have and should have always been 66 books.
Thanks for all you do. God bless.
I love jesus , but very interesting , since he is so important , why did they leave out details of his life from age 13 to 30 ??????
A) God includes in the Bible what He wants us to know and excludes stuff we don't. Not much detail is given on how Noah's ark took place but gives a lot on why it happened. B) Jesus spent these years as a carpenter, not as a miracle working Messiah. The priests of the Old Testament took up office at age 30. C) The fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 9. When He was baptised He received and was baptised in the Holy Spirit. This reception of the Holy Spirit was His anointing and the title Christ means, "the anointed One". The prophecy predicted the ministry of the Messiah for three and a half years and the time it would occur. This is why Luke gives a detailed explanation of the time when Jesus was baptised.
I really enjoy this guy. I'm a pretty staunch traditionalist Catholic. Clearly, as a Christian he seeks truth above all, as we all should.
I’m a youth pastor and your description of Song of Solomon gave me a good laugh thinking of my students reading that, and why I wouldn’t teach on it unless it was with specific students
Such informative content! Its helped remind me why the intricacies of Christian faith are so important. Loving and believing with eyes wide open.
Your missing Macabee and other books from the Old Testament. Time to read up on how the Church picked those books because Jesus and the apostles quoted from them
Macabee is awesome. And somehow fitting for our times.
All of those books were undisputed by early Christians. They were removed from the Hebrew bible by the Masoretes after the VI century rabbis for other reasons. Later the Protestant reformers followed the Jewish canon. That was an awful mistake!
@@almostordained88 also called the deuterocanonical books. Protestants claim they want to use "the old testament that Jesus used" and therefore, use what the ancient Jews used. However, due to their lack of knowledge of ancient history, many Jews used and kept these books after certain Jews took them out. The Essenes of Kumran kept these books in the old testament and documentation shows that this is also what Jesus used. For example, the dead sea scrolls show mention of this. Plus , Jesus and his apostles and the Church fathers quote from the deuterocanonical books. After the great schism, John Calvin removed these books. But, what's important to know is that the true "universal" Church of Jesus Christ, is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The word Catholic means universal. And the Church was called Catholic as early as 107 AD by Saint Ignatius of Antioch. The Bible was written by Catholics, for Catholics , and for over 2000 years has been preserved by Catholics.
I know a few Catholics who have deep faith and love for God, but I have experienced many priests with absolutely no faith at all. Anyone who truly believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth (living a changed life that proves his faith through gratefulness) that Jesus is Lord shall be saved, being born again, by faith, catholic or non. We should not worship a man made institution or people or things. We should worship God alone and are called to have a personal relationship with Him and obey Him through the help of Holy Spirit. Christ did not come to build an earthly kingdom with all that power and might, it always corrupts the soul. There is also way to many unbiblical pagan Roman traditions within that organization to truly call it the only true church... ❤️
Can you point me to resources to learn more?
If the book of Daniel was never disputed, then why does the Protestant Bible omit 90 verses of that book? Daniel Chpt 3 in my NIV Bible is 30 vs long. Daniel Chapter 3 in my Catholic Bible is 100 vs. long. This is the fiery furnace section - not even talking about chapter 13 and 14 which are 64 vs and 42 vs. respectively. I just don't understand if "all scripture is God breathed" and we all agree that the book of Daniel is God breathed, how some verses can be canonical but other verses cannot, or at least other verses were judged to not be canonical 1,500 yrs AFTER Christianity began. Your thoughts?
Luther was the one who took the scissors to the Bible.
He sure did he was a moron.
He removed books that had things in them that didn't agree with the rest of the Bible.
Carly Wilson Now Now Carly. It’s not nice to call someone a moron. Maybe, a more scriptural approach would be better, such as... Ignoramus! 😬👍
love Truth I was an anti- Catholic Protestant, that became Catholic because of a hot lookin Catholic girl, that just just happened to teach RCIA . And because of this hot lookin Catholic girl ( and Gods grace of course), I now have the most awesome relationship with Christ that I didn’t have as a Protestant (The holy Eucharist), I read my Bible daily, pray the rosary every morning while drinking my coffee, and take Holy Communion to the sick every Sunday. All because of a hot lookin Catholic girl, ( and Gods grace of course). 😬✝️
@@Michael-vj2ub I like how you put God second there. Uh, huh.
Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382 ratified the first ever formal canon for the Church, and that same canon exists to this day. During the Protestant Revolt, the revolters tore 7 books out of the bible. Hence, Catholic bibles have 7 more books than Protestant bibles.
Whats interesting is that the gospel of truth talking about Jesus being created by God is exactly what Muslims believe and the gospel of thomas talks about some Miracles of Jesus that arent mentioned in the bible but are mentioned in the quran
That is interesting, but there are somethings that push me away from thinking that the Jesus in the Quran is legitimate as I believe it contradicts what is in the Bible.
One good example would be, the story of Jesus and the third loaf of bread. It is mentioned in the Quran and is not mentioned in the Bible.
The story goes that Jesus and a companion were traveling and they stopped to eat bread. They had 3 loafs. Jesus ate one and his companion ate one. Jesus went to wash his hands and when he got back, the third loaf was gone. Jesus asked his companion where it went and he claimed to have not known.
Then they find three deer. One adult and two fawns. Jesus orders one fawn over, and then kills it, cooks it, and eats part of it. Then he bring it back to life. He then asks his companion who took the third load of bread. His companion says he doesn’t know.
They go to a river and shows the companion that he can walk on water, and asks the companion who took the last loaf of bread. Again the companion says he doesn’t know.
Then they went to a plane and Jesus made a mound of dirt and turned it to gold. He divided it into three parts and said, one part for me, one part for you, and one part for the man who took the last loaf of bread.
The man admits it was him, and Jesus decided to give the whole loaf to him and they parted ways.
After that, the man met two others who wanted to kill him for the gold, but they agreed to take one piece each. Greed kicked in and they all ended up dying to poisoned food. Then
Jesus just dies.
There are a few things in this story that makes me think it’s fake.
Firstly, why would Jesus make a lump of dirt turn into gold just to prove that the man was lying. He wouldn’t even turn stone into bread while under the heavy temptation of the devil in the desert.
Secondly, Jesus just dies instead of being crucified like in the bible.
Thirdly, I don’t think Jesus is the kind of guy who would tempt a man into telling the truth with gold.
There are some other things I could talk about, but my point is that I believe that Jesus in the Quran is made up, or at least not the same person as the one in the bible.
@@bibbedcracker121 we dont really believe in that story as muslims because that story is a weak hadith that means it is not a trusted hadith meaning it is not followed and not used a hadith is a book that contains what the prophet peace be upon him did and said and there are authentic hadiths that were narrated by people who can be trusted and a weak hadith is narrated by people who cant really be trusted as they may have lied a few times in front of witnesses etc
do you have instagram id love to carry on our interesting convo over there
@@bibbedcracker121 Muslims in fact follow Jesus more than christians for example muslim men have a beard just like the image that christians have created of Jesus shows even though Christians created that image of Jesus themselves and also that fact that Jesus was circumsised and muslims must be circumsised too and also the way Jesus prayed in the bible was with head on the ground and muslims pray exactly like that too. Therefore we, as muslims, believe in Jesus peace be upon him however we believe in him and follow what he told us to follow he told us to believe in One God who has no partner and no children as God and All Mightly, all hearing all knowing and is not dependant on anything it was only 325 years after Jesus at the treaty of Nicea under the roman emporer Constantine that the idea of trinity was born. Before that, even the christians believed in Islam as both religions used to believe in only One God who has no partner or children and that only he must be worshippped but now only Islam believes in that and things like the Trinity and original sin has been introduced by the churches as the original sin and trinity isnt mentioned anywhere not in a single unambiguous verse in the bible
I see. I don’t really study the Bible or Quran because I’m still in high school rn and I just like to venture out of Catholicism to other religions to understand them. I when I heard of that story I immediately thought that it was something that all muslims believed in. Thanks for your insight
@@bibbedcracker121 No problem bro if you have any other questions let me know and if you want to talk about religion privately my instagram is @itz_isaac1 i have lots to ask you about your religion too pretty interesting and quite similar to Islam i must say
Who has the authority of rejecting books from the Bible, and turning the question around , who has the Authority of deciding which books go in the Bible.
I think this should be the questions that people should ask for themselves
He answered that
Not religious at all, but really love how you present your arguments. Subscribed
Love what you do Matt, I'm doing a video binge on ten min bible hr. Your a un-biased blessing to all religions. May God bless you and keep you, with your eyes wide open
You didn’t mention the fact that Mathew. Mark. Luke. And John. Weren’t written by first hand people people who knew jesus
Johnnie Blevins lets make up facts as we go....total rubbish. There is a flat earth convention waiting for you.
As a Roamn Catholic member myself, listening to you is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your honest research.
Thanks, I genuinely appreciate that!
How is this misinformation “a breath of fresh air”? You must know, that just because someone makes a video in front of an impressive bookshelf and uses critical terms like “Homologoumena”, doesn’t mean he’s giving you correct information.
His commentary is ludicrously off the mark, and this is clearly seen first at his explanation of why the epistle of James was disputed.
You left out one of my favorite books Luther left out, the book of Wisdom. It is still in the Catholic Bible. That was one of our readings just recently. If you haven't read it you should. Luther wanted to also keep out another favorite of mine, James. He tried to remove it because James speaks of faith and works, plus James was a realist. I do not consider the KJV the inspired word of God because Luther chopped up the Catholic Bible and reworded it. I learned more about religion in 6 months of RCIA than in a life time of being raised Methodist and other religions including non denominational.
Saw a video of your interview with Doug Clay, and I appreciated your honesty and respectfulness. I've since subscribed and really enjoy your style and content.
Always be suspicious of any purported scripture of which the original is typed in Times New Roman.
Thanks!
As a Catholic who loves theology, Church History and (of course) The Bible, I was super nervous about what your position might be. VERY thankful you aren't rude or dismissive to the Catholic view. Now, I will definitely check out your 'apocrypha' video.
One other thing - 'apocrypha' means hidden. Catholics and Orthodox call these books 'deuterocanon', literally 'the second part of the (OT) canon', -- not apocrypha.
Even from the position of not being of the Catholic faith, myself, I will agree with you 100%. It was refreshing to see him treat these different books and the reasons why they were rejected, as well as acknowledging that people do have different views (such as the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism) in a respectful, straightforward manner. I don't think it helps anyone to go on a bashing crusade, when all is said and done. Kudos to him for that!
I hope you do get into the Apochryphal books! I once had a Catholic friend ask me why my church used KJV when there were so many books missing from it.
Hi, I can't spell or pronounce that word either, that's why I call them Deuterocanon like the Catholics do. :-)
But the KJV originally did have the Deuterocanon in, it just labelled them as useful to read but not scripture (like its predecessors did). Many modern editions of the KJV, like the one it sounds like you have, however, skip the Deuterocanon.
Why does your church read from the kjv?
IamGrimalkin and church history is full of many important church fathers believing the deuterocanonical books are canon.
Lack of knowledge is all, Man again taking out , man need we say more lol..
The KJV is the worst possible translation you could use. It's not a bad translation, but of all that is available - it is the worst. This is because it is based on a very small number of very late manuscripts. It is what was available back then. Now, we have a lot more manuscripts which dates much much earlier, and, using the same methods of scriptural comparison that the KJV authors used, we can have much more accurate translations today.
There's a study I found years ago - a book titled "The Tabernacle of Moses" that goes deep into every aspect of the Mosaic tabernacle, its construction, and the furnishings. A very exhaustive, scholarly publishing. Within this study, we see the details of the Golden Lampstand. The Bible describes its construction having the elements, or likeness of olive branches. Reading, we see that these branches are allocated as 3 branches on either side of a single branch - a center stem. This is significant. Each branch, and center stem, contains what the scripture calls bowls, knops, and flowers. Different translations use different nomenclature, though the concept remains. Doing the math, we see that each of the 3 side branches, with its bowls, knops, and flowers equals 9 segments on 3 branches; multiplied, shows 27 elements, right side, and left side. The center stem of the Golden Lampstand describes 4 groups: 4 times bowls, knops. and flowers. This equals 12. To summarize, 3 X 9 (27) + 3 X 4 (12) and 3 X 9 (27). Add these and we see the Old Testament books with the 12 Minor Prophets, then the New Testament books (27) all in completion. Divine appointment.
Most of the books of the Bible were probably lost - do you really think that St Paul only wrote a handful of letters? They never intended them to be used as they were. If you really believe that the Holy Spirit is alive and well then the Gospel lives on - I tell people that we all could write a Gospel of our experiences with God. The Catholic Church which translated and numbered the Bible feels it is a good tool but not the entire picture of faith or of God. As I always tell people, Jesus never once told people to read Scriptures. He never set out to write a single word of scripture himself. The call of Christianity is not a call to the intellect but to the spirit - a call to act not sit and read.
He says: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29 ESV)
Jesus quoted scripture, studied it heavely and spoke from it. He finds value in scripture and encourages us to do the same
He also knew that the holy spirit would inspire new truth and wisdom to his Apostles after he assended. As a Jew who studied written truth, I would say that He expected someone to write it down
Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:45-47 ESV)
The Gospel of Thomas brought me to both the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I had multiple supernatural experiences along the way including a visit from the angel ophanim (aka the wheel that Ezekiel described).
It's legit.
Some of the "Gnostic" gospels aren't very Gnostic; there are actually few books which are purely Gnostic. And some actually do contain truthful history. 😍
Cope
Keep up the good work. I enjoy your videos. I grew up in a very strict Christian home and was a very strong believer. Over time I have been on a search for truth and have been very skeptical of so many parts of the Bible. Your videos have been a good counter balance to what I have heard. I’ll keep watching.
Hi. The ten minute bible hour, I am wondering, I've just read the first 10 pages of the book of Mormon for the first time and to me it looks like fan fiction that doesn't reflect the style of old testament teaching, as it's meant to be a 600bc book but yet twists Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah and revelation into a "dream" and reflects too much new testament. I have no American cultural heritage understanding as I'm Australian. But I'm pretty sure these Mormons are apart of a "book cult".
Matt I Love it! I like how well yo break it down and leave it open for people to really take the opportunity to really dive into the word of God. Well sir I was watching smarter every day and the solar eclipse episode and saw your plug for the ten minute bible and I was hooked! Matt you have a new subscriber! Two thumbs up!
I'm grateful Scott. Thanks for the kind words.
I was wondering why some books weren’t included in certain versions of bibles. Thank you.
Matt your style is crafted well and is very accessible for the casual viewer which is why I show your videos to Catholic youth. Your sincerity is also commendable.
Bare with me for a moment if you will because this video has stirred up some considerable inspiration in me.
I see the date of this video is 2017. Have you since gone any deeper into the history of the origin of the bible? Specifically the Council of Hippo in 393AD.
It was a Catholic council which had authority to say yeah or nay to what was included in the Bible. The final decision was 73 books. The protestant revision removes 7 books to make the Protestant King James version of the bible only 66 books.
That was just the setup for my statement and challenge to you and any other readers now.
Sacred Tradition existed before the bible. It is from the Tradition that you even have a body of authority that can decide (in the year 393) that this collection of writings will be the bible.
Martin Luther didn't have that authority. He came up with an understandable reason for his selection. He pointed to the absence of Hebrew originals for those 7 books he rejected, but now we know he was wrong. They found Hebrew originals in the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran.
Jesus didn't hand us a bible or a doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Jesus handed us a group of 12 bishops and those bishops knew that they had been given an office of authority by Jesus. In the book of Acts we see the Apostles elect a person to replace Judas who had abandoned his office. Matthias becomes the first apostolic successor.
For almost 400 years Christians lived without a bible, in unity with Jesus and knowing so through these Apostolic successors. Yes there were writings, and as your video demonstrates, there were many many more writings than the average Christian of 2020AD knows.
Martin Luther in the 1500s was 400 + 1,100 years after Jesus and the Apostles so it is understandable that the Archaeological findings of Qumran in the 1970s reveal that Luther's judgment was wrong even if his personal devotion to Jesus was sincere.
Now I'm a convert from atheism. I was at odds with Christians because of the... what I now call "relativism of Christianity". On one street you can have multiple buildings all claiming to be Christian but all having significant enough disagreements with one another to not be united with each other. As I look out from my Catholic office window now, I can see a Methodist Church (not Catholic, not Lutheran, etc.) , and that Church is currently in the process of splitting because of the "LGBTQ+" issue. So the question then, the question which your video also begs is, who has authority to say, "These books and this doctrine"?
I hold that it has only ever been the Catholic Church (Though sincere lovers of Jesus can and do exist in all of the others). The Bible comes from the Tradition and logically not the reverse. The liturgy existed before the Bible. The early Church writings of St. Justin Martyr, who wrote 250ish years before the Bible was compiled, describe the liturgy of a Catholic Mass (First Apology to Titus, starting at Ch65). www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Why am I being so long winded? It's because I've watched several great videos from you now. Your work is inspirational. I hope my longwindedness is viewed as a complement as well as a challenge.
The King James Version at one time included said books and you can order said edition on Amazon.
Your referring to the catholic bible which was canonized at the council of rome in 382. It wasn’t until the 1500’s that Protestants rebelled and separated themselves from the church. They modeled there bible (at least the Old Testament) after the Jews version/canon “Old Testament”.
The Catholic and Orthodox bible have all books
Andy Stanley has a great series called The Bible for Grown-Ups (4 part sermon available on RUclips) that really helped me understand the history of how the Bible came to be. In it, he also mentions John Lennox's book Seven Days that Divide the World (also available as a lecture on RUclips) which helped reconcile my scientific understanding with Genesis.
I hope there's another video coming about the Apocrypha.
+Luke Israelson Next one :)
Can't wait I've always been curious about it.
Thanks for making this, I really enjoyed it. I would never have thought to describe certain noncanonical books as "fan fiction" but that term really does fit sometimes! This is the first of your videos that I've watched so I don't know the wider context. But with that in mind, the only thing I would criticize is this: You use the passive voice too much. :-) Specifically, you talked mostly about books that "were approved" or "were not approved", while skirting around the extremely important question of who exactly approved them (or didn't approve them). And that's a key issue, because the Bible we now have is a product of the "catholic" church. (I put Catholic in quotes because before the Council of Ephesus in 431 there was only one church that became the ancestor of Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Monophysitism and Nestorianism.) The point is, and here's where Protestantism doesn't make a lot of sense, you have a Bible that was approved by men who believes the Church should be run by bishops with apostolic succession, and who believed that Jesus was physically present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist -- two doctrines that are anathema to most Protestants. The claim that Protestants make, therefore, has to be that God preserved these blood-drinking bishops free from all error when it came to their decisions about the canon, and on no other issue. Which is certainly a position you can't justify from the Bible itself. (As an Anglican I have no problem with the blood-drinking bishops being right on the canon and on the blood-drinking.) Well there's my rant. Looking forward to the next video!
@Jim Parker That's certainly a big part of it. Someday I will get around to researching my thesis that the Protestant idea of Scripture was adopted from Islam.
@Jim Parker Yeah, France always tried to have it both ways when it came to the Reformation. Have you read "The Myth of Religious Violence" by William T. Cavanaugh? A brilliant work on Europe's so-callled "wars of religion" that shows how little religion actually factored in them; the name "Wars of Religion" was Enlightenment spin doctoring designed to make religion look bad. Personally I'm Anglican not RC but my church is rooted deeply in pre-Reformation Christianity and we accept a lot of the historic doctrines (like the real presence) that "Bible" Christians cross out of their Bibles.
“What I am is... literate” 😂😂😂
Hi Matt, love what you and Destin do with No Dumb Questions. That's actually what brought me here.
You may or may not see this since this video is a little older, but I'd love to get your take on the Book of Enoch. I don't know much about it at all, just that some people think it proves the existence of giants and a global flood while others say it's just sort of a fantasy book. Your way of explaining things jives with my way of understanding things so it'd be cool to get your views on it!
Thanks,
Dave from Massachusetts
Kinda odd to hear you say, books that God rejected. Was it books that God rejected or books that man rejected? You do know that those within the Canon wanted to show certain aspects of the Bible and leave other parts out. From which I believe was man driven and not God driven.
Hey Matt, I really like what you're doing and the way you're doing it! I'm just getting my own bible teaching channel going and I'm kinda stumbling my way forward, experimenting with what I what my videos to be like. Well, in a lot of ways I want to be like you ... I'm mean be me of course, but genuinely me like you're genuinely you while teaching some very helpful stuff. So thanks for what you're doing!
You know that Bible tells us that ONLY men can brew the coffee, tea, and the beer. Just open the Bible to the book of *HEBREWS*!!
I just found out they had beer in biblical times...
That's how the Ancient Egyptians "paid" the slaves. They would give the Israeli slaves beer bread, which they could eat or exchanged for other goods.
Beer is the oldest alcohol with a poem about it that included a recipe for early beer existing from 3900 years ago
Revelation 3:16
Jesus likes his tea hot.
IamGrimalkin ...Ha! Not lukewarm, noted. Who doesn't?
im just wondering about the books mentioned in the bible such as: book of the wars of the lord, book of Jasher, acts of Solomon, the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the Seer, the book of Shemaiah the prophet, the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, the book of the words of Esaias the prohpet. These books are spoken of in our KJV bible and not considered apocrypha either. They are just missing
After you finish nuts and bolts are you considering doing a video on Revelations?
I would also love to be taken though Revelations.
You guys are cruel, but yeah, lets make Matt sort out Revelation. We'll chip in for a nannie to raise his kids while he spends the next decade figuring out the antichrist, the great prostitute, colored horses, scrolls, seals, trumpets, and multiheaded sea creatures. Wouldn't it be easier to just blame Trump? Surely some combination of his name, birthday, inauguration dates and favorite breakfast cereal when transferred to Greek or Hebrew will equal 666?! If not, try Nancy Pelosi. You can't tell me she isn't hiding 30ft bat wings folded behind her back. Revelation shouldn't be in the bible anyway, and Matt explained why. How can it address the Church of Philadelphia when Philadelphia didn't exist until 1700 years later?
Andy Jones ...Hyperbole doesn't suit you.
I'll tell you right now... Nancy is not hiding bat wings behind her back.
I think that if Matt tried to explain Revelation with his typical 'just the facts' style of teaching, it would be a nice refresher from all the interpretation that's gotten mixed up in the whole thing.
GEN 5:24 Enoch walked with God, then he was no more because God took him” The book of Enoch is a book that is more popular today than it has ever been. Enoch is also mentioned in Jude 14-15.. the book of Enoch, as many have commented, is applicable and speaks to this current generation.
Trust in the words of the Lord:
"Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away"
Of course the 66 books of the Bible which we have and have been using are blessed by God for century upon century upon century and now in the latter days of apostasy there are those who want to try to destroy the faith of God's people.
There's nothing wrong with your Bible I use the King James Bible it is proven itself to be the word of God to the English-speaking people, and if it worked 50 years ago and it worked a hundred years ago and it worked 200 years ago and it worked 300 years ago and it worked 400 years ago, it will and does work today.
"His truth endureth to all generations"
Psalm 100
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31
Douglas Crosby AMEN!
Althogh I do agree with much of your statement, that it is the word of God, why didn't you go all the way back to mid 4th century? Because the Catholic canon was the canon for the first 1,200 years before the reformation. And using your own admission, if it was good enough back then, why is that same canon not good enough now for Protestants?
It's not an attack on you. I am genuinely interested in your respone and your viewpoint.
This was very helpful. Clarification is for the best. Too many questions can drown out the truth, this I can vouch for. Thanks! ✌😎
I want to recommend you a book. It is called "confessions". The author is Agustine of Hipona.
This good informative discourse. All believers might want to tune in.
The books Luther removed include the only references to eternal life in the entire OT. Their removal was a theological crime.
Dang man, I went off and read Thomas & Infant James Gospel and came back to the video! Read them, they are worth it. Still more good info than contradictions. Read Enoch/Watchers/Nephilim combo too!
Pretty sure the book of Bartholomew and the Book of Enoch are the most famous rejected books.
Dr Brandt Pitre gives an excellent talk on this. Also, another good talk he gives is The Case for Jesus. .....and. The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
It is proven that Mary didn't have any other children. This guy clearly doesn't know ancient Jewish history. I would suggest people listen to Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Brandt Pitre, Edward Sri, and many others that were protestant and came to know the fullness of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church.
Cousins and relatives were often called "Brothers " in ancient Jewish history. And, the ones named as brothers, are mentioned again and their parents are named.
As a Catholic, great vid! And as a Catholic I think you'd make a great one too!
By Catholic, do you mean Christian, or do you mean Roman Catholic?
@@Michael-Archonaeus Roman Catholics are Christians
The pope has twisted the scriptures. He is an ungodly man. Look at some of the things he has said
@@med4699 But you're a saint right? Lol, if you live in a glass house you shouldn't throw Stones...
@@med4699 I have and I guess that's like your opinion man but if your pastor says something ungodly does that mean your entire denomination is not Christian? Kind of the same thing with the Pope even if the pope is wrong he is nothing more than the leader of our church a leader that can be dismissed at any time you should really look up the role of the Pope before you start criticizing what he does and what that means for the Catholic faith Catholics are the original Christians read the early church fathers he actually references one in this video and they were taught by the apostles and they use the term Catholic to describe Christians a.... Universal..... Christian church.... all of us following the same doctrines and worshipping Jesus Christ in the same way
Good stuff right here bruh! We need to be informed not only spiritually but intellectually as well! God Bless You!
the catholic church put the bible together, this guy needs to get a clue.
Subscribed, I like your attitude and approach to the discussion of the topic. Keep it up! God Bless
Some of the Books that you list as included but "debated" were debated only by heretical Protestantism. They were never questioned in the first 1,500 years of the Church. Further, Protestants contemplated tossing out more than just two books of the New Testament. Several books in the NT are pretty difficult for Protestants to swallow, especially several of the Pauline Epistles. Basically, Paul looks kind of inept to those who embrace the Protestant once-saved-always-saved formulary, i.e., once you have saving faith you can commit all of the egregious sins you want without eternal consequences. [This replaced the historic Christian doctrine of sound faith (also accomplished by the grace of God) following by a life of obedience to God's Law, confessing and seeking forgiveness for sin, especially for mortal sins, from the Church (John 20;23). I only include this only because most Protestants misrepresent traditional Catholic teaching on this point in several ways: (1) pointing to legitimate errors into which the Church militant had lapsed before the so-called Reformation; (2) claiming that the Church does not require a sound faith (or by claiming that traditional Catholics don't believe that a sound faith comes about by the grace of God); (3) implying that "works" required after sound faith are rather like the good deeds that one might expect from a boy scout, neglecting to mention that the primary business of works is the Christian's daily struggle against sin and performing your Christian duties. On the last point, yes, loving (charitable) deeds are to be included in works; it's just not the primary business thereof.] Both Lutherans and Calvinists struggled with Paul going about, while clearly speaking to the faithful, and listing sins that will get you thrown into Hell (what the Church calls mortal sins). If Paul were speaking to believing Christians, why would he exhort them is this way? After all, according to Protestant thinking, all that matters is saving faith after which sins could only lead to earthly consequences, one's eternal salvation being ensured. On the other hand, if Paul were addressing unbelievers in these instances (unlikely), why on earth would he focus on mortals sins, and neglect the paramount importance of seeking saving faith, when saving faith is the only relevant issue with regard to eternal damnation? This is a persistent problem for Protestantism. Indeed, since the apostasy of the Papacy in 1958, traditional Catholicism has been reduced to a mere remnant, but still, the vast majority of Protestant converts to Christianity will tell you things like, "I just don't see how any honest reading of the NT gives us Once Saved Always Saved." What is particularly exciting about this is that most of these new Christians come to the Christian Church from the more so-called "traditional" forms of Protestantism, not the Modernist forms. They were rightly taught by their Protestant masters that the Bible is God's Word and is totally True. Even more, God's Word is eminently reasonable at a basic level. Even when people were propagandized and led astray by growing up in "traditional" Protestantism, the plain truth of the Gospel can still lead them to the Church. Although I'm sure that the grace of God, not mere reason, is the primary mover here.
@Cristian Feher That's not an argument. (By the way, the Church venerates St. Mary, we do not "worship" her.) Even so, like all Protestants, you have no argument here. The truth is difficult to swallow. Protestants continue (roughly) in the paths of Calvin and Luther, not because of sound reasoning from Scripture or History, but merely because they are Protestants. They defend their errors like a drunk defends his drinking. When I tell Protestants that Luther seriously sought to through out several books of the NT because they clearly did not teach his novel understanding of God's Grace, they will frequently deny it. If the evidence is subsequently put in front of them, they will either react with anger or go silent. I honestly feel sorry for Protestants, because I believe that these are the people that my Lord Jesus was speaking of then he said that in the final day there would be MANY who said "Lord, Lord" but He knew him not. "...There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Jesus was, of course, speaking of false believers. They use his name, but they have invented a new Jesus of their own liking, a false God that they arrogantly call by the Lord's Name. Look, if you seriously want to believe that the Church that Christ established on Earth was everywhere wrong for 1,500 years, but that Luther and Calvin straitened that all out, go ahead. You've been warned.
@Cristian Feher I am confused, are you saying that it is false that books were removed from the Bible? Isn't that what the video was about?
Awesome..finally a sage and perspicacious guy to outline the multiple questions regarding the gnostic "gospels"..and of course their pertinence to the body of scripture.
Thank you for the expedient and easy listening delivery..and the soundness of your erudition is a much welcomed ease amongst the otherwise blather of most biblical video commentaries..cheers !
The reason is because they point to who the real people of GOD.....
The people are the ones that where place on ships.
I love your non offensive and curious approach. And I hate the perpetuation of the catholic-protestant conflict that took place 500 years ago. I am not in that fight, neither should anyone else. We can share our differences in a friendly and not in a hostile manner motivated by love.
And if we talk about these books in the OT that protestants refuse: These books are really not so important. We share the whole New Testament. So there is no need to fight.