I’m a non denominational Christian and while I was shopping for a new Bible on Amazon God led me to The Holy Bible RSV Catholic Edition. So I bought it and I’m glad I did, I want to read those 7 books.
Well have a good read of the seven so called missing books. There are some good reasons that denominations do not consider the 7 books scriptural and there are reasons why the roman Catholic church needs them to be there. Wanna cast out a demon ? Tobit 6 tells you how ! You do not find any verse in any other book of the bible to confirm this practice. Wanna clean up your vision Tobit 6 tells you this as well! Wanna believe in praying for the dead? 2 Maccabees 12: select verses given from the roman Catholic church creates their doctrine , but the context tells you a far different story. You do not find anyone else in all of scripture about praying for the dead . No one ever prays, in the new testament , about sinners who reject Christ to attain godliness , but Judas prays for the unrepentant soldiers that God had killed for the sin of idolatry . The roman Catholic church claims to have authority over the scriptures and that concept is just not found in the Lord's church Eph 2:19-22.
@andreeattieh2963 Well extrapolate those verses for all of us so that those of us with hardened hearts against falsehood , and those with open hearts for believing a church group without question over scripture, will finally know the truth? One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Tobit 6 :5-8 Smoke will rid the demon posseted person??? verse 9 cleansing of the eyes??? If only Jesus and the apostles knew this I bet the new testament would have some changes to it!! 2 Maccabees 12: 42-45 make sure that the context of those verses prove what the cherry picked verses are used to convince you are correct? 2 Maccabee's 12 :1--45 1. who died 2. why did they die? 3. who killed them ? 4.did they repent of their sins before they died ? 5. Was Judas correct in praying for them to attain godliness? Now look at the new testament and see if you can find any verse that would imply that an " UN-REPENTANT person " can be prayed for after they die and thus attain godliness? looking forward to your answer.
Daniel, yes, the Bible does prove the Catholic church and the Catholic faith. We made a video on that if you're interested. ruclips.net/video/bMIFdiUt0q4/видео.html
@@danielrutigliano7938 Why do we need to read more than the Bible ? The reasons are : 1. The bible us inerrant but our interpretation is not. God only has 1 interpretation as God doesn't double speak. But humans interpret base on our own experiences and understanding. For example I have personally witnessed my Bible Presbyterian classmate argued vigorously with my Charismatic classmate whether the Age of the Holy Spirit has ended with both diametrically opposite sides quoting from the same KJV to support their position. So who is right? Has the age of the HS ended ? Both sides quoted from the same Bible to support their different position. This is an example why we need an official guide to know what is the true interpretation of the bible. 2. The Apostles and the Early Church Fathers have the correct interpretation. Why ? They were taught personally by Jesus. They ate with Jesus, travelled with Him, heard Him preached and explained, witnessed Jesus and learnt from Him. The Apostles were also guided by the HOLY Spirit when they wrote the scripture. Because they were the writers of scriptures, they knew what they wrote. They knew what the Holy Spirit meant. Their interpretation is the correct interpretation. The Apostles and their disciples left the correct understanding to the bishops and deacons they ordained and so on and so forth. This correct understanding passed down from one generation of bishops to the next = this is apostolic succession so the correct interpretation is passed on till today in the Catholic Church because every clergy can trace their ordination back to the Apostles. 3. We need to read more than the bible because the Bible says so. In John 21 :25 Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written This verse says there are many teachings from Jesus that are not recorded in the bible. These are contained in oral teachings in the Sacred Tradition of the Early Church Fathers as covered in point 2 above. Look at the Road to Emmaus. Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus but so we get a list of what Jesus taught and explained here in the bible ? Scripture didn't say what is the scope and content of what Jesus taught. Also look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. This verse also teaches the Bible is not the only place of Jesus's teachings. Same from 1 Cor 11:12. 1 Cor 11:12 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you 4. So the full deposit of faith revealed by Jesus is found in the bible and in oral teachings of the Early Church Fathers (the era from AD 33 to AD 400). Oral traditions after AD 400 doesn't count anymore. There is no new revelation after this era. 5. The catechism is only a teaching and interpretation of the entire deposit of faith left by Jesus. Even the Protestant Church has bible study guides. 6. The NT comprised of letters and epistles to various Christian churches addressing various problems and clarification of doctrines. They were not originally written as a instructional teaching guide. However with the people who directly witnessed Jesus and the Apostles dying off from old age, the Catholic Church in AD 400 filtered through the many letters written to discern and decide which are inspired and which ones are not. So the Catholic Church with its divinely invested authority decided which letters and epistles are really inspired by the HS and are truly the Word of God. Conclusion These are the reasons why one needs to read the bible and more.
@@danielrutigliano7938 I sincerely hope you read my comments in its entirely. Your comments show that you probably have not. At least read point 1 to 3. The Word of God is not just contained in scriptures. And there is also the issue of interpretation. Look at the example I shared between the Bible Presbyterian and Charismatic.
@@jennernolast6858 who says Catholic are against scripture? If you're protestant, you are the one, who teaches wrong things but not Catholic. I can I can strongly say that Catholic Church is true church.
The Catholic Church has the complete full set of Bible AND the true interpretation of the Bible. Protestants have a reduced Bible and choose to give up 7 books of the Word of God. This is why the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith due to the complete set of Bible and the correct interpretation as taught by Jesus and the Apostles.
@@josueinhan8436 Matthew 7:6, NIV: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs No wonder I am throwing pearls. Should have abide by Matt 7:6
Would it interest you to know that there was NO New Testament (Christianity) during Jesus' life on earth? In fact, your bible as well as mine states that Jesus' total attention was to the "Lost Sheep of Israel" (Jews) and He instructed the apostles to concentrate on the "Lost Sheep" as well. Your bible does specify that!
@@grdama Of course there is no NT during Jesus's time. Any proper Christian knows this. But how is this related to my earlier comments? My NT and your NT doesn't show Jesus instructed the Apostles to concentrate on the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus asked the Apostles to instead go and make disciples of all nations Matt 28:19. In any case how does my earlier comments relate to Jesus's instruction to focus on the lost sheep of Israel or to the whole world ?? Your logic is strange.
You: "Catholic Church has the fullness of faith due to the complete set of Bible and the correct interpretation as taught by Jesus and the Apostles." If, as you stated, everyone knows there was NO NT, what was Jesus and the Apostles supposedly teaching? Your bible must be defective because my bible states clearly: (Matthew 10 5-7) 5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles (future Christians) and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand. No Christianity, strictly Old Testament Jewish law and prophecy. Jesus did NOT teach NT text or give a Christian church (that responsibility was given to Paul to accomplish). You stated strong opinion but a little weak on scripture. Roman Catholics do have a problem determining where Judaism ends and Christianity begins and who did what.
@@shanebell2514 Hi, friend. Consider these Tobit quotes, and NT echoes: Tobit 4:7 give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. Tobit 4:8 If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. Tobit 14:2 And he was eight and fifty years old when he lost his sight, which was restored to him after eight years: ...and he increased in the fear of the Lord God, and praised him. The NT authors quote from the Septuagint version of the OT about 2/3 - 3/4 of the time and it included the Apocrypha. Early Christians made no distinction between the books of the Apocrypha and the OT. For example, Justin Martyr quoted from it (including the book names [I.E. Tobit, Wisdom, etc.]) as scripture, as well as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Origen, Cyprian, etc. Moreover, the early councils that decided the bounds of our Biblical canon included most of the Apocrypha. (Council of Rome Decree of Pope Damasus (382 AD), Council of Hippo Canon 36 (393 AD), Council of Carthage III Canon 47 (397 AD), Council of Carthage IV Canon 24 [419 AD]). So I say all this simply to suggest that if the first Jewish and Greek Christians (including the apostles) used them as scripture then I am pretty sure it’s a far greater error to ignore them than to hold them in high esteem. Peace!
@@rhwinner Giving alms does not make it scripture, even the muslims give alms (zakat). The Jews (who came before the Christians) did not consider tobit to be scripture, they still do not, and it is 2300 years old. There is a distinction between scripture and apocrapha, apocrapha was not scripture, tobit was never in the official Jewish canon. Justin martyrs considered pagan Greek philosophers (including plato and socrates) as "unknowing Christians".
@@shanebell2514 hi friend, you are mistaken about the Jews not considering it scripture however. Many Jews in jesus's time considered its scripture. It was only after the Christian era that the Jews sealed their canon. However I respect your point of view. Grace! ❤️🙏♥️
@@rhwinner So only for the last 2000 years the Jews have rejected it? And before then some did some did not accept it? The RC and Orthodox accept it even though it was not written by Christians for the New Testament, only by the Old testament Jews and even then only some accepted it, It hardly qualifies as scripture right?
Question: Dad, who can explain a book? Answer: Whoever made it. Question: Who made the Bible? In the year 382, at the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus The First, screamed out to the world and said, this is the word of God, and the world believed, And the Bible was born with 73 books. Answer: Son, The Roman Catholic Church made the Bible. PS. We didn’t add 7 books, we added 27 books which is the whole New Testament, The protestant remove 7 books from the Old Testament
@@jennernolast6858 Who made the Bible, I didn’t say who wrote the Bible, I said who made the Bible, who put all the books together and called it the Bible? I know Jesus didn’t give out Bibles and the Bible didn’t rain down from heaven, as a matter of fact when Jesus rose from the dead the New Testament was not even written. 3 things I need, I need the name of the person who made the Bible, I need the year he made the Bible and I need the place where he made the Bible. In other words I want to see the birth certificate, And if you don’t know, then how can you believe the Bible is the word of God?
@@jennernolast6858 No, I don’t think Luke is a liar. What I don’t believe is your history. You said, The Bible was later called The Bible? Can you prove what you say?
@@jennernolast6858 That’s Impossible!!! St.Luke die in the year 84 AD And the book of Revelation was written in the year 95 AD With all due respect that you deserve, Nobody would agree with you on this, only the ignorance would And ignorance is not a bad word, it means lack of knowledge or information. I’m ignorant on a lot of things But not when it comes to religions. I know how to defend my faith...1 Peter 3:15 Pope Damasus I, presided over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the official list of sacred scripture, The Bible. Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro is often given credit for first dividing the chapters in the real sense, but it is the arrangement of his contemporary and fellow cardinal Stephen Langton who in 1205 created the chapter divisions which are used today.
Concerning the tendency of many of the post-Christian rabbis rejecting the Deuterocanonical books, there is a glaring inconsistency each year in this regard: To this day, Jews celebrate the Feast of Dedication, Chanukah, which comes from 1 Maccabees, when the Jews, under the Maccabeans, cleansed and re-inaugurated the Jerusalem Temple to the worship of Yahweh. Of course, in modern times, that history seems to be lost, with the focus shifted to simply the miracle of the oil for lighting the menorah. Furthermore, this raises a question for the Protestants: If Christians are to reject the Deuterocanonical books, why, in the Gospels, do we read of our Lord, the Founder of Christianity and the Head of the Church, participating in the celebration of the Feast of Dedication, which again, has its origins in 1 Maccabees, a Deuterocanonical book?-Compare John 10:22-39.
Good points! In addition, Protestants seem to love to quote the Jews, and yet they claim to go by the Bible alone. They're using an extra biblical source and not going by the Bible. They cannot prove that these 7 books do or do not belong using the Bible alone.
I'm protestant and I believe that those 7 books were wrongly removed. Martin Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the Bible. Anyone wanting to remove The Book of Revelation should be treated with suspicion.
I believe that the theory that Jerome himself rejected the books of the bible which were not found in the Hebrew version as "apocryphal" is a false one based on a misunderstanding of Jerome's own words, and here I will present three arguments to support that claim. In summary they are as follows: 1.) Jerome was comissioned to make his translation by Pope Damascus I at the exact time that Pope Damascus I issued the first official biblical canon list in the Council of Rome, and Jerome was himself also secretary to the Pope. 2.) Jerome did not himself believe that certain books contained in the Catholic canon were "apocryphal" but was merely reporting the popular sayings and beliefs held by Jewish non-Christians who were contemporary to him. 3.) Jerome supported and deferred to the authoritative judgments and doctrines of the Catholic Church. The first argument is simple to prove by a study of history. The canon had already been officially established by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in AD 382 before Jerome had even begun to translate the first word of his Vulgate. This is not the earliest time that the "deuterocanonical" books were included in the bible, as the earlier bibles already contained these works (in fact the earliest bibles we still have, such as the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Aramaic Peshitta, all contained these books). That the Greek Septuagint included all of these books (and some additional ones) has never been in disupute and the Orthodox tradition can still attest to this fact. The second and third arguments can be proven from reading the following exerpts from an exchange between a critic of Jerome's translation (there were many critics of his translation including Augustine) named Rufinus, and Jerome, where Jerome defends what he says in his preface to Daniel in response to Rufinus' criticisms. I have included here Rufinus' accusations and added *empasis* to Jerome's response for clarity. Rufinus' Apology, Book II, Ch. 33: "There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?" Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Ch. 33: "In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was *the opinion upheld by the Jews;* and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in *following the judgment of the churches?* But *when I repeat what the Jews say* against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for *I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us."* Jerome here defends his choice of choosing to translate the book of Daniel from the Theodotion version rather than the Septuagint version (here called "the Seventy") specifically because it was the decision of the churches to read form that version, and because Jerome follows the judgment of the Church. He also clarifies that he is simply repeating the sayings and arguments of Jews who were his contemporary rather than saying these things against certain "apocryphal" books himself. When Jerome speaks of things "not included in the canon" or as being "apocryphal", I believe due to what he has said here that he is referring to the "Hebrew canon" *NOT* the Catholic canon. In any case, it is not the Church that is approved because of what Jerome has said in the Vulgate, but Jerome and the Vulgate that are approved because of what the Church has said since the beginning and on multiple occassions, in the Council of Rome in 382 AD, the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, the Council of Carthage in 419 AD, Council of Florence in 1442 AD, all in which the Catholic canon was affirmed, and the Council of Trent in 1546 AD in which the canon was reaffirmed and the Vulgate was affirmed as the Catholic Church's official Latin bible. Following Jerome's example (who was a priest and is a saint of the Catholic Church), we should defer to the judgment of the Church.
Please pray for my sister Alexis Gallo. Who has been battling a severe digestive disease. Her intestines are paralyzed. I pray that Jesus will revive her intestines and heal her. She is the most wonderful sister and person ever. I pray that a holy person will see this and pray for my sister.
The Orthodox use the same formal canon as Catholics during the liturgy. However, their Bibles contain the general canon as proposed by the Antiochian church.
The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, "not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human writings." The British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications and labeled these books "apocryphal." However, many Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, "King James version with Apocrypha." The Council of Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed that these books were to be treated "with equal devotion and reverence." The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Nice... Its funny how i just saw the BIBLE PROJECT wich i love but how they said on one of there videos that CATHOLICS are the ones who added the extra books and protestant are the ones who wanted the ORIGINAL christan Canon. This video has really good info amd key points.....
Yes, nobody can watch this video and understand the historical information and preach with the Bible project actually said. I would say shame on them, but it's just sad. If you're interested, you can wash the 1-hour version of this video that we have as well.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial nice... Thank you... And i will donate on FRIDAY for your mission... God BLESS.... Im also buying that book you recommend on your other video's. The one debunking other Christian when they attack the CATHOLIC faith... 👍🏻🙏🏻
It amazes me when you go to Barnes and Noble or Books-a-Million how many truly crappy Bible editions there out there being sold. And apparently people are buying them because they are always in the shelves.
I buy my Catholic Books and Bible’s from Amazon or Catholic Christian Store’s, however those stores also sell some Catholic Bible’s and Books as well lol 😂
Good day! May I know what is the truth? How do we get saved? And can we be enlightened about religious statues and relics and images? Do we need them to be saved? Thank you!
We don't need religious statues or relics or images to be saved. They can serve other purposes, but they are not for salvation specifically. But here is how to be saved according to scripture and ancient Christianity. We are sinners who have sinned against God. Our sin separates us from God. We can't save ourselves or earn salvation. It's a free gift of God. Jesus came to save us by dying on the cross and shedding his body and blood for us, to redeem us, and reconcile us back to God. This saving grace of Jesus is offered to us freely, and we are saved by grace alone (Acts 15:11). We must turn away from our sins and repent (Acts 2:38), believe completely in Jesus (faith), and be baptized (Jn 3:5. Mk. 16:16, Acts. 2:38). Finally we must live out that faith and live for Christ in obedience and following the commandments. (Mt. 28:19, Mt. 19:16-22, Lk. 6:46, Jn. 14:15, etc). Good works dont save us and cant save us but are necessary for a true faith to save. So, if we have faith, lice out that faith bear good fruit, follow the Commandments and stay faithful to the end, we will be saved eternally. (Mt. 24:11-13, Rev. 2:4-7, 10, 19-26, Rom. 11:16-22). This is all by His grace, not of ourselves.
Jesus is Truth and all that He teaches iro faith and morals through His One Holy Church Matt 16 18-19 Statues, relics and images are not required but they serve to remind us of our beliefs as photos of family remind us of our loved ones. Don’t believe the false accusations by Protestants who don’t understand worship as they don’t have sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, hence no church
I am Lutheran and I accept the "Apocrypha". For me, the hardest book in the Bible to take seriously is Revelation (a.k.a. Apocalype) in the N.T. It just seems so borderline fake, but I take the authority of the truly Oecumenical Councils and of the ancient Fathers of the Church, whose writings eventually authorise Revelation, so I accept the Apocalypse even if I do not really feel simpatico with it.
Amen. And that's the correct response. Not sure if you know that Luther felt the same and ended up rejecting the Book of Revelation. He didn't consider it inspired (or Hebrews).
It doesn’t matter how much Sola Scriptura is redefined, whether orthodox or liberal, historical or modern, this doctrine has no doctrinal grounds in Scripture nor Church history. The problems are both; the ‘Sola’ and the ‘Scriptura’ parts. If the doctrine Sola Scriptura was right, then the Catholic (and Orthodox) Bible would have supremacy on this Protestant doctrine since the Catholic (Orthodox) canon is bigger, meaning they have more “Scriptura” to validate a robust “Sola” with 73 books; this leaves the Protestant canons as incomplete and insufficient to sustain the doctrine it proposes “sola scriptura”; a depleted version based only on 66 books. If you are going to go “Sola”, go with the most books, that is, a Bible canon with the most, not less, books. It follows logically. But, this refutes the reformation and those who adhere to a lesser canon. Since there cannot be two distinct versions of Sola Scriptura, because this would ontologically refute this doctrine, then it is logical to conclude that if Sola Scriptura was true, then it necessarily follows that the Catholic (and Orthodox) canon would constitute the “Scripture” aspect of Sola Scriptura. The Protestant canon is obsolete by the Sola, which calls for only one cannon to base itself. But, that’s only theoretical if Sola Scriptura was true. Why not consider a better reformation proposal: Base Sola Scriptura on the complete Catholic canon of Scripture; 73 books? However, the written testimony of the New Testament (which is The Lord’s Supper) came from a pre-existing Apostolic Church that already preached and lived The New Testament. Church and Scripture are inseparable; the issue of closed or open canon are not as relevant as who holds authority “to bind and lose”. Hence Scripture, as canonized and guarded by this same Church, is intrinsic to the organic identity of this one Church which practiced liturgical worship, Celebration of Lord’s Supper, exercised a pastoral and missionary role, and preaching of the Word. These displays of apostolic life were undoubtedly pre-existing practices to the any written New Testament Word and its later canonization. It is impossible to separate the Apostolic tradition which proclaimed and lived the Word first from the written Word that sprung from its pastoral and doctrinal nature years later. Therefore their is no ecclesiastical nor theological basis for the “Sola” portion of the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura; both aspects are in oppositions and self-refuting. Jimmy Akin wrote a book somewhere along these lines.
Although I'm a Catholic, the argument my Bible is bigger than yours is simplistic argument. The additional seven books although known and read in its time, was not part of the Hebrew cannon which was held in the temple of Jerusalem . There were also other books in the dead sea scrolls that are not in the Catholic cannon. The book of Jude in the new testament makes also references to non canonical books. I'm not trying to defend Protestantism or Catholicism, but the debate has to be objective, balanced and non biased. There is good argument for both Catholic and Protestant positions. There were other books that were removed from the Catholic cannon during one of the the councils of Trent, such as Ezra III and IV, as well as Maccabees III and IV.
It was part of the Septuagint the LXX and was used by Christ and the apostles so much for that nonsense They are in the Septuagint. According to Jewish Encyclopedia, the Septuagint is "The oldest and most important of all the [Bible] versions made by Jews" Ha, so you are saying that Jesus celebrated books that were not of God? He celebrated Hanukkah (1 and 2 Maccabees), He had a bar mitzvah (Baruch). I could go on to list each book, but I'm pretty sure you are too blinded by the lies you have been told to even pay heed to the examples of Jesus believing they are the inspired word of God. if you were to actually look at the Torah you would find all seven of these books to be present. Are you going to deny that Jews celebrate the story of the Maccabees (Hanukkah)? Are you going to continue lying by saying that Jews do not read from the book Baruch at a bar mitzvah? It is you who has been deceived. Prove me wrong if you think you can. No Books were removed at the Council Of Trent they reaffirmed the existing Cannon .
@@iightning2018 The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.
@@iightning2018 The earliest existing list of the Old Testament canon comes from a man named Melito, a bishop of Sardis. In approximately A.D. 170 he wrote the following. When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kingdom, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. This list of Melito is highly instructive. He includes all the books of the present canon except Esther. The reference to the four books of the kingdom would be 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings. Ezra was the common way to refer to Ezra-Nehemiah. Wisdom was merely a fuller description of the Book of Proverbs - not the Apocryphal book by that name. Among ancient writers Proverbs was often called Wisdom. While including all of the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) Melito nowhere mentions any of the books of the Apocrypha.
@@iightning2018 The Clear Testimony Of Athanasius Toward The Apocrypha In A.D. 367, the great defender of orthodox belief, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter. In this letter he affirmed all the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) as well as all the books of the present New Testament canon. He also mentioned some of the books of the Apocrypha. Of those he said. [They are] not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish instruction in the world of godliness. This is another ancient and powerful testimony that the books of the Apocrypha were not considered to be Holy Scripture.
The Book of Enoch was never part of the Canon of scripture. It was never part of the Bible at all. The church decided that it wasn't inspired scripture.
It depends on what people believe and practice ie baptism Jn 3:5 and Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 are essential but Protestants don’t believe in the real presence. James 2:24 not by faith alone
Dear, believers Bible is a word of Jesus and His Father God, It no denomination words are there, because according to my understanding is name chapters are, The Prophet, Jesus and Almighty God but denomination only published
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Yes, Church is to worship Jesus and Almighty God,under the Holy Bible is what Jesus and Almighty God told not Church members leading and their idealistic in my Holy Bible
@@CatholicTruthOfficial your words are encounter words and guiding to catholic yes, if you catholic it necessary not rightous, Saint Peter not name church after followers name themselves and also follow earth way according to way of Church
@@CatholicTruthOfficial if your leaders no sin in the church its rightious or if your catholic leaders follows , what catholic rules, it may be true because Pope Formouse, Pope John xii also wrong foot but Our Bible is for those who following Jesus and Almighty God
16:30 “We gotta get back to the original church” I agree guys. And have only just stumbled across your show and am really enjoying it. But yea. Back to your quote. I’d suggest you both take a look at the brand of the Jesus movement that survived, separately to Paul’s mammoth adventure and was led by his brother James. There is no claim by that ‘original’ (truly original I’d say) that Paul’s teachings were accurate. In fact there’s hints that they disagreed with Paul and in Effect said ‘you go your way, we’ll go ours’. They also made no claims that Jesus had risen from the dead. But that he had indeed died. Sadly this small sect may have only survived a few hundred years. And in many ways is lost to the world. But I’d say that’s where the original church went, after Jesus was crucified. I’d love to to hear your considered thoughts on what I’ve said. Cheers. And thanks again for the show. (I’m a former Seventh-day Adventist. And so I found the two programs you did on that religion fabulous. By for now.
The Catholic Church did allow The Bible in the common language. The Catholic Church had 16 versions of scripture in German before Martin Luther ever made his first one. The Catholic Church also had them in French, Spanish, Italian, Slovak, Greek, and other languages. So I'm not sure who you heard that from, but it's incorrect.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I did not hear of the German Bible that the RCC allowed, but in another side of the topic the RCC burned the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles.
They burned Tyndales bibles because they had up to 30 errors per page. It was a hack job of the Word of God. The Catholic Church only employed the highest people with the best credentials so the word of God could stay pristine and pure. But hack job versions were burnt. There's a reason why nobody even uses them today. And for the record, protestants burned each other's bibles too.
I just don’t understand why Catholics have so many rituals and using Mary and the saints to intercede, and purgatory. When none of that stuff is in the Bible can someone please explain
@@kepagel since I posted this comment, the Holy Spirit has led me to the Catholic Church I have been attending mass whenever I can. I also bought a duay rhemies bible. I want to start the process of becoming a member of the church. I never thought in a million years I would become catholic! But after doing the research and finding out about Martin Luther, how he took out books of the bible, added words to the scripture and took scripture awa, not to mention some of the terrible things he’s done. And the fact the church has been around since Christ. really changed my perspective. It’s crazy how God opened up my eyes to John 6 and the Eucharist. God bless you!
@@nathanoppy Jesus established and lead his Church to all truth. That truth includes all the things and more that you asked. All of “that stuff” you say isn’t in the Bible is in the Bible. Jesus clearly established the Biblical Church which became known as the Way, then it grew and matured so by at least 107AD it became known as Catholic. And it’s still known as the Catholic Church for 2,000 years now. Those are the Biblical and historical facts. God bless you.
This question is exactly the problem of sola scritura. "Why so many rituals?" - Do you really want to water-down the worship to the creator of this Universe? Rock bands, even if it has christian lyrics is not worship, it's abomination.
That's a possibility, but Gary probably already made one on his RUclips channel. Check it out in the description section. He know the answer to that as well.
Next video: "Why are Catholic Apologists Bigger (and Brighter)" ? :-) I have loved Gary Michuta's work since I first came across it. I see his name in the vid description, I click on the vid.
As a Protestant who is a Reformed Christian, I am reviewing the video and will be explaining points about the errors made here shortly. I have currently taken notes through over 16 minutes of the video and already have plenty of material to demonstrate that these two men are in error. Just like in the RC Sproul video, I'm not posting here because I believe I'm important or something. But I do believe that these highly intoxicating videos need some sobering. God bless.
@@walcuppernell2931 Thank you Wal Cuppernell for the interest. I would like to begin my post here by saying that at about 16:00 Mercier states that he doesn't hate Protestants and that he loves them. This is to be appreciated. I likewise feel the same way towards Roman Catholics who are my friends, family, and otherwise. With that said, I will begin refuting some points from this video. Around 6:22, Michuta says, "Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that he [Jerome] was wrong." If what Michuta means here is that Jerome is wrong because we found some of the disputed books in Hebrew within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), then the DSS prove too much. There were a number of Biblical and unbiblical books found in the caves of Qumran. For example, we don't accept Jubilees, the Book of Noah, or the Book of Giants as canonical, even though they were found in the DSS. At 8:35, Mercier and Michuta begin claiming that the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage agree with the canons of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. This is not correct. First off, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have differences between their respective canons. Secondly, these three councils exclude Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch chapter 6). So even the Council of Trent's canon was different than these councils, and therefore modern Roman Catholic Bibles have a different canon than these councils. Next, I would like to skip ahead to 16:22 (even though there is plenty to go over up to this point) where Mercier says, "All the Bibles had them [the seven books] for over 1100 years, had them until they were relegated in, had them for over 1500 years till they were removed. I mean, something's amuck here." I agree that there is something amuck here, but it's not what Mercier thinks. Back when Jerome translated and wrote the majority of the Vulgate, he didn't accept the books known as the Deutero-canon, but he still translated them anyways; with the exception of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch chapter 6). Jerome never translated those two works, and they weren't included in most copies of the Bible until the 9th century, and even then, it took a long time before a large quantity of Bibles included the works. Therefore, Mercier's argument is invalid, and the fact that Michuta never called him out on this throughout the entire video is shocking. At 17:41 Michuta says, "If you reject those councils, then how do you determine which books belong and which ones don't?" First, Michuta doesn't accept the canon list that these councils declared either. Secondly, man doesn't declare canon, we only recognize canon. God is the author, so He determines what is and isn't canon, not man. Third, these were regional councils and even under Roman Catholic understanding, they are not binding on our souls and therefore anybody can question them for any reason at all. These are not considered infallible councils by anybody, so Michuta is giving these councils more authority then what should be given to them. At 18:54 Michuta claims that the Deutero-canon is used in the New Testament as authoritative Scripture without giving any examples, let alone "clear" examples. This is sadly the pattern of the majority of this video. It's a rah-rah video made to make Roman Catholics happy. Very little to no substance is looked at in this portion. The quote mentioned in 21:41 is from RC Sproul. At 21:50 Michuta says "How do you know that they're infallible?" This is a good question, but it's a bad question for Roman Catholics because this question can be turned around and aimed at Roman Catholicism. Either person will have to start demonstrating their position based on evidence if they wish to convince the other person. Simply making the assertion over and over again that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded doesn't prove anything. It's only an assertion, and one that cannot be proven. At 22:26 Michuta makes the assertion that the Rabbinic Jews excluded the Deutero-canon around the year 100-132AD without giving any evidence. Admittedly, I haven't read his book, so he may go over some evidence there, but I am not aware of any evidence of any Jewish groups having the same and identical Old Testament canon as the RCC. I once read an article by Jimmy Akin where he made the claim that Ethiopian Jews have the same canon as the Roman Catholic Church, but that isn't true either. There were and have been many different groups of Jews throughout history, but we have no evidence that any of them held to the same canon as the Roman Catholic Church, but we do have evidence that they held to the same canon that Protestants hold. The Jews after all "were entrusted with the oracles of God" as stated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:2. If you can't demonstrate any positive evidence for the Jewish acceptance of the same Roman Catholic canon as today, then the case cannot be made. Anyways, I can go over more if someone would like. Life, work, and time prevent me from going over every single thing that I disagreed with in this video, but I can visit more later. I have plenty of notes for that. Anyways, I hope this is a beginning for many people. God Bless.
@@zipper778 I have question on your statement: "man does not declare canon, we only recognize canon". How did you recognize canon, i.e what are the criteria? There is no single verse in the Bible that tells us how many and which books belong to Scripture. For your information, Jewish Talmud, composed after destruction of their Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, quoted Sirach as one book of the Writings (the third part of Jewish Scripture or Tanakh) or as Scripture.
@@justfromcatholic I'm sorry that it took so long to reply. Life is very busy for me right now. Here is my response to you. "How did you recognize canon, i.e what are the criteria?" There are a number of things that we can look at in order to recognize what books are canonical, and which ones aren't. To look at just a few things, we should start with the witness of Scripture first. In Luke 11:51, Jesus references "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah". The blood of Abel is a reference to the book of Genesis, and the blood of Zechariah is a reference to 2 Chronicles. That doesn't mean much to those who know the order of the Christian Old Testament, but it does to those who know the book order of the Jewish Tanakh. The Tanakh is arranged from Genesis to 2 Chronicles and contains all of the same books as the Protestant Old Testament, only they are arranged in a different order. Also, Romans 3:2 explains that the Jews "were entrusted with the oracles of God." If the Jews were entrusted with the Word of God up until the time of Christ, we would be wise to listen to them. Next thing to think about is, how did the Jews know what was Sacred Scripture before the time of Christ? They never had a single authoritative structure that determined what was and was not Scripture, yet they never argued with Jesus about it. Besides, the Jews recognized a different canon than what was eventually determined by the RCC in the 4th session of the Council of Trent on April 8 1546. So even if it could be established that the Jews had some sort of human authority, it would still be contradictory to the RCC. Like I said before, God determines what the canon is. Man can only recognize what the canon is that God left for us. Simply because there are disagreements over this topic does not mean that we can never recognize what the canon is. If disagreement over something is all that it takes to render something invalid, then we would have absolutely no doctrine at all because every doctrine has disagreements. It has been said that the canon is an artifact of revelation. God made some books infallible, yet there exists many books that are not infallible. He did not make an infallible table of contents. The table of contents come naturally from the Sacred Scriptures not the other way around. "For your information, Jewish Talmud...quoted Sirach as one book of the Writings (the third part of Jewish Scripture or Tanakh) or as Scripture." Thank you for bringing this up. The Talmud itself appears to be inconsistent on the topic of the canonicity of Sirach. Sirach is definitely held in high esteem by the Talmud and many Jews throughout history, but ultimately the Talmud does not list Sirach as one of the books that make hands unclean (thus it is not viewed as Scripture). Regardless, this is the best example of an apocryphal book possibly being accepted by the Jews. All the other apocryphal books simply don't come close. There is no evidence that the Jews held to the same canon as the RCC. So even though we have a couple of odd quotes from the Talmud, this isn't evidence that the Jews accepted the same Old Testament canon as the RCC.
The orthodox Church have more books than both Catholics and Protestants. I personally prefer to have the extra books. That way I have the option to read them or not.
Thank you for the comment. The Catholic Church authoritatively made the canon of the Bible in 397 A.D. So adding to the Bible or taking away from it is equally problematic.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial If I'm not mistaken I believe that the eastern orthodox church's Old Testament was based upon the Greek Septuagint which I think was already firmly established before Pentecost. So it's not that the orthodox just added books but rather they implemented the Greek septuagint for it's Old Testament. But regardless of whether you agree with their canon of Scripture, it still has the full Catholic and Protestant canon.
@@Jordan-1999 The first Orthodox Christians were once Catholics after 397 AD. They agreed with the Catholics' Canon of scripture, until they didn't do so anymore.
The Catholic Church also used to the Greek Septuagint. And the cannon was already fixed by the time the Orthodox came around. But yes, it still has all of the books the Catholic Church originally chose while the Protestant ones do not.
You guys believe all non catholics are not saved or not going to heaven, but the pope condemn catholics to try to convert others to catholic. Why don't he want others to go to heaven? I really don't understand.
That’s not what the church teaches. We do not condemn people to Hell and we do believe many Christians of other traditions do know Christ and will be saved.
The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. What needs to be in it and the right to interpret.. Belongs to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church alone. Without the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.. The Bible is nothing more than another book. There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church
Hebrew 11:35 ? It was explained in Hebrew 11:39, after the resurrec tion they died again bec.of the sting of death,a better resurrection is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 KJV
Before watching this video the answer is there already. Obviously the catholic. No one can tell otherwise, knowing that the the protestants came 1500 years later and guess what, the bible was already there. So this is easier than 1+1=2.
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist "....I’m a Christian and Christians were called “Nazarenes” and “the way” ..." The name means absolutely nothing if it has NO CONNECTION with the original Church Christ intended. I could start an atheist sect called 'The Way' and then claim to be the original church. "...Read Acts of the Apostles the first Christian church in the book of Acts...." by all means do read it and find the hallmarks of the early christian communities and see if you are in that Church. The communities were founded by the Apostles; was yours?? These communities were led by the Apostles or those only they appointed (ie. Paul -Timothy, John-Ireaneus, Peter-Clement, etc.). This is called Apostolic Succession and if your community cannot establish this connection; then it is not the Church Jesus intended. According to the surviving writings of these Apostles/Successors they met on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist led by an Apostle or their APPOINTED successors ONLY; and they believed in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic Faith today: does your sect do this???? Name means NOTHING; it is the hallmarks and history and faithfulness to the original community which makes you part of the Church founded by Jesus. You will ONLY find those in the Catholic Faith and those in communion with it. Other than that your claim to be more 'authenticate' than the Catholic Faith is bogus, hollow, without merit, or anything of substance to back it up. You are as much outside of and a 'protester' of the True Church intended by Jesus as any of the other 40,000 plus since Luther to make that exact same claim.
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist "....And the start of the Catholic Church was by a Pagan Constantine At the Count of Nicaea..." This is an absolute myth propagated only by those uneducated in history, especially the history of the Church. There isn't a single HONEST historian or even truth-seeking protestant that would dare try and use this myth to bolster their claims today. You only find this shouted out in emotion driven fundamentalist sects/cults to create a feverish frenzy and stir hatred against the Church of Jesus. Do yourself a favor and stop listening to whoever told you this; go to a credible Library and seek the actual truth before spreading more lies.
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist Hi Jasmin, please dismiss this whole lie about the start of the Catholic church by a pagan Constantine (old trick by Luther and Calvin). The first mention of the catholic church was in a letter by Ignatius of Antioch in 107AD to the christians in Smyrnea (modern day Izmir in Turkey). Catholic means universal and was meant not only for the jews, but also for the gentiles. In other words, for the whole world. At the counsel of Nicea catholics set straight the divinity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism and yes, Constantine started the process of acceptancing of the Catholic church as the official religion of Rome. Other misconseption is calling oneself christian and calling us catholics. Christian is a generic name for everybody who follows Jesus as Lord and God (second person of the Trinity). So, we catholics are christians. The question is: which denomination are you? You'll be surprised to know that there is a 99% chance that you're protestant. That the word "Pope" is never mentioned in the word of God (Bible) is true. The same goes for the words "Bible" and "Trinity". What you're saying is that if it's not in the bible, it's not true (sola scriptura is a protestant doctrine). You'd have had a big problem saying that before 382AD, so it doesn't make sense. The title Pope came later and it means father. Now we refer to the head of the roman catholic church as the pope. But this same pope can be traced back to St.Peter who Jesus HImself pointed as the first head of the church, thus the Pope. Every bishop in the catholic church can be traced back to a apostle, which makes the Catholic church an apostolic church. Celibacy came later on in history and Peter's marriage is a discussion as well. Jesus being the only mediator between God and men: totally agree!
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist "....Your speaking from emotion because you aren’t filled with the Holy Spirit. ..." God gave us the light of reason so we would not be led easily by our emotions which via concupiscence is the greater tempter. What I gave you is a reasoned response based on historical facts and a correct reading of Holy Scripture. What you gave is wishful thinking and a dishonest fabricated history to try and soothe your own conscience in your false sect. The Constantine myth is just that; a total myth (fancy term for LIE). Jesus has only ONE Church; and the bible clearly lays out the elements of that Church. The false worship you are part of now don't have those elements in it. There is only one Christian Church and that is the Catholic Church. There are people who have been validly baptized (thus Christians) who reject being part of the Church and meet in groups elsewhere to practice their own man-made form of Church. That is where you are. That is not emotion. That is facts. Emotion is what is keeping you from seeing that and acting accordingly.
Old another Constantine myth comment. The Catholic church was started by Jesus and is the only one that can trace its history and leaders back to the time of Jesus. Second, Constantine did not start the Catholic Church. This is a historical myth. If Constantine started the Catholic church, then how did Pope Dionysus exist, and how was he writing to Heretics in the year 250? And how did irenaeus Catholic Bishop of Lyon exists and was writing a century earlier than that? I could name countless Catholics that existed including over 30 Pope's that existed before Constantine was even born. All one needs to do is look in an encyclopedia under P to see that there were over 30 popes before Constantine existed. We have their writings. And I'd be happy to quote them for you. But whoever has been feeding you your history lesson, you need a new reliable source.
God entrusted the Jews with His oracles (Romans 3:1-2). The Protestant OT bible matches the Jewish OT bible but is numbered differently. The Jews never approved of the apocrypha books as canon,
Thew Jews did not have a closed canon, and they did not close it until _after_ Jesus died and rose. Almost 100 years after, by which time they had no authority. So, Protestants are going according to a group that rejected the Messiah and had zero authority. Where Jesus started the Catholic church and that same church put the authoritatively canonized the Bible.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial have you ever read "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church" by Roger Beckwith? He gives convincing historical & NT evidence that the Jews did indeed have a closed canon. Otherwise, Jesus could not have held the Jews accountable for knowing what the canon was when He asked them, "Have you not read?" The apostle Paul's comment about the JEWS (not a particular sect of the Jews) being entrusted with the oracles of God (ie: the OT Scriptures)(Romans 3:2) would not make sense if there was no set canon by the time of Jesus. The belief there were different Jewish canons doesn't take place until the time of Origen (early 3rd Century AD). He assumed (incorrectly) that Sadducees embraced only the 5 books of Moses, due to 2nd Century AD literature which conflated Sadducees with Samaritans - the latter only embracing the 5 books of Moses. His assumption was later adopted by Epiphanius in the 4th Century, and then passed down throughout Catholic church history, down to the present day. But there is evidence prior to the time of Christ that different Jewish sects embraced different canons. And we know what the canon included, since Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50-51; 16:14,29), which is identical to Protestant OTs (source: Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, senior apologist). So, how would you like to have a discussion about this on your RUclips channel?
Brian, around 21:00 you said there were "hundreds of books to sift through". That's not an accurate claim and so we should avoid it. That claim gives the impression the Catholic Church literally invented the Bible centuries after the Apostles, as if the Pope went in a library in 370AD and sifted through a random pile and picking some while rejecting others. Rather, from the very beginning, each Apostolic congregation had gathered together the books of the Bible and passed down ("Tradition") their collections to the next generations of their congregations. There was no random pile. During that time, a FEW books were found among some collections and there was legitimate question as to whether they were fullly Scripture or rather good Christian writings. So one of those FEW (not hundreds) was 1Clement, written by an early Pope that traveled with St Paul. If I lived back then and 1Clement arrived in Corinth shortly after Paul's 2nd Corinthians, then I would assume 1Clement had some significant authority/inspiration. So 1Clement could be legitimately passed down alongside the inspired books and even read during Mass, and only later on need clarification that it's just a very holy epistle but not technically Scripture. There were no heretical or random books among the early collections, much less hundreds.
Perhaps hundreds is too many. But there were far more, not just a few, and the ones in the Bible today. They were over 80 Gospels written that were claiming to be inspired. Far more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And that's just Gospels. That's not including Epistles and Letters. The earliest Christians had some idea as to inspired books, but did not know or have an idea fully of what Scripture was. There were several different Canons floating around and they all disagreed with each other. But it was the Catholic Church who gathered the existing manuscripts, more than we have in our Bible now, and not just a few extra, and it was the Church who decided which ones were and we're not inspired. Thanks for the comment.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial" catholic truth"? 🤭👎❌ liar! The bible existed already long before the the catholic Church existence the first 50 copies of the bible was commissioned by Eusebius in Rome in AD 331,this is fact. Jerome only copied the Latin vulgate in AD 382-AD 400 😄 ,what happened to the questions I'm asking you In your other Vblogs 🤭😁 You haven't answer until now It's been almost two months, As expected a chicken run 🤭😁 bec.u could not find any biblical proof to back it up.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial why are you so afraid to answer ? The way it looks you could handle the questions .that is why 😊 And by the way you're guilty ,ived wrote 5 more comments here ,however you're so afraid that others might read it, don't worry I repost n repost 🤭😁
Well I 'm from north India I am hindu but I believe in jesus but why you are worship virgin Mary the bible not say worship Mary but worship God because Mary is woman
I would love to have you as a guest on my podcast. I too deny the validity of protestant denominationalism. But I also deny the validity of Roman Catholicism. I know you can trace catholicism back to the New Testament but I think we would come to very different New Testament teachings as the origin of catholicism. I have many Catholic viewers that comment regularly on my videos. I know they would appreciate your participation. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
I thank God every day for being delivered from the pagan Catholic Church, and into the loving arms of Jesus Christ, the only mediator between man and God. Perhaps if you spend more time reading the Bible, and less time believing all your man-made rituals, you would see how deceived you have been. Follow God in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the traditions of men
Thank you for your comment. We will pray for you and your confusion over the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church officially teaches that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. So what is your problem? It seems you have some misunderstandings about the faith you left. Jesus started the Catholic church, so by leaving his church which is his body you are also leaving him. We will pray for you sister. And by the way, how long have you been studying the Bible? The Catholic church has studied it for 2,000 years now. So do you really think you know more than the Catholic Church? It was the authority of the Catholic church that put the Bible together in the first place and shows which books would belong in it and which ones would not. And it was a Catholic Church alone who copied it and translated it for over a thousand years so the world's going to have the Bible. Thank God for the Catholic Church!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial wow… You don’t even know anything about your own religion let alone about the Bible. Mary is definitely taught to be a mediator between men and Jesus and God, and so are the Saints, that’s why you pray to them LOL. In fact they even use the word mediatrix. Perhaps you should study the history of the Roman catholic church… Which you obviously have not, and just believe all the doctrine that you’re taught. Your aunti-pope even said you can’t have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the only way to Jesus is through Mary. He said that‼️ you should actually study the Bible… Everything you are taught is virtually the opposite of what is in the Bible. You just don’t know that because you only listen to your Catholic doctrine, which is lying to you plain and simple. The Catholic Church is about 10% or less Christianity, and the rest is a mixture between paganism, and completely made up. And that is history. It’s in the books. And I beg to differ… Jesus started Christianity, and Constantine turned it into paganism. Look it up for yourself. And I will pray for you🙏
@@gloriastreet4684 Miss your history is just wrong, how could you go off the Christian Bible when it was composed by the Catholic Church? Not only that, but Constantine never introduced paganism to the Christian church, he made Christianity tolerable so that Christians weren’t fed to the lions for practicing their faith. Not only that, but if Constantine actually did create the Catholic Church by adding paganism to the original Christian church, then would Jesus be wrong because He Himself said the gates of Hell will not overcome His church. Also what about the parallels between the Church before Constantine and the church after, where practically nothing changed? And still not just that but why was the Catholic/Orthodox Church the one around up till the 1500s when Protestants broke off from the Church, and yet you still confess the church that came about way later in history is the correct church even though it hadn’t existed before the 1500s. As you can see there are just so many holes in the Protestant theology, it’s evident that it is not the correct ideology. Hey and if you want a book that is entirely composed of letters from Saints BEFORE the time of Constantine, I recommend “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William A Jurgens. Literally fully composed of letters from saints that show the parallels to the Catholic/orthodox churches, and most of the letters are from before the time of Constantine.
@@xander4043 blah blah blah more Catholic doctrine LOL. And I do not have history wrong you do. The Catholic Church is completely false doctrine. Everybody in the world knows it except you guys. You have been brainwashed, and I know, because I used to be one of you. And I just think God every day that I’m not anymore. All I have to do to get to heaven is to do with Jesus said. You guys have to do the hokey pokey, jump through a bunch of hoops, turn around three times after midnight and throw salt over your shoulders LOL.(I hope you realize I’m joking) but that’s just about how bad it is. And the best part of it is I don’t have to burn in purgatory. Yay‼️ Faith in Jesus Christ alone will completely cleanse me of my sins, I won’t still be dirty when I die like you will. And there’s no such thing as a saint… That’s another invention of the Catholic Church. Just one more thing for you to make statues of and pray to, and hang around your neck‘s... Pagan talismans. And no the church of Jesus Christ did not come along way later in history, it came at the time he was still walking the earth‼️ you don’t even make any sense. And it’s exactly the same now… No changes… What he taught , we believe. It’s called Christianity. Not Catholic, not protestant, not Lutheran, not Presbyterian, not Jehovah’s Witness not Mormon… Christianity‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️ The same thing Jesus talk to thousand years ago is what we teach now, nothing added, nothing taken away, nothing made up. Exactly the way it tells us to do in the Bible. Just go pray to some statues, and some other dead people. I’ll pray to Jesus thank you.
@@gloriastreet4684 Miss saying you’re not Protestant and then holding true to the beliefs of Protestantism is just contradictory. And you still cling to your Bible NT even though the Catholic Church decided that canon, and then you reject the Biblical OT decided at the same Catholic council-it doesn’t make any sense. There is a distinct lack of historical context in your response, I appreciate your sense of humor but it’s not going to be enough to became Protestant. When did the Catholic Church create saints as you claim? And this is the biggest thing, show me historical documents that prove the early Christians were most similar to Protestantism. Miss I have the letters, letters before the time of Constantine that show a direct parallel to the Catholic/orthodox churches. I can show you them if you’d like, they clearly reflect an orderly church with bishops, presbyters, and deacons and the material that they show matches up most closely to the Catholic/orthodox churches, not to the Protestant churches. It also doesn’t make any sense to say that the early church were Protestants, because that’s essentially what you are saying even though their whole ideology came about in the Middle Ages. If you were to read The Faith of the Early Fathers you would see historical affirmation of Catholicism. There’s a RUclipsr named Blue Collar Catholic, he was an evangelical (non-denominational Christian Protestant, like you) who became Catholic. You can go watch his testimonies and videos on Protestants and Catholics.
Welll.as a person who believes that Christ is The Son of God who died for me.....send me a copy of the texts ...not something thats been translated yet....and let me read them for myself...with todays technology it has to be pssible for the oldest original copies of anything the vatican has...and let me se for myself
Hear The truth Himself, all you catholics and protestants, starting with you catholics, also called mother. From His Volumes of Truth, the trumpet call of God, the Word of the Lord spoken to this generation "Thus says The Lord: Beware, O peoples of the church called mother. For she is a harlot, a false way, a deceitful house filled with both great and subtle deceptions. Be wary, rouse yourselves from this heavy sleep, and look upon the fruit of your doings. For you have been greatly misled, caught up in a faith which is dead; there is no life in it! For as it was written by My servant, so in like manner I now plead with you: Depart from the way of evil, from the man who speaks perverse things, from those who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perversity of the pagan, whose ways are crooked and who are devious in their paths. Be delivered from the adulterous woman, from the seductress who flatters with her words, who forsakes the husband of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God. For her house is sinking down to death, and all her paths lead to the dead. Therefore thus says The Lord God, The Holy One of Israel, to all who have ears to hear: This unholy church of men is a harlot! From the beginning she has been a whore! Yet she would have all believe she is a queen, even the true church and mother. Indeed, she has bore many sons and daughters, daughters who yet bear her likeness; and many sons who shall go to perdition, false fathers and priests, who by their own authority take to themselves proselytes, who they then make twice as fit for destruction as themselves! Behold, deception is hidden within deception, as she continues to build up her sins toward Heaven. For I tell you a mystery filled with corruption, Abuse of power and contemptible ways: This church of men is like the woman who rides the beast; She is clothed with purple and scarlet, enticing the People to commit fornication with her... Yet to her own, she is a queen who sits upon My throne and has taken to herself My authority, Perverting My Word and changing My Commandments As she appoints kings and princes in her own name, Each with names of blasphemy upon their heads, So-called holy fathers who shall go into perdition with her... And yet to those against her, she is the beast. Yet I tell you the truth, all are deceived. For her power and authority come from the beast, which atop she sits. For she has many names of blasphemy, and all her works are an abomination before The Lord. She is indeed a harlot, and her adulteries are many. Behold, she is also like the great whore who sits upon many waters, who has corrupted the earth with her fornications. And like the false prophet she spews perverse and bitter doctrine, leading many into false worship, even to the committing of fornication with the pagan and the heathen by all her filthy traditions! And like the beast, she has shed the blood of My servants throughout her generations, and has not ceased from opening her mouth to speak great things and blasphemies with a practiced and lying tongue, by which she has deceived many. Therefore, I must take My people out of her! Behold, I shall snatch them from her very breast! For she is also like Babylon, adorning herself with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornications. Thus says The Lord to the deceptive harlot, to the mother of all fornications: Woe, I say to you! Even three times, woe! For the atheist shall have it far better than you, when the wrath of the great and dreadful God has come! For when they seek forgiveness, they shall surely find it. Yet woe to you who blaspheme The Spirit; from you forgiveness has fled away! Behold, destruction waits for you as you continue to tread the wide path! For you believe yourself to be a glorious vine, yet your roots are full of rottenness, a vine of deceit with many tendrils spreading forth abomination! Behold, you see yourself as a sovereign nation, as the mother church, universal, and yet you willingly go into captivity and hold fast in your rebellion! Therefore, I shall make you a desolation and an astonishment, an object of horror and hissing; I shall strip you bare! And behold, you shall become an island, a most desolate place amidst the nations. No more shall anyone draw near to you, nor shall any attempt to pass through. For all shall keep their distance for fear of your punishment. Every traveler shall go roundabout, horrified at the smoke of your burning. For thus says The Lord: I have set you apart for judgment! I have separated you out for death, for sorrow and for famine, until the fire of My wrath consumes you! For you have caused My beloved to depart from Me; you have turned them aside from The Way! You have caused them to trust in fables and to put their hope in lies and false visions, in worthless things! The Truth is not in you, and from The Life you are far removed! You have pierced My heart with a hot iron! You have battered and bruised Me, and torn My flesh! My sadness fills the heavens like the unending blackness, My tears cover the earth like the oceans, because of you! My anger wells up within Me like a raging fire, on account of all these you have persecuted and murdered throughout your generations! Indeed, the cup of My indignation overflows, on account of all you have done and are about to do, says The Lord. And still I sent to you many in My own name, that you might be saved from yourself. Yet you rejected them all, beating some and killing others, casting them out in your pompous rage. You will not turn, and so The Father has declared your end. WOE TO THE CHURCH CALLED MOTHER! WOE TO YOU AND YOUR APPOINTED LEADERS! WOE TO YOU AND ALL YOUR “HOLY FATHERS”!... WOE TO THE CHURCH CALLED ROMAN AND CATHOLIC! WOE TO THE CHURCH FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES!... For I have prepared a great fire, and behold, it is already kindled, And you, along with all who cleave to you, shall surely be cast into it!... SAYS THE LORD." ~ "Therefore fear, all you who point the finger, and humble yourselves, all you who twist My words for your own gain, lest you be found guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. For the defilement which was written, and remains misinterpreted by men, is not defilement with the daughters of men, but defilement with the churches of men, who remain daughters of the church called mother. For she is a harlot, says The Lord. Thus spiritual purification begins with grace, and is for those whom I have chosen to become virgin in spirit, even a complete cleansing of every aspect of their lives. All men are defiled, having fallen Into all manner of diverse temptations; There is none righteous in all the earth, no, not one... Yet all who repent, in sincerity and in truth, Are cleansed in the blood of The Lamb, Which is pure and holy... Therefore, those whom I have called to be My witnesses Must become pure in heart and in spirit; Set apart from the world and the churches of men, Who cease not from polluting My name And marring My image before the people." Says the Lord, The Father and The Son are One, His name is YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH! Ask yourselves, daughters of the church called mother, why are you her daughters? For the Lord our God is One! Lets sacrifice ourselves daily brothers and sisters, crucify the old man who still drives in the nails on our God! For He loves us.. Thus says the Lord: "And though it greatly pains My heart, A wound which shall last forever, it must be done... For if I do not do this, My people shall never have a name; They shall never dwell in My holy place, they shall never See The Light or know life as it was in the beginning... Until the sanctuary is cleansed, I can not dwell With My people, both with them and in them... Unless I make a full end, there can be no restoration. If I do not complete My task, never again shall I walk with My beloved in the garden, never again shall the little children come to Me and gather around... Open your eyes, cast yourselves down! Let your hearts melt before The Holy Fire, embrace My Purifying Flame! My dying children, you are the last generation, the last of these kingdoms of men! I love you, yet you choose death! You have forsaken Me and forced My hand!"
I would rather agree with Jerome than Augustine as he was illiterate in Hebrew and Greek . I would like Alpha and Omega ministry’s to refute this video . Apocryphal support doctrine not taught by ante Nicean church it’s that simple. The idea of condign merit and congruent merit and indulgence including purgatory utilize the apocryphal books to establish mustard seed doctrine outside of Nicean practice. The words “as it is written “ become compromised by the apocryphal books . Doctrine that compromise the true gospel where additional teachings have been added for salvation,sanctification. When the apocryphal books compromise New Testament gospel with teachings not taught by the apostles or practiced we can only rest on Romanism to validate , this is the issue. An example with reference to purgatory where punishment is due after forgiveness , Maccabees for example contradicts Romans 3 :25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished We see a contradiction in Maccabees in regards new covenant verses old , the word “beforehand unpunished “ above are a classic Illustration. The video is great thank you for running through the various fallacy’s .
LoL We have pilles of evidence from the "ante-nicean" church fathers on those matters. Prayers for the dead etc... The canons of Nicea talks about the "most necessary viaticum" from the departing ones, the church was not protestant...and Alpha and Omega ministries can cry all day long about it. "I would rather agree with Jerome..." The problem is that Jerome believe in many things that you don't believe, so, stop using Jerome, at one moment he is an expert, but at other moments he is totally wrong in all other matters... If you actually read what Jerome wrote in his letters about the subject, you will notice that all his theory is based on the idea that the rabinical text he had acess in the IVth was the "original" text preserved, including the canon organized by the rabbis who handled him those manuscripts he thought to be the original content of the (now, with modern archeology and access to the rabbinical debates, we know that this is not the case). But it was pretty obvious that the apostles didn't quote this supposed "originals", but from the LXX that now scholars agreed that were translated from another textual variant from the hebrew, and after the Dead Sea Scrolls had been found, Jerome's supposition was totally refuted. So, even if he know all those languages, time has proven that Augustine was right on sticking with church tradition.
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão prayers for the dead is from Jewish tradition , look at my list for practice of what I mentioned in my comment. Funny how certain things such as prayers for the dead of which later extended to mass for them too was incorporated when anti semitism can be seen in many church fathers writings 😂
@@andrewdrew677 ....??? What these have to do with the subject?.. whenever.. Things for "salvation" and santification is found in protocanonical Daniel, Proverbs and even in the Gospels itself. Its a problem when you receive a false gospel and start to judging everything else on that fake gospel perspective, in fact, if prots were honest on their objections on the 7 books, they would need to throw out a lot more than seven books...
Andrew, your whole argument from beginning to end is fallacious. There is no contradiction between these passages. You are just presenting strawman arguments as usual.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial did you read Romans 3 brother, can you not conclude punishment being removed from sin in the new covenant? Yes or no You know the doctrine of purgatory re punishment becomes questionable to say the least . Explain how you’ve got around this , proper refute would be great if you’ve the time thanks . Here’s the scripture Romans 3 :25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished Contradictions are the cause of apocryphal books being such as they are un doctrinal to apostolic teaching held in “God breathed”
@@CatholicTruthOfficial My, my, it's all over the web, search it, that's why America is mostly Protestant, and latin America is Roman Catholic and poor because Roman Catholicism is a curse. Repent and come out from the great whore Roman Catholic church and be save.
That's your best answer? This only shows you don't know. The reality is that there is very little difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles other than that Protestant Bibles removed 7 books. So, your argument does not hold up. Please do some real research and don't remain in ignorance my trolling friend. If you want to convince us, use facts, not feelings and claims you can't substantiate.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Best answer? You don't need to be lazy, that's why Protestant exist because of the Roman Catholic Lies, so, do your job, it's all over the Internet why the Roman Catholic bible is FAKE.
@@timkhan3238 you are thinking in your flesh brother , without love we are just a gong . We all suffer because our flesh is strong , the way you illustrating your belief is purely carnal therefore from satan , have charity and understanding towards others who believe in the Father albeit differently to the way you see it . I am no exception to the flesh as it’s just as strong as yours when I ignore the prompting of Holy Spirit , keep your eyes on the Lord.
Let's get this straight. The Bible (the original text) is the Word of God inspired by the God of the Word. It is NOT a Catholic Bible. It is NOT a Protestant Bible. What we all possess is a 'version' a 'translation' of the original. The Catholic version has more books, correct, that is because they 'added' to the scriptures. When are ALL professing Christians going to get back to basics. Reading GOD's word to learn about our Lord Jesus Christ and His wonderful sacrifice to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The Old Testament is composed of Israel's history and their dealing with God, but which are a 'type' of our Lord Jesus Christ and His dealings with His people. In our timescale it is with Christians who are part of the family of God, not members of any church system, including the Roman Catholic system. Christ died to save sinners. He said: I am come, not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. That puts us all on an EVEN KEEL. We are all sinners in the sight of a Holy God. It does not matter what 'religious system' we follow - Christ died to save YOU. Forget trying to prove yourself the most righteous and look to Jesus Christ, the only Saviour for sinners.
Thank you for the troll comment. The reason the Bible is a Catholic book is because she's a church and the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. It was the Catholic Church who put the books in the Bible and chose but which books would be and would not be in Holy Scripture. There was only one Christian Church at that time, the Catholic Church. Protestants would remove those seven books from the word of God in the eighteen hundreds. Those seven books were in the original Bible and all Protestant Bibles including the King James. So if you had watched the video you would know that the Catholic Church didn't add to the Bible but Protestants took away from it.
We agree with you though that everybody needs God. Everybody seems. But with that being said, you're saying that all religious systems are fine. Does that mean the Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? The Church of God? Scientology? They all believe in Jesus too. But Jesus started the Catholic church only. If Jesus started a church, that's the truth we should be part of, not countless man-made denominations.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Never in your wildest imagination did I say that all religious systems are fine. What I said was that no matter what religious system you are in, you can be 'saved' and have your sins forgiven by grace through faith in the finished work and sacrifice of Christ on the cross. For neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name, under Heaven, given amongst men, whereby we must be saved. We are all sinners, no matter where we are. Jesus said: I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Anyone can take their place as a guilty sinner before God and find faith in Christ Jesus for forgiveness and Eternal Life. They may believe about Jesus, even Satan does, but that does not make them the children of God. That requires being born again of the spirit of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit. You show a complete lack of spiritual understanding, not only by the nonsense you believe about the Catholic church being the church which Christ is building. Can you not understand that the Church at Rome was composed of genuine Christians at the start, but ungodly men crept in with their false teaching, bringing a load of corruption and heathen ideas into Christendom, ending up with the mess that you have now in the Roman Catholic system. Do you honestly think that if 'your' church was the one that the Lord Jesus Christ is building, that He would tolerate all the sin and error, corruption and filth that goes on under the cover of being Christian behind closed doors.
This is Nonsense, irrational thinking 🤭"catholic bible"? 😂 Have u Ever asked urself why is it that There is no catholic church mentioned in the bible? 😂👎
@ronaldcatapang5739 The Bible was created by the Catholic Church, so yes it is a Catholic book. It began as a list of texts approved for reading at Mass.
I love being a Catholic!!! The original universal OG Christian. Thank you for sharing.
Could u explain a bit more u seem to have studied this subject
I love being a Catholic.
I’m a non denominational Christian and while I was shopping for a new Bible on Amazon God led me to The Holy Bible RSV Catholic Edition. So I bought it and I’m glad I did, I want to read those 7 books.
Awesome!
Well have a good read of the seven so called missing books. There are some good reasons that denominations do not consider the 7 books scriptural and there are reasons why the roman Catholic church needs them to be there. Wanna cast out a demon ? Tobit 6 tells you how ! You do not find any verse in any other book of the bible to confirm this practice. Wanna clean up your vision Tobit 6 tells you this as well! Wanna believe in praying for the dead? 2 Maccabees 12: select verses given from the roman Catholic church creates their doctrine , but the context tells you a far different story. You do not find anyone else in all of scripture about praying for the dead . No one ever prays, in the new testament , about sinners who reject Christ to attain godliness , but Judas prays for the unrepentant soldiers that God had killed for the sin of idolatry . The roman Catholic church claims to have authority over the scriptures and that concept is just not found in the Lord's church Eph 2:19-22.
@@bobloblawb2593 u speak bullshit
@@bobloblawb2593you misunderstand these verses of Tobit and Maccabees because you have hardness in your heart against truth
@andreeattieh2963 Well extrapolate those verses for all of us so that those of us with hardened hearts against falsehood , and those with open hearts for believing a church group without question over scripture, will finally know the truth?
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
Tobit 6 :5-8 Smoke will rid the demon posseted person??? verse 9 cleansing of the eyes??? If only Jesus and the apostles knew this I bet the new testament would have some changes to it!!
2 Maccabees 12: 42-45
make sure that the context of those verses prove what the cherry picked verses are used to convince you are correct? 2 Maccabee's 12 :1--45
1. who died
2. why did they die?
3. who killed them ?
4.did they repent of their sins before they died ?
5. Was Judas correct in praying for them to attain godliness?
Now look at the new testament and see if you can find any verse that would imply that an " UN-REPENTANT person " can be prayed for after they die and thus attain godliness?
looking forward to your answer.
We pray for the conversion of Protestants and the 7 days Adventist cult!
I love being Catholic. Northeast India🇮🇳🇮🇳
The Catholic Bible is the only version of the bible that is actually true. God bless Bryan
@@danielrutigliano7938 It was compiled by the first clergy in order to dispell heresy that was coming about during early Christendom.
Daniel, yes, the Bible does prove the Catholic church and the Catholic faith. We made a video on that if you're interested. ruclips.net/video/bMIFdiUt0q4/видео.html
@@danielrutigliano7938 Why do we need to read more than the Bible ? The reasons are :
1. The bible us inerrant but our interpretation is not. God only has 1 interpretation as God doesn't double speak. But humans interpret base on our own experiences and understanding. For example I have personally witnessed my Bible Presbyterian classmate argued vigorously with my Charismatic classmate whether the Age of the Holy Spirit has ended with both diametrically opposite sides quoting from the same KJV to support their position. So who is right? Has the age of the HS ended ? Both sides quoted from the same Bible to support their different position.
This is an example why we need an official guide to know what is the true interpretation of the bible.
2. The Apostles and the Early Church Fathers have the correct interpretation. Why ? They were taught personally by Jesus. They ate with Jesus, travelled with Him, heard Him preached and explained, witnessed Jesus and learnt from Him. The Apostles were also guided by the HOLY Spirit when they wrote the scripture. Because they were the writers of scriptures, they knew what they wrote. They knew what the Holy Spirit meant. Their interpretation is the correct interpretation.
The Apostles and their disciples left the correct understanding to the bishops and deacons they ordained and so on and so forth. This correct understanding passed down from one generation of bishops to the next = this is apostolic succession so the correct interpretation is passed on till today in the Catholic Church because every clergy can trace their ordination back to the Apostles.
3. We need to read more than the bible because the Bible says so.
In John 21 :25
Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written
This verse says there are many teachings from Jesus that are not recorded in the bible. These are contained in oral teachings in the Sacred Tradition of the Early Church Fathers as covered in point 2 above. Look at the Road to Emmaus. Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus but so we get a list of what Jesus taught and explained here in the bible ? Scripture didn't say what is the scope and content of what Jesus taught.
Also look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
This verse also teaches the Bible is not the only place of Jesus's teachings. Same from 1 Cor 11:12.
1 Cor 11:12
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you
4. So the full deposit of faith revealed by Jesus is found in the bible and in oral teachings of the Early Church Fathers (the era from AD 33 to AD 400). Oral traditions after AD 400 doesn't count anymore. There is no new revelation after this era.
5. The catechism is only a teaching and interpretation of the entire deposit of faith left by Jesus. Even the Protestant Church has bible study guides.
6. The NT comprised of letters and epistles to various Christian churches addressing various problems and clarification of doctrines. They were not originally written as a instructional teaching guide.
However with the people who directly witnessed Jesus and the Apostles dying off from old age, the Catholic Church in AD 400 filtered through the many letters written to discern and decide which are inspired and which ones are not. So the Catholic Church with its divinely invested authority decided which letters and epistles are really inspired by the HS and are truly the Word of God.
Conclusion
These are the reasons why one needs to read the bible and more.
@@danielrutigliano7938 I sincerely hope you read my comments in its entirely. Your comments show that you probably have not. At least read point 1 to 3.
The Word of God is not just contained in scriptures. And there is also the issue of interpretation. Look at the example I shared between the Bible Presbyterian and Charismatic.
@@danielrutigliano7938 Please look at point 2. Thank you
Thanks for enlightened our mind..Im proud Catholic
Only catholic Bible is true Bible ♥️🙏 Love you from northeast India.
Yes only catholic bible is the true bible
Love from south india
Love from east india
Love the catholic Bible
@@jennernolast6858 first look at yourself. Are you protestant?
@@jennernolast6858 who says Catholic are against scripture? If you're protestant, you are the one, who teaches wrong things but not Catholic. I can I can strongly say that Catholic Church is true church.
@@jennernolast6858
Now that you have anticipated the judgment, Jesus Christ.. does not have to come again
The Catholic Church has the complete full set of Bible AND the true interpretation of the Bible.
Protestants have a reduced Bible and choose to give up 7 books of the Word of God.
This is why the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith due to the complete set of Bible and the correct interpretation as taught by Jesus and the Apostles.
Hahahahaha
@@josueinhan8436
Matthew 7:6, NIV: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs
No wonder I am throwing pearls. Should have abide by Matt 7:6
Would it interest you to know that there was NO New Testament (Christianity) during Jesus' life on earth? In fact, your bible as well as mine states that Jesus' total attention was to the "Lost Sheep of Israel" (Jews) and He instructed the apostles to concentrate on the "Lost Sheep" as well. Your bible does specify that!
@@grdama Of course there is no NT during Jesus's time. Any proper Christian knows this. But how is this related to my earlier comments?
My NT and your NT doesn't show Jesus instructed the Apostles to concentrate on the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus asked the Apostles to instead go and make disciples of all nations Matt 28:19.
In any case how does my earlier comments relate to Jesus's instruction to focus on the lost sheep of Israel or to the whole world ?? Your logic is strange.
You: "Catholic Church has the fullness of faith due to the complete set of Bible and the correct interpretation as taught by Jesus and the Apostles." If, as you stated, everyone knows there was NO NT, what was Jesus and the Apostles supposedly teaching? Your bible must be defective because my bible states clearly: (Matthew 10 5-7) 5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles (future Christians) and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand. No Christianity, strictly Old Testament Jewish law and prophecy. Jesus did NOT teach NT text or give a Christian church (that responsibility was given to Paul to accomplish). You stated strong opinion but a little weak on scripture. Roman Catholics do have a problem determining where Judaism ends and Christianity begins and who did what.
The Book of Tobit is awesome. So powerful. Many New Testament echoes. Jesus was aware of it and drew on it.
How do you know Jesus drew on it?
@@shanebell2514 Hi, friend. Consider these Tobit quotes, and NT echoes:
Tobit 4:7
give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you.
Tobit 4:8
If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have.
Tobit 14:2
And he was eight and fifty years old when he lost his sight, which was restored to him after eight years: ...and he increased in the fear of the Lord God, and praised him.
The NT authors quote from the Septuagint version of the OT about 2/3 - 3/4 of the time and it included the Apocrypha. Early Christians made no distinction between the books of the Apocrypha and the OT.
For example, Justin Martyr quoted from it (including the book names [I.E. Tobit, Wisdom, etc.]) as scripture, as well as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Origen, Cyprian, etc.
Moreover, the early councils that decided the bounds of our Biblical canon included most of the Apocrypha. (Council of Rome Decree of Pope Damasus (382 AD), Council of Hippo Canon 36 (393 AD), Council of Carthage III Canon 47 (397 AD), Council of Carthage IV Canon 24 [419 AD]).
So I say all this simply to suggest that if the first Jewish and Greek Christians (including the apostles) used them as scripture then I am pretty sure it’s a far greater error to ignore them than to hold them in high esteem.
Peace!
@@rhwinner Giving alms does not make it scripture, even the muslims give alms (zakat).
The Jews (who came before the Christians) did not consider tobit to be scripture, they still do not, and it is 2300 years old.
There is a distinction between scripture and apocrapha, apocrapha was not scripture, tobit was never in the official Jewish canon.
Justin martyrs considered pagan Greek philosophers (including plato and socrates) as "unknowing Christians".
@@shanebell2514 hi friend, you are mistaken about the Jews not considering it scripture however. Many Jews in jesus's time considered its scripture. It was only after the Christian era that the Jews sealed their canon. However I respect your point of view. Grace! ❤️🙏♥️
@@rhwinner So only for the last 2000 years the Jews have rejected it? And before then some did some did not accept it? The RC and Orthodox accept it even though it was not written by Christians for the New Testament, only by the Old testament Jews and even then only some accepted it, It hardly qualifies as scripture right?
Have been waiting for this.
More of these revealing historical and biblical facts which can be used to instruct would be welcomed. Thanks.
Thanks for the great interview,
Keep up the great work
Extremely valuable juicy information. Thanks heaps.
Question: Dad, who can explain a book?
Answer: Whoever made it.
Question: Who made the Bible?
In the year 382, at the Council of Rome,
Pope Damasus The First,
screamed out to the world and said, this is the word of God, and the world believed, And the Bible was born with 73 books.
Answer: Son, The Roman Catholic Church made the Bible.
PS. We didn’t add 7 books, we added 27 books which is the whole New Testament, The protestant remove 7 books from the Old Testament
@@jennernolast6858 Who made the Bible, I didn’t say who wrote the Bible, I said who made the Bible, who put all the books together and called it the Bible? I know Jesus didn’t give out Bibles and the Bible didn’t rain down from heaven, as a matter of fact when Jesus rose from the dead the New Testament was not even written. 3 things I need, I need the name of the person who made the Bible, I need the year he made the Bible and I need the place where he made the Bible. In other words I want to see the birth certificate, And if you don’t know, then how can you believe the Bible is the word of God?
@@jennernolast6858 Then who compiled it?
@@jennernolast6858 Are you saying that Luke made the Bible?
@@jennernolast6858 No, I don’t think Luke is a liar.
What I don’t believe is your history.
You said, The Bible was later called The Bible?
Can you prove what you say?
@@jennernolast6858 That’s Impossible!!!
St.Luke die in the year 84 AD
And the book of Revelation was written in the year 95 AD
With all due respect that you deserve,
Nobody would agree with you on this, only the ignorance would
And ignorance is not a bad word,
it means lack of knowledge or information.
I’m ignorant on a lot of things
But not when it comes to religions.
I know how to defend my faith...1 Peter 3:15
Pope Damasus I, presided over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the official list of sacred scripture, The Bible.
Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro is often given credit for first dividing the chapters in the real sense, but it is the arrangement of his contemporary and fellow cardinal Stephen Langton who in 1205 created the chapter divisions which are used today.
Concerning the tendency of many of the post-Christian rabbis rejecting the Deuterocanonical books, there is a glaring inconsistency each year in this regard: To this day, Jews celebrate the Feast of Dedication, Chanukah, which comes from 1 Maccabees, when the Jews, under the Maccabeans, cleansed and re-inaugurated the Jerusalem Temple to the worship of Yahweh. Of course, in modern times, that history seems to be lost, with the focus shifted to simply the miracle of the oil for lighting the menorah.
Furthermore, this raises a question for the Protestants: If Christians are to reject the Deuterocanonical books, why, in the Gospels, do we read of our Lord, the Founder of Christianity and the Head of the Church, participating in the celebration of the Feast of Dedication, which again, has its origins in 1 Maccabees, a Deuterocanonical book?-Compare John 10:22-39.
Good points! In addition, Protestants seem to love to quote the Jews, and yet they claim to go by the Bible alone. They're using an extra biblical source and not going by the Bible. They cannot prove that these 7 books do or do not belong using the Bible alone.
I'm protestant and I believe that those 7 books were wrongly removed. Martin Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the Bible. Anyone wanting to remove The Book of Revelation should be treated with suspicion.
👏
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Fast forward 1 year later and I'm going through RCIA joining the Catholic Church.
I believe that the theory that Jerome himself rejected the books of the bible which were not found in the Hebrew version as "apocryphal" is a false one based on a misunderstanding of Jerome's own words, and here I will present three arguments to support that claim. In summary they are as follows:
1.) Jerome was comissioned to make his translation by Pope Damascus I at the exact time that Pope Damascus I issued the first official biblical canon list in the Council of Rome, and Jerome was himself also secretary to the Pope.
2.) Jerome did not himself believe that certain books contained in the Catholic canon were "apocryphal" but was merely reporting the popular sayings and beliefs held by Jewish non-Christians who were contemporary to him.
3.) Jerome supported and deferred to the authoritative judgments and doctrines of the Catholic Church.
The first argument is simple to prove by a study of history. The canon had already been officially established by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in AD 382 before Jerome had even begun to translate the first word of his Vulgate. This is not the earliest time that the "deuterocanonical" books were included in the bible, as the earlier bibles already contained these works (in fact the earliest bibles we still have, such as the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Aramaic Peshitta, all contained these books). That the Greek Septuagint included all of these books (and some additional ones) has never been in disupute and the Orthodox tradition can still attest to this fact.
The second and third arguments can be proven from reading the following exerpts from an exchange between a critic of Jerome's translation (there were many critics of his translation including Augustine) named Rufinus, and Jerome, where Jerome defends what he says in his preface to Daniel in response to Rufinus' criticisms. I have included here Rufinus' accusations and added *empasis* to Jerome's response for clarity.
Rufinus' Apology, Book II, Ch. 33:
"There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?"
Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Ch. 33:
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was *the opinion upheld by the Jews;* and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in *following the judgment of the churches?* But *when I repeat what the Jews say* against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for *I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us."*
Jerome here defends his choice of choosing to translate the book of Daniel from the Theodotion version rather than the Septuagint version (here called "the Seventy") specifically because it was the decision of the churches to read form that version, and because Jerome follows the judgment of the Church. He also clarifies that he is simply repeating the sayings and arguments of Jews who were his contemporary rather than saying these things against certain "apocryphal" books himself. When Jerome speaks of things "not included in the canon" or as being "apocryphal", I believe due to what he has said here that he is referring to the "Hebrew canon" *NOT* the Catholic canon. In any case, it is not the Church that is approved because of what Jerome has said in the Vulgate, but Jerome and the Vulgate that are approved because of what the Church has said since the beginning and on multiple occassions, in the Council of Rome in 382 AD, the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, the Council of Carthage in 419 AD, Council of Florence in 1442 AD, all in which the Catholic canon was affirmed, and the Council of Trent in 1546 AD in which the canon was reaffirmed and the Vulgate was affirmed as the Catholic Church's official Latin bible. Following Jerome's example (who was a priest and is a saint of the Catholic Church), we should defer to the judgment of the Church.
he didn't and answered this claim in his writings
facts!
Very good information 👍👍
Check out 2 Esdras 1:30 where Jesus quotes these passages both in MAT 23:37 , and LUKE 13::34. Found in the original 1611 KJV.
Can you do a video for RCIA candidates, how can strengthen their faith through the process, especially through upcoming Lent!
Are you an RCIA candidate?
Read books that explain the faith from people like Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre and Fulton Sheen.
About to WACTH another with hubby. Will let you know !
Please pray for my sister Alexis Gallo. Who has been battling a severe digestive disease. Her intestines are paralyzed. I pray that Jesus will revive her intestines and heal her. She is the most wonderful sister and person ever. I pray that a holy person will see this and pray for my sister.
Good video. Another interesting topic, concerning the Canon, is why some Orthodox Churches have more books, in the Old Testament, than Catholics have.
The Orthodox use the same formal canon as Catholics during the liturgy. However, their Bibles contain the general canon as proposed by the Antiochian church.
@@durendal7784 thank you for the explanation.
Orthodox church was just a pride of some former catholic bishops
The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, "not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human writings." The British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications and labeled these books "apocryphal." However, many Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, "King James version with Apocrypha."
The Council of Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed that these books were to be treated "with equal devotion and reverence." The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Nice... Its funny how i just saw the BIBLE PROJECT wich i love but how they said on one of there videos that CATHOLICS are the ones who added the extra books and protestant are the ones who wanted the ORIGINAL christan Canon. This video has really good info amd key points.....
Yes, nobody can watch this video and understand the historical information and preach with the Bible project actually said. I would say shame on them, but it's just sad. If you're interested, you can wash the 1-hour version of this video that we have as well.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial nice... Thank you... And i will donate on FRIDAY for your mission... God BLESS.... Im also buying that book you recommend on your other video's. The one debunking other Christian when they attack the CATHOLIC faith... 👍🏻🙏🏻
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve fantastic! Thank you so much. And enjoy the book!
depends who you ask.first..
We have the same Bible.
It amazes me when you go to Barnes and Noble or Books-a-Million how many truly crappy Bible editions there out there being sold. And apparently people are buying them because they are always in the shelves.
I buy my Catholic Books and Bible’s from Amazon or Catholic Christian Store’s, however those stores also sell some Catholic Bible’s and Books as well lol 😂
Good day! May I know what is the truth? How do we get saved? And can we be enlightened about religious statues and relics and images? Do we need them to be saved? Thank you!
We don't need religious statues or relics or images to be saved. They can serve other purposes, but they are not for salvation specifically.
But here is how to be saved according to scripture and ancient Christianity.
We are sinners who have sinned against God. Our sin separates us from God. We can't save ourselves or earn salvation. It's a free gift of God. Jesus came to save us by dying on the cross and shedding his body and blood for us, to redeem us, and reconcile us back to God.
This saving grace of Jesus is offered to us freely, and we are saved by grace alone (Acts 15:11). We must turn away from our sins and repent (Acts 2:38), believe completely in Jesus (faith), and be baptized (Jn 3:5. Mk. 16:16, Acts. 2:38).
Finally we must live out that faith and live for Christ in obedience and following the commandments. (Mt. 28:19, Mt. 19:16-22, Lk. 6:46, Jn. 14:15, etc). Good works dont save us and cant save us but are necessary for a true faith to save.
So, if we have faith, lice out that faith bear good fruit, follow the Commandments and stay faithful to the end, we will be saved eternally. (Mt. 24:11-13, Rev. 2:4-7, 10, 19-26, Rom. 11:16-22). This is all by His grace, not of ourselves.
Jesus is Truth and all that He teaches iro faith and morals through His One Holy Church Matt 16 18-19
Statues, relics and images are not required but they serve to remind us of our beliefs as photos of family remind us of our loved ones. Don’t believe the false accusations by Protestants who don’t understand worship as they don’t have sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, hence no church
This is amazing 👏
I am Lutheran and I accept the "Apocrypha". For me, the hardest book in the Bible to take seriously is Revelation (a.k.a. Apocalype) in the N.T. It just seems so borderline fake, but I take the authority of the truly Oecumenical Councils and of the ancient Fathers of the Church, whose writings eventually authorise Revelation, so I accept the Apocalypse even if I do not really feel simpatico with it.
Amen. And that's the correct response. Not sure if you know that Luther felt the same and ended up rejecting the Book of Revelation. He didn't consider it inspired (or Hebrews).
It doesn’t matter how much Sola Scriptura is redefined, whether orthodox or liberal, historical or modern, this doctrine has no doctrinal grounds in Scripture nor Church history. The problems are both; the ‘Sola’ and the ‘Scriptura’ parts. If the doctrine Sola Scriptura was right, then the Catholic (and Orthodox) Bible would have supremacy on this Protestant doctrine since the Catholic (Orthodox) canon is bigger, meaning they have more “Scriptura” to validate a robust “Sola” with 73 books; this leaves the Protestant canons as incomplete and insufficient to sustain the doctrine it proposes “sola scriptura”; a depleted version based only on 66 books. If you are going to go “Sola”, go with the most books, that is, a Bible canon with the most, not less, books. It follows logically. But, this refutes the reformation and those who adhere to a lesser canon.
Since there cannot be two distinct versions of Sola Scriptura, because this would ontologically refute this doctrine, then it is logical to conclude that if Sola Scriptura was true, then it necessarily follows that the Catholic (and Orthodox) canon would constitute the “Scripture” aspect of Sola Scriptura. The Protestant canon is obsolete by the Sola, which calls for only one cannon to base itself. But, that’s only theoretical if Sola Scriptura was true.
Why not consider a better reformation proposal: Base Sola Scriptura on the complete Catholic canon of Scripture; 73 books?
However, the written testimony of the New Testament (which is The Lord’s Supper) came from a pre-existing Apostolic Church that already preached and lived The New Testament. Church and Scripture are inseparable; the issue of closed or open canon are not as relevant as who holds authority “to bind and lose”.
Hence Scripture, as canonized and guarded by this same Church, is intrinsic to the organic identity of this one Church which practiced liturgical worship, Celebration of Lord’s Supper, exercised a pastoral and missionary role, and preaching of the Word. These displays of apostolic life were undoubtedly pre-existing practices to the any written New Testament Word and its later canonization.
It is impossible to separate the Apostolic tradition which proclaimed and lived the Word first from the written Word that sprung from its pastoral and doctrinal nature years later. Therefore their is no ecclesiastical nor theological basis for the “Sola” portion of the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura; both aspects are in oppositions and self-refuting.
Jimmy Akin wrote a book somewhere along these lines.
The Book of Wisdom was as profound as proverbs. It even has verses predicting Jesus Christ and its no wonder they put it in the bible. Wisdom 2 :12-20
It was MORE than 7 books removed from the Bible..
Although I'm a Catholic, the argument my Bible is bigger than yours is simplistic argument. The additional seven books although known and read in its time, was not part of the Hebrew cannon which was held in the temple of Jerusalem . There were also other books in the dead sea scrolls that are not in the Catholic cannon. The book of Jude in the new testament makes also references to non canonical books. I'm not trying to defend Protestantism or Catholicism, but the debate has to be objective, balanced and non biased. There is good argument for both Catholic and Protestant positions. There were other books that were removed from the Catholic cannon during one of the the councils of Trent, such as Ezra III and IV, as well as Maccabees III and IV.
It was part of the Septuagint the LXX and was used by Christ and the apostles so much for that nonsense They are in the Septuagint. According to Jewish Encyclopedia, the Septuagint is "The oldest and most important of all the [Bible] versions made by Jews"
Ha, so you are saying that Jesus celebrated books that were not of God? He celebrated Hanukkah (1 and 2 Maccabees), He had a bar mitzvah (Baruch). I could go on to list each book, but I'm pretty sure you are too blinded by the lies you have been told to even pay heed to the examples of Jesus believing they are the inspired word of God.
if you were to actually look at the Torah you would find all seven of these books to be present. Are you going to deny that Jews celebrate the story of the Maccabees (Hanukkah)? Are you going to continue lying by saying that Jews do not read from the book Baruch at a bar mitzvah? It is you who has been deceived. Prove me wrong if you think you can.
No Books were removed at the Council Of Trent they reaffirmed the existing Cannon .
@@iightning2018 The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.
@@iightning2018 The earliest existing list of the Old Testament canon comes from a man named Melito, a bishop of Sardis. In approximately A.D. 170 he wrote the following.
When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kingdom, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.
This list of Melito is highly instructive. He includes all the books of the present canon except Esther. The reference to the four books of the kingdom would be 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings. Ezra was the common way to refer to Ezra-Nehemiah. Wisdom was merely a fuller description of the Book of Proverbs - not the Apocryphal book by that name. Among ancient writers Proverbs was often called Wisdom.
While including all of the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) Melito nowhere mentions any of the books of the Apocrypha.
@@iightning2018 The Clear Testimony Of Athanasius Toward The Apocrypha
In A.D. 367, the great defender of orthodox belief, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter. In this letter he affirmed all the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) as well as all the books of the present New Testament canon. He also mentioned some of the books of the Apocrypha. Of those he said.
[They are] not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish instruction in the world of godliness.
This is another ancient and powerful testimony that the books of the Apocrypha were not considered to be Holy Scripture.
Solid Catholic in Philippines...
Thanks God I am a Catholic
Plz answer me it’s so importante to me; where can I get a Catholic Bible in Hebrew language? I can’t find it in no shop…
We don't know. I apologize.
Also why did the book of Enoch be taken off. Why.
The Book of Enoch was never part of the Canon of scripture. It was never part of the Bible at all. The church decided that it wasn't inspired scripture.
🙄
Do you have any evidence that the Book of Enoch was part of the Bible canon?
Only Luther removed books!
How many books do the Orthodox have?
Can a protestant bible and catholic bible lead people to be saved and know God? Can both lead us to live a Godly life?
It depends on what people believe and practice ie baptism Jn 3:5 and Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 are essential but Protestants don’t believe in the real presence. James 2:24 not by faith alone
My grandmother is Catholic & my grandfather is Protestant on my mom side.
Dear, believers Bible is a word of Jesus and His Father God, It no denomination words are there, because according to my understanding is name chapters are, The Prophet, Jesus and Almighty God but denomination only published
The Bible says Jesus started a Church on the Rock of Peter. The Church made the Bible.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Yes, Church is to worship Jesus and Almighty God,under the Holy Bible is what Jesus and Almighty God told not Church members leading and their idealistic in my Holy Bible
@@CatholicTruthOfficial your words are encounter words and guiding to catholic yes, if you catholic it necessary not rightous, Saint Peter not name church after followers name themselves and also follow earth way according to way of Church
@@CatholicTruthOfficial if your leaders no sin in the church its rightious or if your catholic leaders follows , what catholic rules, it may be true because Pope Formouse, Pope John xii also wrong foot but Our Bible is for those who following Jesus and Almighty God
16:30 “We gotta get back to the original church” I agree guys. And have only just stumbled across your show and am really enjoying it. But yea. Back to your quote. I’d suggest you both take a look at the brand of the Jesus movement that survived, separately to Paul’s mammoth adventure and was led by his brother James. There is no claim by that ‘original’ (truly original I’d say) that Paul’s teachings were accurate. In fact there’s hints that they disagreed with Paul and in Effect said ‘you go your way, we’ll go ours’. They also made no claims that Jesus had risen from the dead. But that he had indeed died. Sadly this small sect may have only survived a few hundred years. And in many ways is lost to the world. But I’d say that’s where the original church went, after Jesus was crucified. I’d love to to hear your considered thoughts on what I’ve said. Cheers. And thanks again for the show. (I’m a former Seventh-day Adventist. And so I found the two programs you did on that religion fabulous. By for now.
0:25:08 Not so, the RCC in times past would not allow the Holy Bible to be in the common language, only the clergy could read it.
The Catholic Church did allow The Bible in the common language. The Catholic Church had 16 versions of scripture in German before Martin Luther ever made his first one. The Catholic Church also had them in French, Spanish, Italian, Slovak, Greek, and other languages. So I'm not sure who you heard that from, but it's incorrect.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I did not hear of the German Bible that the RCC allowed, but in another side of the topic the RCC burned the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles.
They burned Tyndales bibles because they had up to 30 errors per page. It was a hack job of the Word of God. The Catholic Church only employed the highest people with the best credentials so the word of God could stay pristine and pure. But hack job versions were burnt. There's a reason why nobody even uses them today. And for the record, protestants burned each other's bibles too.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial What errors were in the Tyndale and Wycliffe Bibles?
I just don’t understand why Catholics have so many rituals and using Mary and the saints to intercede, and purgatory. When none of that stuff is in the Bible can someone please explain
It’s all in the Bible. For example the Hail Mary prayer is in the Bible
@@kepagel since I posted this comment, the Holy Spirit has led me to the Catholic Church I have been attending mass whenever I can. I also bought a duay rhemies bible. I want to start the process of becoming a member of the church. I never thought in a million years I would become catholic! But after doing the research and finding out about Martin Luther, how he took out books of the bible, added words to the scripture and took scripture awa, not to mention some of the terrible things he’s done. And the fact the church has been around since Christ. really changed my perspective. It’s crazy how God opened up my eyes to John 6 and the Eucharist. God bless you!
Amazing! The Holy Spirit led me to the church as well and I got confirmed in 2021! God bless!
@@nathanoppy Jesus established and lead his Church to all truth. That truth includes all the things and more that you asked. All of “that stuff” you say isn’t in the Bible is in the Bible. Jesus clearly established the Biblical Church which became known as the Way, then it grew and matured so by at least 107AD it became known as Catholic. And it’s still known as the Catholic Church for 2,000 years now. Those are the Biblical and historical facts. God bless you.
This question is exactly the problem of sola scritura.
"Why so many rituals?"
- Do you really want to water-down the worship to the creator of this Universe? Rock bands, even if it has christian lyrics is not worship, it's abomination.
Could someone tell me how they acquired these books
Dig the history, birth of Christianity with the help of Holyspirit
Protestant bible ? What’s that ?
It's an abridged version of the Catholic Bible.
The King James Version
How about a video why most religious jews don't have these books in their canon?
That's a possibility, but Gary probably already made one on his RUclips channel. Check it out in the description section. He know the answer to that as well.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thank you!
Next video: "Why are Catholic Apologists Bigger (and Brighter)" ? :-) I have loved Gary Michuta's work since I first came across it. I see his name in the vid description, I click on the vid.
Haha. Great comment. Agreed. Gary is very thorough and methodical.
As a Protestant who is a Reformed Christian, I am reviewing the video and will be explaining points about the errors made here shortly. I have currently taken notes through over 16 minutes of the video and already have plenty of material to demonstrate that these two men are in error.
Just like in the RC Sproul video, I'm not posting here because I believe I'm important or something. But I do believe that these highly intoxicating videos need some sobering. God bless.
Interested to read your thoughts. I enjoy respectful discussion.
@@walcuppernell2931 Thank you Wal Cuppernell for the interest. I would like to begin my post here by saying that at about 16:00 Mercier states that he doesn't hate Protestants and that he loves them. This is to be appreciated. I likewise feel the same way towards Roman Catholics who are my friends, family, and otherwise. With that said, I will begin refuting some points from this video.
Around 6:22, Michuta says, "Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that he [Jerome] was wrong." If what Michuta means here is that Jerome is wrong because we found some of the disputed books in Hebrew within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), then the DSS prove too much. There were a number of Biblical and unbiblical books found in the caves of Qumran. For example, we don't accept Jubilees, the Book of Noah, or the Book of Giants as canonical, even though they were found in the DSS.
At 8:35, Mercier and Michuta begin claiming that the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage agree with the canons of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. This is not correct. First off, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have differences between their respective canons. Secondly, these three councils exclude Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch chapter 6). So even the Council of Trent's canon was different than these councils, and therefore modern Roman Catholic Bibles have a different canon than these councils.
Next, I would like to skip ahead to 16:22 (even though there is plenty to go over up to this point) where Mercier says, "All the Bibles had them [the seven books] for over 1100 years, had them until they were relegated in, had them for over 1500 years till they were removed. I mean, something's amuck here." I agree that there is something amuck here, but it's not what Mercier thinks. Back when Jerome translated and wrote the majority of the Vulgate, he didn't accept the books known as the Deutero-canon, but he still translated them anyways; with the exception of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch chapter 6). Jerome never translated those two works, and they weren't included in most copies of the Bible until the 9th century, and even then, it took a long time before a large quantity of Bibles included the works. Therefore, Mercier's argument is invalid, and the fact that Michuta never called him out on this throughout the entire video is shocking.
At 17:41 Michuta says, "If you reject those councils, then how do you determine which books belong and which ones don't?" First, Michuta doesn't accept the canon list that these councils declared either. Secondly, man doesn't declare canon, we only recognize canon. God is the author, so He determines what is and isn't canon, not man. Third, these were regional councils and even under Roman Catholic understanding, they are not binding on our souls and therefore anybody can question them for any reason at all. These are not considered infallible councils by anybody, so Michuta is giving these councils more authority then what should be given to them.
At 18:54 Michuta claims that the Deutero-canon is used in the New Testament as authoritative Scripture without giving any examples, let alone "clear" examples. This is sadly the pattern of the majority of this video. It's a rah-rah video made to make Roman Catholics happy. Very little to no substance is looked at in this portion.
The quote mentioned in 21:41 is from RC Sproul.
At 21:50 Michuta says "How do you know that they're infallible?" This is a good question, but it's a bad question for Roman Catholics because this question can be turned around and aimed at Roman Catholicism. Either person will have to start demonstrating their position based on evidence if they wish to convince the other person. Simply making the assertion over and over again that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded doesn't prove anything. It's only an assertion, and one that cannot be proven.
At 22:26 Michuta makes the assertion that the Rabbinic Jews excluded the Deutero-canon around the year 100-132AD without giving any evidence. Admittedly, I haven't read his book, so he may go over some evidence there, but I am not aware of any evidence of any Jewish groups having the same and identical Old Testament canon as the RCC. I once read an article by Jimmy Akin where he made the claim that Ethiopian Jews have the same canon as the Roman Catholic Church, but that isn't true either. There were and have been many different groups of Jews throughout history, but we have no evidence that any of them held to the same canon as the Roman Catholic Church, but we do have evidence that they held to the same canon that Protestants hold. The Jews after all "were entrusted with the oracles of God" as stated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:2. If you can't demonstrate any positive evidence for the Jewish acceptance of the same Roman Catholic canon as today, then the case cannot be made.
Anyways, I can go over more if someone would like. Life, work, and time prevent me from going over every single thing that I disagreed with in this video, but I can visit more later. I have plenty of notes for that. Anyways, I hope this is a beginning for many people. God Bless.
@@zipper778 I have question on your statement: "man does not declare canon, we only recognize canon". How did you recognize canon, i.e what are the criteria?
There is no single verse in the Bible that tells us how many and which books belong to Scripture. For your information, Jewish Talmud, composed after destruction of their Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, quoted Sirach as one book of the Writings (the third part of Jewish Scripture or Tanakh) or as Scripture.
@@justfromcatholic
I'm sorry that it took so long to reply. Life is very busy for me right now. Here is my response to you.
"How did you recognize canon, i.e what are the criteria?"
There are a number of things that we can look at in order to recognize what books are canonical, and which ones aren't. To look at just a few things, we should start with the witness of Scripture first. In Luke 11:51, Jesus references "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah". The blood of Abel is a reference to the book of Genesis, and the blood of Zechariah is a reference to 2 Chronicles. That doesn't mean much to those who know the order of the Christian Old Testament, but it does to those who know the book order of the Jewish Tanakh. The Tanakh is arranged from Genesis to 2 Chronicles and contains all of the same books as the Protestant Old Testament, only they are arranged in a different order. Also, Romans 3:2 explains that the Jews "were entrusted with the oracles of God." If the Jews were entrusted with the Word of God up until the time of Christ, we would be wise to listen to them.
Next thing to think about is, how did the Jews know what was Sacred Scripture before the time of Christ? They never had a single authoritative structure that determined what was and was not Scripture, yet they never argued with Jesus about it. Besides, the Jews recognized a different canon than what was eventually determined by the RCC in the 4th session of the Council of Trent on April 8 1546. So even if it could be established that the Jews had some sort of human authority, it would still be contradictory to the RCC.
Like I said before, God determines what the canon is. Man can only recognize what the canon is that God left for us. Simply because there are disagreements over this topic does not mean that we can never recognize what the canon is. If disagreement over something is all that it takes to render something invalid, then we would have absolutely no doctrine at all because every doctrine has disagreements.
It has been said that the canon is an artifact of revelation. God made some books infallible, yet there exists many books that are not infallible. He did not make an infallible table of contents. The table of contents come naturally from the Sacred Scriptures not the other way around.
"For your information, Jewish Talmud...quoted Sirach as one book of the Writings (the third part of Jewish Scripture or Tanakh) or as Scripture."
Thank you for bringing this up. The Talmud itself appears to be inconsistent on the topic of the canonicity of Sirach. Sirach is definitely held in high esteem by the Talmud and many Jews throughout history, but ultimately the Talmud does not list Sirach as one of the books that make hands unclean (thus it is not viewed as Scripture). Regardless, this is the best example of an apocryphal book possibly being accepted by the Jews. All the other apocryphal books simply don't come close. There is no evidence that the Jews held to the same canon as the RCC. So even though we have a couple of odd quotes from the Talmud, this isn't evidence that the Jews accepted the same Old Testament canon as the RCC.
@@bevybanks Absolutely. I'm happy that this helped you.
Are the founding fathers in heaven? I think this is an important topic. I know this comment has nothing to do with the video. I’m not trolling.
We don't know for sure and could not know for sure. It's only something God knows. Sorry we can't give you a better answer than that.
if by founding fathers you mean the apostles. Most of them died martyrs for Christ and should most likely be in heaven.
The orthodox Church have more books than both Catholics and Protestants.
I personally prefer to have the extra books. That way I have the option to read them or not.
Thank you for the comment. The Catholic Church authoritatively made the canon of the Bible in 397 A.D. So adding to the Bible or taking away from it is equally problematic.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
If I'm not mistaken I believe that the eastern orthodox church's Old Testament was based upon the Greek Septuagint which I think was already firmly established before Pentecost.
So it's not that the orthodox just added books but rather they implemented the Greek septuagint for it's Old Testament.
But regardless of whether you agree with their canon of Scripture, it still has the full Catholic and Protestant canon.
@@Jordan-1999 The first Orthodox Christians were once Catholics after 397 AD. They agreed with the Catholics' Canon of scripture, until they didn't do so anymore.
One of these is the Prayer of Menassah king of Judea. It is read at least for the entire length of Lent, in the Great Compline prayer.
The Catholic Church also used to the Greek Septuagint. And the cannon was already fixed by the time the Orthodox came around. But yes, it still has all of the books the Catholic Church originally chose while the Protestant ones do not.
You guys believe all non catholics are not saved or not going to heaven, but the pope condemn catholics to try to convert others to catholic. Why don't he want others to go to heaven? I really don't understand.
That’s not what the church teaches. We do not condemn people to Hell and we do believe many Christians of other traditions do know Christ and will be saved.
@@sharkinator7819 ask your priest.
@@howardn501 read Catechism 846 on this issue
The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. What needs to be in it and the right to interpret.. Belongs to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church alone. Without the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.. The Bible is nothing more than another book. There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church
Everything else I believe except him being 6’8 😂
Hebrew 11:35 ? It was explained in Hebrew 11:39, after the resurrec tion they died again bec.of the sting of death,a better resurrection is mentioned in
1 Corinthians 15:51-58 KJV
Sorry Tynedale...
Can you refute and debunked Duterte's arguement to the catholic church.
Before watching this video the answer is there already. Obviously the catholic. No one can tell otherwise, knowing that the the protestants came 1500 years later and guess what, the bible was already there. So this is easier than 1+1=2.
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist "....I’m a Christian and Christians were called “Nazarenes” and “the way” ..." The name means absolutely nothing if it has NO CONNECTION with the original Church Christ intended. I could start an atheist sect called 'The Way' and then claim to be the original church.
"...Read Acts of the Apostles the first Christian church in the book of Acts...." by all means do read it and find the hallmarks of the early christian communities and see if you are in that Church. The communities were founded by the Apostles; was yours?? These communities were led by the Apostles or those only they appointed (ie. Paul -Timothy, John-Ireaneus, Peter-Clement, etc.). This is called Apostolic Succession and if your community cannot establish this connection; then it is not the Church Jesus intended. According to the surviving writings of these Apostles/Successors they met on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist led by an Apostle or their APPOINTED successors ONLY; and they believed in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic Faith today: does your sect do this????
Name means NOTHING; it is the hallmarks and history and faithfulness to the original community which makes you part of the Church founded by Jesus. You will ONLY find those in the Catholic Faith and those in communion with it.
Other than that your claim to be more 'authenticate' than the Catholic Faith is bogus, hollow, without merit, or anything of substance to back it up. You are as much outside of and a 'protester' of the True Church intended by Jesus as any of the other 40,000 plus since Luther to make that exact same claim.
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist "....And the start of the Catholic Church was by a Pagan Constantine At the Count of Nicaea..." This is an absolute myth propagated only by those uneducated in history, especially the history of the Church. There isn't a single HONEST historian or even truth-seeking protestant that would dare try and use this myth to bolster their claims today. You only find this shouted out in emotion driven fundamentalist sects/cults to create a feverish frenzy and stir hatred against the Church of Jesus. Do yourself a favor and stop listening to whoever told you this; go to a credible Library and seek the actual truth before spreading more lies.
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist Hi Jasmin, please dismiss this whole lie about the start of the Catholic church by a pagan Constantine (old trick by Luther and Calvin). The first mention of the catholic church was in a letter by Ignatius of Antioch in 107AD to the christians in Smyrnea (modern day Izmir in Turkey). Catholic means universal and was meant not only for the jews, but also for the gentiles. In other words, for the whole world. At the counsel of Nicea catholics set straight the divinity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism and yes, Constantine started the process of acceptancing of the Catholic church as the official religion of Rome. Other misconseption is calling oneself christian and calling us catholics. Christian is a generic name for everybody who follows Jesus as Lord and God (second person of the Trinity). So, we catholics are christians. The question is: which denomination are you? You'll be surprised to know that there is a 99% chance that you're protestant. That the word "Pope" is never mentioned in the word of God (Bible) is true. The same goes for the words "Bible" and "Trinity". What you're saying is that if it's not in the bible, it's not true (sola scriptura is a protestant doctrine). You'd have had a big problem saying that before 382AD, so it doesn't make sense. The title Pope came later and it means father. Now we refer to the head of the roman catholic church as the pope. But this same pope can be traced back to St.Peter who Jesus HImself pointed as the first head of the church, thus the Pope. Every bishop in the catholic church can be traced back to a apostle, which makes the Catholic church an apostolic church. Celibacy came later on in history and Peter's marriage is a discussion as well. Jesus being the only mediator between God and men: totally agree!
@@BondServantOfJesusChrist "....Your speaking from emotion because you aren’t filled with the Holy Spirit. ..." God gave us the light of reason so we would not be led easily by our emotions which via concupiscence is the greater tempter. What I gave you is a reasoned response based on historical facts and a correct reading of Holy Scripture. What you gave is wishful thinking and a dishonest fabricated history to try and soothe your own conscience in your false sect. The Constantine myth is just that; a total myth (fancy term for LIE). Jesus has only ONE Church; and the bible clearly lays out the elements of that Church. The false worship you are part of now don't have those elements in it. There is only one Christian Church and that is the Catholic Church. There are people who have been validly baptized (thus Christians) who reject being part of the Church and meet in groups elsewhere to practice their own man-made form of Church. That is where you are. That is not emotion. That is facts. Emotion is what is keeping you from seeing that and acting accordingly.
Old another Constantine myth comment. The Catholic church was started by Jesus and is the only one that can trace its history and leaders back to the time of Jesus.
Second, Constantine did not start the Catholic Church. This is a historical myth. If Constantine started the Catholic church, then how did Pope Dionysus exist, and how was he writing to Heretics in the year 250? And how did irenaeus Catholic Bishop of Lyon exists and was writing a century earlier than that? I could name countless Catholics that existed including over 30 Pope's that existed before Constantine was even born. All one needs to do is look in an encyclopedia under P to see that there were over 30 popes before Constantine existed. We have their writings. And I'd be happy to quote them for you. But whoever has been feeding you your history lesson, you need a new reliable source.
God entrusted the Jews with His oracles (Romans 3:1-2). The Protestant OT bible matches the Jewish OT bible but is numbered differently. The Jews never approved of the apocrypha books as canon,
Thew Jews did not have a closed canon, and they did not close it until _after_ Jesus died and rose. Almost 100 years after, by which time they had no authority. So, Protestants are going according to a group that rejected the Messiah and had zero authority. Where Jesus started the Catholic church and that same church put the authoritatively canonized the Bible.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial have you ever read "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church" by Roger Beckwith? He gives convincing historical & NT evidence that the Jews did indeed have a closed canon. Otherwise, Jesus could not have held the Jews accountable for knowing what the canon was when He asked them, "Have you not read?" The apostle Paul's comment about the JEWS (not a particular sect of the Jews) being entrusted with the oracles of God (ie: the OT Scriptures)(Romans 3:2) would not make sense if there was no set canon by the time of Jesus. The belief there were different Jewish canons doesn't take place until the time of Origen (early 3rd Century AD). He assumed (incorrectly) that Sadducees embraced only the 5 books of Moses, due to 2nd Century AD literature which conflated Sadducees with Samaritans - the latter only embracing the 5 books of Moses. His assumption was later adopted by Epiphanius in the 4th Century, and then passed down throughout Catholic church history, down to the present day. But there is evidence prior to the time of Christ that different Jewish sects embraced different canons. And we know what the canon included, since Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50-51; 16:14,29), which is identical to Protestant OTs (source: Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, senior apologist).
So, how would you like to have a discussion about this on your RUclips channel?
There is no such thing as a Protestant bible
Anything like the KJV that only uses 66 books is a Protestant bible.
@@jaqian does it have different theology ? Does it teach Protestantism ? No it doesn’t
Brian, around 21:00 you said there were "hundreds of books to sift through". That's not an accurate claim and so we should avoid it. That claim gives the impression the Catholic Church literally invented the Bible centuries after the Apostles, as if the Pope went in a library in 370AD and sifted through a random pile and picking some while rejecting others. Rather, from the very beginning, each Apostolic congregation had gathered together the books of the Bible and passed down ("Tradition") their collections to the next generations of their congregations. There was no random pile. During that time, a FEW books were found among some collections and there was legitimate question as to whether they were fullly Scripture or rather good Christian writings. So one of those FEW (not hundreds) was 1Clement, written by an early Pope that traveled with St Paul. If I lived back then and 1Clement arrived in Corinth shortly after Paul's 2nd Corinthians, then I would assume 1Clement had some significant authority/inspiration. So 1Clement could be legitimately passed down alongside the inspired books and even read during Mass, and only later on need clarification that it's just a very holy epistle but not technically Scripture. There were no heretical or random books among the early collections, much less hundreds.
Perhaps hundreds is too many. But there were far more, not just a few, and the ones in the Bible today. They were over 80 Gospels written that were claiming to be inspired. Far more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And that's just Gospels. That's not including Epistles and Letters. The earliest Christians had some idea as to inspired books, but did not know or have an idea fully of what Scripture was. There were several different Canons floating around and they all disagreed with each other. But it was the Catholic Church who gathered the existing manuscripts, more than we have in our Bible now, and not just a few extra, and it was the Church who decided which ones were and we're not inspired. Thanks for the comment.
The true Bible is from St. Jerome.
It's from the Catholic Church ultimately.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial" catholic truth"? 🤭👎❌ liar! The bible existed already long before the the catholic Church existence the first 50 copies of the bible was commissioned by Eusebius in Rome in AD 331,this is fact. Jerome only copied the Latin vulgate in AD 382-AD 400 😄 ,what happened to the questions I'm asking you
In your other Vblogs 🤭😁
You haven't answer until now
It's been almost two months,
As expected a chicken run 🤭😁 bec.u could not find any biblical proof to back it up.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial why are you so afraid to answer ? The way it looks you could handle the questions .that is why 😊
And by the way you're guilty ,ived wrote 5 more comments here ,however you're so afraid that others might read it, don't worry I repost n repost 🤭😁
The Holy Bible is true bible. We do to Baptist church idea.Go bless to all.
Baptists don't have the full Bible. They removed 7 books around the 1800s.
Well I 'm from north India I am hindu but I believe in jesus but why you are worship virgin Mary the bible not say worship Mary but worship God because
Mary is woman
Only worship God
I would love to have you as a guest on my podcast. I too deny the validity of protestant denominationalism. But I also deny the validity of Roman Catholicism. I know you can trace catholicism back to the New Testament but I think we would come to very different New Testament teachings as the origin of catholicism. I have many Catholic viewers that comment regularly on my videos. I know they would appreciate your participation. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
The Catholic Church is the one original true church Christ established. Latin / Roman is just one part of its Western Liturgy/Rite
I thank God every day for being delivered from the pagan Catholic Church, and into the loving arms of Jesus Christ, the only mediator between man and God. Perhaps if you spend more time reading the Bible, and less time believing all your man-made rituals, you would see how deceived you have been. Follow God in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the traditions of men
Thank you for your comment. We will pray for you and your confusion over the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church officially teaches that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. So what is your problem? It seems you have some misunderstandings about the faith you left. Jesus started the Catholic church, so by leaving his church which is his body you are also leaving him. We will pray for you sister.
And by the way, how long have you been studying the Bible? The Catholic church has studied it for 2,000 years now. So do you really think you know more than the Catholic Church? It was the authority of the Catholic church that put the Bible together in the first place and shows which books would belong in it and which ones would not. And it was a Catholic Church alone who copied it and translated it for over a thousand years so the world's going to have the Bible. Thank God for the Catholic Church!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial wow… You don’t even know anything about your own religion let alone about the Bible. Mary is definitely taught to be a mediator between men and Jesus and God, and so are the Saints, that’s why you pray to them LOL. In fact they even use the word mediatrix. Perhaps you should study the history of the Roman catholic church… Which you obviously have not, and just believe all the doctrine that you’re taught. Your aunti-pope even said you can’t have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the only way to Jesus is through Mary. He said that‼️ you should actually study the Bible… Everything you are taught is virtually the opposite of what is in the Bible. You just don’t know that because you only listen to your Catholic doctrine, which is lying to you plain and simple. The Catholic Church is about 10% or less Christianity, and the rest is a mixture between paganism, and completely made up. And that is history. It’s in the books. And I beg to differ… Jesus started Christianity, and Constantine turned it into paganism. Look it up for yourself. And I will pray for you🙏
@@gloriastreet4684 Miss your history is just wrong, how could you go off the Christian Bible when it was composed by the Catholic Church? Not only that, but Constantine never introduced paganism to the Christian church, he made Christianity tolerable so that Christians weren’t fed to the lions for practicing their faith. Not only that, but if Constantine actually did create the Catholic Church by adding paganism to the original Christian church, then would Jesus be wrong because He Himself said the gates of Hell will not overcome His church. Also what about the parallels between the Church before Constantine and the church after, where practically nothing changed? And still not just that but why was the Catholic/Orthodox Church the one around up till the 1500s when Protestants broke off from the Church, and yet you still confess the church that came about way later in history is the correct church even though it hadn’t existed before the 1500s. As you can see there are just so many holes in the Protestant theology, it’s evident that it is not the correct ideology.
Hey and if you want a book that is entirely composed of letters from Saints BEFORE the time of Constantine, I recommend “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William A Jurgens. Literally fully composed of letters from saints that show the parallels to the Catholic/orthodox churches, and most of the letters are from before the time of Constantine.
@@xander4043 blah blah blah more Catholic doctrine LOL. And I do not have history wrong you do. The Catholic Church is completely false doctrine. Everybody in the world knows it except you guys. You have been brainwashed, and I know, because I used to be one of you. And I just think God every day that I’m not anymore. All I have to do to get to heaven is to do with Jesus said. You guys have to do the hokey pokey, jump through a bunch of hoops, turn around three times after midnight and throw salt over your shoulders LOL.(I hope you realize I’m joking) but that’s just about how bad it is. And the best part of it is I don’t have to burn in purgatory. Yay‼️ Faith in Jesus Christ alone will completely cleanse me of my sins, I won’t still be dirty when I die like you will. And there’s no such thing as a saint… That’s another invention of the Catholic Church. Just one more thing for you to make statues of and pray to, and hang around your neck‘s... Pagan talismans. And no the church of Jesus Christ did not come along way later in history, it came at the time he was still walking the earth‼️ you don’t even make any sense. And it’s exactly the same now… No changes… What he taught , we believe. It’s called Christianity. Not Catholic, not protestant, not Lutheran, not Presbyterian, not Jehovah’s Witness not Mormon… Christianity‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️ The same thing Jesus talk to thousand years ago is what we teach now, nothing added, nothing taken away, nothing made up. Exactly the way it tells us to do in the Bible. Just go pray to some statues, and some other dead people. I’ll pray to Jesus thank you.
@@gloriastreet4684 Miss saying you’re not Protestant and then holding true to the beliefs of Protestantism is just contradictory. And you still cling to your Bible NT even though the Catholic Church decided that canon, and then you reject the Biblical OT decided at the same Catholic council-it doesn’t make any sense.
There is a distinct lack of historical context in your response, I appreciate your sense of humor but it’s not going to be enough to became Protestant. When did the Catholic Church create saints as you claim? And this is the biggest thing, show me historical documents that prove the early Christians were most similar to Protestantism.
Miss I have the letters, letters before the time of Constantine that show a direct parallel to the Catholic/orthodox churches. I can show you them if you’d like, they clearly reflect an orderly church with bishops, presbyters, and deacons and the material that they show matches up most closely to the Catholic/orthodox churches, not to the Protestant churches. It also doesn’t make any sense to say that the early church were Protestants, because that’s essentially what you are saying even though their whole ideology came about in the Middle Ages. If you were to read The Faith of the Early Fathers you would see historical affirmation of Catholicism.
There’s a RUclipsr named Blue Collar Catholic, he was an evangelical (non-denominational Christian Protestant, like you) who became Catholic. You can go watch his testimonies and videos on Protestants and Catholics.
Welll.as a person who believes that Christ is The Son of God who died for me.....send me a copy of the texts ...not something thats been translated yet....and let me read them for myself...with todays technology it has to be pssible for the oldest original copies of anything the vatican has...and let me se for myself
Hear The truth Himself, all you catholics and protestants, starting with you catholics, also called mother. From His Volumes of Truth, the trumpet call of God, the Word of the Lord spoken to this generation
"Thus says The Lord: Beware, O peoples of the church called mother. For she is a harlot, a false way, a deceitful house filled with both great and subtle deceptions. Be wary, rouse yourselves from this heavy sleep, and look upon the fruit of your doings. For you have been greatly misled, caught up in a faith which is dead; there is no life in it! For as it was written by My servant, so in like manner I now plead with you: Depart from the way of evil, from the man who speaks perverse things, from those who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perversity of the pagan, whose ways are crooked and who are devious in their paths. Be delivered from the adulterous woman, from the seductress who flatters with her words, who forsakes the husband of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God. For her house is sinking down to death, and all her paths lead to the dead.
Therefore thus says The Lord God, The Holy One of Israel, to all who have ears to hear: This unholy church of men is a harlot! From the beginning she has been a whore! Yet she would have all believe she is a queen, even the true church and mother. Indeed, she has bore many sons and daughters, daughters who yet bear her likeness; and many sons who shall go to perdition, false fathers and priests, who by their own authority take to themselves proselytes, who they then make twice as fit for destruction as themselves! Behold, deception is hidden within deception, as she continues to build up her sins toward Heaven.
For I tell you a mystery filled with corruption,
Abuse of power and contemptible ways:
This church of men is like the woman who rides the beast;
She is clothed with purple and scarlet, enticing the
People to commit fornication with her...
Yet to her own, she is a queen who sits upon
My throne and has taken to herself My authority,
Perverting My Word and changing My Commandments
As she appoints kings and princes in her own name,
Each with names of blasphemy upon their heads,
So-called holy fathers who shall go into perdition with her...
And yet to those against her, she is the beast.
Yet I tell you the truth, all are deceived. For her power and authority come from the beast, which atop she sits. For she has many names of blasphemy, and all her works are an abomination before The Lord. She is indeed a harlot, and her adulteries are many. Behold, she is also like the great whore who sits upon many waters, who has corrupted the earth with her fornications. And like the false prophet she spews perverse and bitter doctrine, leading many into false worship, even to the committing of fornication with the pagan and the heathen by all her filthy traditions! And like the beast, she has shed the blood of My servants throughout her generations, and has not ceased from opening her mouth to speak great things and blasphemies with a practiced and lying tongue, by which she has deceived many. Therefore, I must take My people out of her! Behold, I shall snatch them from her very breast! For she is also like Babylon, adorning herself with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornications.
Thus says The Lord to the deceptive harlot, to the mother of all fornications: Woe, I say to you! Even three times, woe! For the atheist shall have it far better than you, when the wrath of the great and dreadful God has come! For when they seek forgiveness, they shall surely find it. Yet woe to you who blaspheme The Spirit; from you forgiveness has fled away! Behold, destruction waits for you as you continue to tread the wide path!
For you believe yourself to be a glorious vine, yet your roots are full of rottenness, a vine of deceit with many tendrils spreading forth abomination! Behold, you see yourself as a sovereign nation, as the mother church, universal, and yet you willingly go into captivity and hold fast in your rebellion! Therefore, I shall make you a desolation and an astonishment, an object of horror and hissing; I shall strip you bare!
And behold, you shall become an island, a most desolate place amidst the nations. No more shall anyone draw near to you, nor shall any attempt to pass through. For all shall keep their distance for fear of your punishment. Every traveler shall go roundabout, horrified at the smoke of your burning.
For thus says The Lord: I have set you apart for judgment! I have separated you out for death, for sorrow and for famine, until the fire of My wrath consumes you! For you have caused My beloved to depart from Me; you have turned them aside from The Way! You have caused them to trust in fables and to put their hope in lies and false visions, in worthless things! The Truth is not in you, and from The Life you are far removed!
You have pierced My heart with a hot iron! You have battered and bruised Me, and torn My flesh! My sadness fills the heavens like the unending blackness, My tears cover the earth like the oceans, because of you! My anger wells up within Me like a raging fire, on account of all these you have persecuted and murdered throughout your generations!
Indeed, the cup of My indignation overflows, on account of all you have done and are about to do, says The Lord. And still I sent to you many in My own name, that you might be saved from yourself. Yet you rejected them all, beating some and killing others, casting them out in your pompous rage. You will not turn, and so The Father has declared your end.
WOE TO THE CHURCH CALLED MOTHER!
WOE TO YOU AND YOUR APPOINTED LEADERS!
WOE TO YOU AND ALL YOUR “HOLY FATHERS”!...
WOE TO THE CHURCH CALLED ROMAN AND CATHOLIC!
WOE TO THE CHURCH FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES!...
For I have prepared a great fire, and behold, it is already kindled,
And you, along with all who cleave to you, shall surely be cast into it!...
SAYS THE LORD."
~
"Therefore fear, all you who point the finger, and humble yourselves, all you who twist My words for your own gain, lest you be found guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. For the defilement which was written, and remains misinterpreted by men, is not defilement with the daughters of men, but defilement with the churches of men, who remain daughters of the church called mother. For she is a harlot, says The Lord. Thus spiritual purification begins with grace, and is for those whom I have chosen to become virgin in spirit, even a complete cleansing of every aspect of their lives.
All men are defiled, having fallen
Into all manner of diverse temptations;
There is none righteous in all the earth, no, not one...
Yet all who repent, in sincerity and in truth,
Are cleansed in the blood of The Lamb,
Which is pure and holy...
Therefore, those whom I have called to be My witnesses
Must become pure in heart and in spirit;
Set apart from the world and the churches of men,
Who cease not from polluting My name
And marring My image before the people."
Says the Lord, The Father and The Son are One, His name is YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH! Ask yourselves, daughters of the church called mother, why are you her daughters? For the Lord our God is One! Lets sacrifice ourselves daily brothers and sisters, crucify the old man who still drives in the nails on our God! For He loves us..
Thus says the Lord: "And though it greatly pains My heart,
A wound which shall last forever, it must be done...
For if I do not do this, My people shall never have a name;
They shall never dwell in My holy place, they shall never
See The Light or know life as it was in the beginning...
Until the sanctuary is cleansed, I can not dwell
With My people, both with them and in them...
Unless I make a full end, there can be no restoration.
If I do not complete My task, never again shall I walk with My beloved in the garden, never again shall the little children come to Me and gather around... Open your eyes, cast yourselves down! Let your hearts melt before The Holy Fire, embrace My Purifying Flame! My dying children, you are the last generation, the last of these kingdoms of men!
I love you, yet you choose death! You have forsaken Me and forced My hand!"
I would rather agree with Jerome than Augustine as he was illiterate in Hebrew and Greek .
I would like Alpha and Omega ministry’s to refute this video .
Apocryphal support doctrine not taught by ante Nicean church it’s that simple.
The idea of condign merit and congruent merit and indulgence including purgatory utilize the apocryphal books to establish mustard seed doctrine outside of Nicean practice.
The words “as it is written “ become compromised by the apocryphal books .
Doctrine that compromise the true gospel where additional teachings have been added for salvation,sanctification.
When the apocryphal books compromise New Testament gospel with teachings not taught by the apostles or practiced we can only rest on Romanism to validate , this is the issue.
An example with reference to purgatory where punishment is due after forgiveness , Maccabees for example contradicts Romans 3 :25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
We see a contradiction in Maccabees in regards new covenant verses old , the word “beforehand unpunished “ above are a classic Illustration.
The video is great thank you for running through the various fallacy’s .
LoL We have pilles of evidence from the "ante-nicean" church fathers on those matters. Prayers for the dead etc...
The canons of Nicea talks about the "most necessary viaticum" from the departing ones, the church was not protestant...and Alpha and Omega ministries can cry all day long about it.
"I would rather agree with Jerome..."
The problem is that Jerome believe in many things that you don't believe, so, stop using Jerome, at one moment he is an expert, but at other moments he is totally wrong in all other matters...
If you actually read what Jerome wrote in his letters about the subject, you will notice that all his theory is based on the idea that the rabinical text he had acess in the IVth was the "original" text preserved, including the canon organized by the rabbis who handled him those manuscripts he thought to be the original content of the (now, with modern archeology and access to the rabbinical debates, we know that this is not the case).
But it was pretty obvious that the apostles didn't quote this supposed "originals", but from the LXX that now scholars agreed that were translated from another textual variant from the hebrew, and after the Dead Sea Scrolls had been found, Jerome's supposition was totally refuted.
So, even if he know all those languages, time has proven that Augustine was right on sticking with church tradition.
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão prayers for the dead is from Jewish tradition , look at my list for practice of what I mentioned in my comment.
Funny how certain things such as prayers for the dead of which later extended to mass for them too was incorporated when anti semitism can be seen in many church fathers writings 😂
@@andrewdrew677 ....??? What these have to do with the subject?.. whenever..
Things for "salvation" and santification is found in protocanonical Daniel, Proverbs and even in the Gospels itself.
Its a problem when you receive a false gospel and start to judging everything else on that fake gospel perspective, in fact, if prots were honest on their objections on the 7 books, they would need to throw out a lot more than seven books...
Andrew, your whole argument from beginning to end is fallacious. There is no contradiction between these passages. You are just presenting strawman arguments as usual.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial did you read Romans 3 brother, can you not conclude punishment being removed from sin in the new covenant? Yes or no
You know the doctrine of purgatory re punishment becomes questionable to say the least .
Explain how you’ve got around this , proper refute would be great if you’ve the time thanks .
Here’s the scripture Romans 3 :25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
Contradictions are the cause of apocryphal books being such as they are un doctrinal to apostolic teaching held in “God breathed”
Roman Catholics bible has more lies.
Repent from your sins and come to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
Prove it! Show us where the Catholic Bible is lying. This is a troll comment based on zero facts and no evidence.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial My, my, it's all over the web, search it, that's why America is mostly Protestant, and latin America is Roman Catholic and poor because Roman Catholicism is a curse.
Repent and come out from the great whore Roman Catholic church and be save.
That's your best answer? This only shows you don't know. The reality is that there is very little difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles other than that Protestant Bibles removed 7 books. So, your argument does not hold up. Please do some real research and don't remain in ignorance my trolling friend. If you want to convince us, use facts, not feelings and claims you can't substantiate.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Best answer? You don't need to be lazy, that's why Protestant exist because of the Roman Catholic Lies, so, do your job, it's all over the Internet why the Roman Catholic bible is FAKE.
@@timkhan3238 you are thinking in your flesh brother , without love we are just a gong .
We all suffer because our flesh is strong , the way you illustrating your belief is purely carnal therefore from satan , have charity and understanding towards others who believe in the Father albeit differently to the way you see it .
I am no exception to the flesh as it’s just as strong as yours when I ignore the prompting of Holy Spirit , keep your eyes on the Lord.
Let's get this straight. The Bible (the original text) is the Word of God inspired by the God of the Word. It is NOT a Catholic Bible. It is NOT a Protestant Bible. What we all possess is a 'version' a 'translation' of the original. The Catholic version has more books, correct, that is because they 'added' to the scriptures.
When are ALL professing Christians going to get back to basics. Reading GOD's word to learn about our Lord Jesus Christ and His wonderful sacrifice to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The Old Testament is composed of Israel's history and their dealing with God, but which are a 'type' of our Lord Jesus Christ and His dealings with His people. In our timescale it is with Christians who are part of the family of God, not members of any church system, including the Roman Catholic system.
Christ died to save sinners. He said: I am come, not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
That puts us all on an EVEN KEEL. We are all sinners in the sight of a Holy God. It does not matter what 'religious system' we follow - Christ died to save YOU. Forget trying to prove yourself the most righteous and look to Jesus Christ, the only Saviour for sinners.
Thank you for the troll comment. The reason the Bible is a Catholic book is because she's a church and the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. It was the Catholic Church who put the books in the Bible and chose but which books would be and would not be in Holy Scripture.
There was only one Christian Church at that time, the Catholic Church. Protestants would remove those seven books from the word of God in the eighteen hundreds. Those seven books were in the original Bible and all Protestant Bibles including the King James. So if you had watched the video you would know that the Catholic Church didn't add to the Bible but Protestants took away from it.
We agree with you though that everybody needs God. Everybody seems. But with that being said, you're saying that all religious systems are fine. Does that mean the Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? The Church of God? Scientology? They all believe in Jesus too. But Jesus started the Catholic church only. If Jesus started a church, that's the truth we should be part of, not countless man-made denominations.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Never in your wildest imagination did I say that all religious systems are fine. What I said was that no matter what religious system you are in, you can be 'saved' and have your sins forgiven by grace through faith in the finished work and sacrifice of Christ on the cross. For neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name, under Heaven, given amongst men, whereby we must be saved. We are all sinners, no matter where we are. Jesus said: I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Anyone can take their place as a guilty sinner before God and find faith in Christ Jesus for forgiveness and Eternal Life.
They may believe about Jesus, even Satan does, but that does not make them the children of God. That requires being born again of the spirit of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit. You show a complete lack of spiritual understanding, not only by the nonsense you believe about the Catholic church being the church which Christ is building. Can you not understand that the Church at Rome was composed of genuine Christians at the start, but ungodly men crept in with their false teaching, bringing a load of corruption and heathen ideas into Christendom, ending up with the mess that you have now in the Roman Catholic system. Do you honestly think that if 'your' church was the one that the Lord Jesus Christ is building, that He would tolerate all the sin and error, corruption and filth that goes on under the cover of being Christian behind closed doors.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial By the way, I am not a Troll. I am a born of the spirit Christian who understands God's grace, unlike yourselves.
This is Nonsense, irrational thinking 🤭"catholic bible"? 😂 Have u Ever asked urself why is it that There is no catholic church mentioned in the bible? 😂👎
The biblical table of contents is not in the Bible.
@@fantasia55 it already existed as mentioned in Luke
1:1-3 KJV "set forth in order"
"To write thee in order" ( verse 3) 😊
@@fantasia55 and by the way you're reasoning is nonsense,that doesn't make the bible a catholic book 🤭
@@ronaldcatapang5739 Wow, that's quite a strrrrrrrrretch. You're joking, right?
@ronaldcatapang5739 The Bible was created by the Catholic Church, so yes it is a Catholic book. It began as a list of texts approved for reading at Mass.