Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl

@308dad8

22 күн бұрын

Where did Paul says that works have no place? Paul said Faith without works is what? Yeah you know, Faith without works is dead. Everyone will be judged by our fruit so if all we did was say a little prayer and went about a life eating bacon on our cheeseburgers, and ham sandwiches and BarBQue well that’s evidence we didn’t really change isn’t it?

@jimmalloy7279

20 күн бұрын

Please look at my just posted comment. There are so many falsehoods in your speech. The full canon is normal magisterial teaching from the beginning. Trent was in direct response to the Protestant heresy. All the Churches in the East and West have the full Canon. It is ONLY Protestants that removed them!

@wjf0ne

16 күн бұрын

It's easy, the bible was written by man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and should be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guided the hand and mind of the writer and will help those who read it to understand it under his guidance. An old acquaintance used to go to countries behind the Iron Curtain to deliver stacks of bibles and individual gospels to underground Christians, many of whom kept their faith strong sharing and reading one single Gospel.

@jimmalloy7279

16 күн бұрын

@@wjf0ne If it were that easy then everyone would "believe the same thing," as scripture tells us we should, and we wouldn't have so much confusion of doctrine. So, tell me, does scripture say we should baptize babies or only believing adults?

Yo, I'm the guy from the video and I wanted to share a few thoughts. 1. Frank said a lot of things that were just incorrect about Catholicism. Some other people have already addressed it in the comments here but there was a good bit. 2. It was cut off from the end of this video for time sake, but I suggested that Frank read "The Bible is a Catholic Book" by Jimmy Akin. It's a great read and it addresses a lot of Frank's misconceptions. 3. I may have seemed unprepared and unknowledgeable in this video, but in my own defense, he was talking very quickly and I was trying not to derail the conversation from my main question every time a new point was brought up. To be brief, the Catholics didn't add books, James is clear about actions being required to remain justified in Christ, the New Testament doesn't quote from several protestant old testament books and in fact does reference several of the deuterocanonical Catholic books. 4. Frank didn't actually end up answering my question, which isn't an insult against him, because I don't think it can be answered from a Protestant perspective. He did a great job of telling me why the Bible is made up of books that are true, but he didn't tell me how we know that each word in each book was inspired to be written exactly as it was by God. A math textbook can be totally true, but that doesn't make it the inspired word of God. Take for example the book of Hebrews. Great information, but we don't even know who the author is. How can we be assured that it was rightly put into the Bible as the inspired word of God? If you say that the Holy Spirit makes it clear when you read it, you should know that the Mormons use that exact same argument for how one can know that the book of Mormon is true. Anyway, that's my two cents. If anyone has any thoughts or questions or hates that I'm Catholic, feel free to leave a comment and I'll try to respond as best as I'm able. God bless.

@infinitelink

Ай бұрын

A major misconception you gave of "protestantism" is that they didn't Believe, as James, that faith without works is dead. Always ignored, but often said, as Jesus himself confronted the Pharisees who asked what work they must do for the kingdom with "believe in Him whom [the father] hath sent", exchanging works for belieg, yet Jeaus apoke of fruit and obedience: faith saves, worka prove ("justify") the faith is real and not dead, but if you believe it's your works that save you, then you remain deaf in your sins under the curse of the law, since by works of the flesh no sinner is justified.

@theCatholic-Defender

Ай бұрын

I think you did amazing, and yes, Protestants can't answer this question because of their disconnect with history. I'm surprised to know Frank was Catholic, I am now wondering if he knows any church history at all.

@IridiumAxle

Ай бұрын

@@infinitelink Sorry to have given the impression of furthering a misconception. My point is in James saying "so you see you are saved by works and *not* by faith alone." The Catholic view on that is obedience to Christ is necessary to remain in good relationship with Him. Faith and grace are the sole causes of our initial salvation but if you maintain only in faith that is devoid of acts of obedience, your faith is dead and you have cut off the grace that God has given you. It seems that the Bible speaks not only saying that those in good relationship to Christ *will* do certain good works, but also that they *must.* When I say certain good works, I mean not committing mortal sin (the sin that leads to death mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17.) One way someone can commit this sin is through deliberate rejection of God in one form or another.

@slanz1

Ай бұрын

I’d like to turn Frank’s main argument for Christianity back on him. I.E. If everything in Catholic doctrine is true, would you become Catholic? He cannot prove the doctrine false because it has 2000 years of scrutiny behind it. He might disagree with some tenants, but in that regard, he’s just denying Jesus. There’s only one true faith. The Holy Catholic, apostolic and universal Church.

@ryanconnolly4354

Ай бұрын

I think you asked and discussed the topics very well. This was one of the few times that I've been disappointed with Frank's answers, too. If I recall correctly, the Jews of Jesus's time would be familiar with the deuterocannonical texts and a few are referenced by Jesus/the Apostles in the NT. Also, Enoch was quoted once or twice, but it is not officially canonized, so I'm not sure if that puts a hole in his sole argument ( I'm guessing it does not meet some of the other requirements that the early Church Fathers had, but not 100% sure).

The Catholic student was well read and respectful. Great showing!

@IsraelCountryCube

Ай бұрын

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE AMEN SUCH A RESPECTED YOUNG MAN AS I AM GOD BLESS HIM TO CONTINUE CATHOLIC TRADITIONS MORALITY REIGNS WITH US IN CHRIST!

@bowez9

Ай бұрын

​@@IsraelCountryCubeso it's true that the Pope is infallible even though ‭Romans 3:23 [23] for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; And how could Peter have been the first Pope when 1) he had a mother-in-law 2) never went to Rome.

@zeventic-9584

Ай бұрын

@@IsraelCountryCube No it isnt stop with the lied.

@zeventic-9584

Ай бұрын

@@bowez9Because the catholics lie, not saying all but the hierarchy

@wordforever117

Ай бұрын

@@bowez9 It was Peter who was the first pope. I guess you made a typo. Peter and Paul are both buried in Rome. Their bones are physically there. What is your concern over Peter having a mother-in-law?

I love how respectful his questions and responses were. And then his excitement at the end because it’s a great conversation

@benjaminwatt2436

Ай бұрын

agreed, Christians in all of Christondom need to treate each other with grace and kindness. its ugly and unhelpful to name call and make assumptions

@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846

Ай бұрын

@@benjaminwatt2436 You are 100% absolutely correct. We need to love and pray for one another. Butin my experiences, I’ve always been attacked by Catholics because I’m a Christian. They literally told me I was going to hell and I was wrong because I wasn’t Catholic.

@jackprescott9652

Ай бұрын

@@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846 I`m a Roman Catholic and I`m not sure about everything Dr Turek says (i do enjoy his videos and his teachings) but i agree with him that we need to accept Jesus as our Lord to be safe.

@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846

Ай бұрын

@@jackprescott9652 AMEN!!!!

@guardianangel3425

Ай бұрын

@@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846 Its a two way street bro. Protestants don't even believe Catholics are Christians. Protestants believe we worship Mother Mary like she is God and a lot of other things.

I only knew the Bible was God inspired AFTER I was born again in my 30's. Trying to read the Bible with human understanding just led me to become "religious". I believed in Jesus but I didn't really NEED Him, so I dressed nicely and went to church, performed all the repetitive rituals but no inner change ever took place, I lived a life of sin, no genuine repentance...so I tried to earn God's approval by "balancing my good with my bad". I dictated my own standards. It was through a nightmarish dark time in my life that Jesus became real in my life because I cried out to Him once all the crutches of religion had been removed. Today - the Bible is like food to my soul and I cannot live without it. I was once spiritually blind but now I see. I love my Catholic brothers dearly but the fact that they get so triggered about me being born again in my adult life, tells me they don't know what being born of the Spirit even means. My own family and friends resent me for leaving the Catholic church but why? Did I do something unscriptural? Did Jesus not commanded us to REPENT and be baptized on your own will? "if you CONFESS with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and BELIEVE in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be SAVED. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved" Romans 10:9 How could I do that as a baby?

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

Ай бұрын

Yes your immoral monster inspired so much more than you care to accept.

@Sapari1

Ай бұрын

This was beautifully said, thank you.

@juangringo3906

Ай бұрын

G2G 🙌 AMEN 🙏

@gruges2068

Ай бұрын

Very well stated, Mr. Boom! ☝🏻💪🏽🙂

@Luvurenemy

Ай бұрын

Me too! I wish everyone was born-again. A gift I would love to give to everyone.

Council of Rome around 380AD contradicts Frank on the canon being formed at Trent.

@BlGGESTBROTHER

Ай бұрын

He's wrong about a lot here. The kid asking the question was correct; Jesus and the apostles never quotes from Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, or Esther. Yet he mistakenly says that they did and that those books just weren't found with the dead sea scrolls.

@karendelgado7923

Ай бұрын

@@BlGGESTBROTHER plus I believe they did find writings of Sirach and Tobit in the Dead Sea scrolls, so he is just wrong here

@svenmuller1045

Ай бұрын

The council of rome is not considered an ecumenical council. I do agree that Frank isnt the best apologist, but i do belive the arguments still stands, there are books that werent quoted, and there is little reason for us to think they are inspired.

@jd3jefferson556

Ай бұрын

Frank, wrong? Wow what a surprise.

@svenmuller1045

Ай бұрын

@@jd3jefferson556 there are good ones, look up gavin ortlund, try finding wholes in his arguments

The canon of Scripture was recognized well before the Council of Trent. Early councils like Rome in 382 AD and Hippo in 393 AD acknowledged the same books the Catholic Church honors today. Trent's 1546 declaration was a formal affirmation in response to the Reformation, not the initial establishment of the canon.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

I've been saying the same thing over and over again. Thank you.

@fr.Angel21

Ай бұрын

​@@dman7668Protestants just rebuttal due to suffocattion by scripture alone (sola scriptura).

@estebanmarquez6636

Ай бұрын

I don't know how people can continue to argue against these facts. Baffles me.

@Eighties_Child

Ай бұрын

You're misunderstanding Frank's claim about the additional books that Rome canonized. There he was referring only to the *Apocrypha* (i.e., the deuterocanonical/secondary Jewish books written during the intertestamental period, which are historically accurate and perhaps spiritually valuable but which are nevertheless *not* God-breathed/inspired). Those particular books were never recognized as canonical (i.e., on par with divinely authored Scripture) by Jews or by most Protestants, and in fact were strongly disputed even by many Catholics, until the Council of Trent declared them canonical (and anathematized all who disagree!) in April 1546. Obviously, the vast majority of the 66 canonical books (36 OT; 27 NT) were recognized as being God-breathed/inspired by the middle of the second century. FYI, the Fragment of Muratori (c. A.D. 150-220, Milan) references or alludes to 22 NT books (all but Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and one of John's epistles, although it's not clear which one, as two of his three epistles were acknowledged but not with specificity). Moreover, three early Apostolic church fathers (so named because they were either personal disciples of, or otherwise had direct contact with, the Apostles of Christ) quoted passages from 25 of the 27 NT books between A.D. 95 and 110. These men are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. [Note: Clement of Rome, who was the fourth bishop of the church in Rome, is believed to have been a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and he may have been the same Clement the Apostle Paul refers to as a “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3. And according to early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a pupil of Polycarp, both Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were students of the Apostle John.] Clement of Rome, writing from Rome around A.D. 95 when the Apostle John was plausibly still living, confirmed the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as five Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Titus) and three general letters (i.e., the occasionally disputed books of Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter). Further, Ignatius of Antioch, writing from Smyrna around A.D. 107, referenced all four Gospels, along with the book of Acts, 12 of Paul’s 13 epistles (i.e., all except 2 Thessalonians), and the remaining books of the NT, with the exceptions of 2 John and Jude. And Polycarp, writing from Smyrna around A.D. 110, recognized 2 Thessalonians and several other NT books already confirmed by Clement and Ignatius. Such remarkably early external attestation-which, by the way, is absolutely extraordinary for writings from the ancient world-goes a long way toward substantiating the transmissional accuracy and historical reliability of the original New Testament documents, as well as their early dating and authorship. Significantly, it also demonstrates that the early Christians recognized and accepted only four Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and that the apostolic authorship or divine authority of the 13 epistles of Paul and the books of Acts and 1 John (at least) were never questioned or contested. And of course, Athanasius' well-known "Easter letter" (i.e., his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle) shows that all 27 books found in the New Testament of modern Bibles were definitely recognized throughout Christendom as being canonical/authoritative by the year A.D. 367.

@estebanmarquez6636

Ай бұрын

@@Eighties_Child I won't try to respond to everything you said because it's a lot. The fact of the matter is that this is about authority. The Jews had no authority to decide what the Christian canon was, not to mention there were several groups of Jews, all who didn't agree what was considered sacred scripture and what was not. Which group was right and why?People use the Jews as a monolith when trying to defend the protestant canon. A handful of church fathers don't have the authority to set the canon either. The church hierarchy decides that, just as they did at Rome in 382, and again at Hippo, Florence and Trent.

The title is misleading. It's really Catholic Student presses Frank on Discernment of the Canon.

@nothingbutthetruth613

Ай бұрын

Actually, his question was how do you know they are inspired by God and not just some guy rambling. Frank never answered this question. I wonder why

@treytaylor1511

Ай бұрын

​@@nothingbutthetruth613Because he cant lol.

@michaelmarquez966

Ай бұрын

You don’t know what pressed is 😂

@IoannesVI

Ай бұрын

​@@michaelmarquez966Did the Jews have a canon?

@Luvallo

Ай бұрын

​@treytaylor1511 if Frank is unable to answer, why do you say lol. Do you enjoy someone's incapacity?

I googled it. Ezra, Nehimiah, and Song of Solomon are not quoted. Therefore, I don’t think we can use this argument to not include the apocrypha.

@keithbirdwell

Ай бұрын

Yet the early church and disciples didn’t consider the apocrypha as inspired.

@crw662

Ай бұрын

@@keithbirdwell That’s definitely a better argument, but we don’t fully know that. It seems that some early church fathers did see them as possibly inspired, others definitely didn’t. I assume you mean Jesus’s disciples? I don’t know of anything we have today that speaks to if they considered the apocrypha as inspired or not. Their inclusion wasn’t mainstream for several hundred years though, and the Jews didn’t recognize them. That’s probably the best argument.

@tpoy1274

Ай бұрын

Frank is good but he’s fumbling here. The historical argument and the exegetical argument are not gonna solve this question for the protestant. If I were still a protestant, I would just have to be agnostic about it which really flies in the face of the structure of Protestantism.

@crw662

Ай бұрын

@@tpoy1274 To me, if we are going to be agnostic on it, then we definitely shouldn’t claim they are inspired. Better to reject them in ignorance and accept them in ignorance.

@tpoy1274

Ай бұрын

@@crw662 It’s a really a bad argument to base your judgment of what is canon on the Jews. The Jews rejected the Word of God himself. We are going to trust their judgment on the inspired Word? Especially when that judgment is post apostolic? The same protestants who will say that they don’t trust the judgment of the historical church on the canon will trust the judgment of apostate Jews. It doesn’t make sense.

The last part of this was the most crucial. How does one get saved? This is fundamental and non negotiable. It also separates Biblical Christianity from every other belief on the planet. It's clearly spelled out here. The glory is God's alone. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

You are not justified by faith alone. You don't even understand Ephesians 2:8-9.

@soundscapeproductions9173

Ай бұрын

@@dman7668 we are. But go on, what does it mean.

@IsraelCountryCube

Ай бұрын

truly we must do works to be saved amen. self proclaimed christians protestant feel the emotion of faith and then what? no good works? most self so called christians dont do good works wether they boast or not is irrelevant they dont do good works and thats not good for anyone. so in many they die.

@Jocke155

Ай бұрын

@@dman7668 True faith leads to good works.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

​@soundscapeproductions9173 if the Bible says you are saved by faith ALONE without need of obedience or love then conjure up the verse that says that. Then explain James 2:24 which says you see how a man is justified BY HIS WORKS and NOT by faith alone!

There are so many incorrect statements made by Dr. Frank Turek, I am not sure if one can properly write about them all on this youtube discussion thread. Maybe a response video will be needed to present the historical facts.

I could listen all day to these two respectful men having a conversation. Why do we not see more of this?

That is how you get to Heaven, by the grace of God through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

If those books weren’t added to the Catholic bible until the Council of Trent, why are they also in the Orthodox bible? I don’t think the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches were coordinating too well in the 1500’s.

@bruceroberts8614

Ай бұрын

They are also in the Oriental Orthodox canon!

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

The Catholic Church didn't add any books to the Bible in the council of trent. All it did was affirm what was the canon officially because of the failed protestant reformations attack on the long standing canon.

@Charlotte_Martel

Ай бұрын

Exactly. Pastor Frank is letting his anti Catholicism colour his knowledge of history (if he has studied this).

@GamingxKnight

Ай бұрын

Frank was also intellectually dishonest when speaking about Jerome. Yes Jerome had his own personal grievances with what books should be translated, but Jerome ultimately said that his grievances were borderline sinful because they went against the authority and power of the Church and relented his grievances to submit to the authority of the Church. Frank conveniently left that part out.

@chloemartel9927

Ай бұрын

​@dman7668 the Council of Trent said for the first time that the apocrypha was to be treated as sacred scripture. They did this because they needed the apocrypha to prop up their heresy of purgatory and indulgences.

As a Catholic I love to watch Frank . There are two issues I have though with his statements: The first being that Jerome did not translate the deuterocanonical books. Considering they were within the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) he did in fact translate them. The second issue is his claim that these books are not mentioned or alluded to in the NewTestament. Here is in fact a list: Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16. Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18. God bless all believers in Christ.

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

Reference to other writings isn’t a declaration of their canonicity.

@cooldude71120

Ай бұрын

@@brianrich7828 Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church. In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request” to translate it. It is true Jerome, when learning Hebrew, did not consider 5 of the books as canonical, but they were in the Vulgate. He did translate them, and they have always been considered canonical in the Christian Bible. Even if Jerome himself did not hold some of these to be canonical doesn’t mean they aren’t. The Church has always held them to be canonical and these texts were taken out by Protestants who still themselves hold more texts than the Jewish Bible. You have certain sects of Judaism that only adhere to the Torah (first five books) and others only 22.. so all Christian’s have more texts in the OT.

@cooldude71120

Ай бұрын

@@brianrich7828 So in response to your point I never claimed Jerome held them as canonical, but he did translate them and labeled them apocryphal, meaning non canonical, yet in the Bible. The Church on the other hand has always included them in the canon when the Bible was formed.

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

@@cooldude71120 wrong,you’d have to show proof that before the 5th century CE those were considered canonical.

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

@@cooldude71120 also,using groups who also messed up canonicity isn’t a great point to show how the Catholic decision is correct. Bad tactic.

So what happened in 382, 397, 419, and 1431-1449 AD? He has his ordering mixed up. These books were decided as canon much earlier and the two most ancient branches of Christianity use them in their Bibles. Luther took books OUT of the Bible which is one of the reasons there was a Council of Trent to begin with. All that happened was canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church, not recreated. Luther would have removed more books too like the Letter of James because it's is antithetical to Sola Fide most completely noted in James 2:26

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

Those books were only considered canonical by the Catholic Church. The Israelites who authored those books and those after never considered them to be inspired or canonical. Not surprising knowing how the Catholic church loves to evolve their theology and doctrines Willy nilly throughout the centuries.

@definitelynotsarcasm

Ай бұрын

@@brianrich7828 so the Orthodox churches do not exist? And we are not going to acknowledge that each of these councils included both east (Orthodox) and west (Catholic)? And are we going to forget that prior to 70AD there was significant debate in the Jewish community about which books were canon and which were not? Are we also going to ignore that the Septuagint is roughly 1000 years older than the Masoretic texts and that there is a consensus that the Septuagint is the source that Jesus and the Apostles would use in their preaching?

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

@@definitelynotsarcasm Oh the Orthodox church exists,mind you Orthodox is just a title,and not an apt description based on their theology. The Upanishads are older than even those,so I guess if the supremacy of antiquity is the litmus test for canonicity then the Upanishads should also be in the Bible huh? The Talmud is older than the new Testament therefore it should also be canon. Appealing to antiquity has no basis regarding canonicity. Teachers to this day will reference others works that would be familiar to their audience,that doesn’t make the other persons entire work an authority on a particular subject. Fables are often referenced in academia,that doesn’t mean the fables are true. Jesus alluding to works that would have been read by those who were listening does not equate them to being Canon. The Apostle Paul used examples of Pagan philosophers such as Aratus and others like Menander. And those writings are certainly not canonical. So moot point.

@definitelynotsarcasm

Ай бұрын

​@@brianrich7828 First let me say I hope we can now agree that "these books were only considered canon by the Catholic Church" is a false statement and that prior to the reformation, it was commonly accepted by Christians that these books were in fact Scripture. My point is not "older = better" my point is that if we have a source that Jesus and the Apostles literally quote from and is closer to original than another source, would it not be preferable to use that source instead? Additionally you must contend with the fact that in the days of Jesus, Scripture had not been settled and there was great debate over what was and what was not Scripture. I would also ask these questions: - would your interpretation not then mean that the Jews are the authority for what is or is not Scripture when it comes to the Old Testament? Suppose Jewish religious leaders come out tomorrow and say that not only is the Deuterocanon Scripture, but so is the Orthodox Deuterocanon along with the book of Enoch. Would that not then make all of those books Infallible Scripture? - should we not consider the Scriptures Jesus quotes from in His ministry, instead we need to consult what Jews, who did not consider Jesus as God, declared canon 40 years after His death doing everything they could, including changing the text,/misinterpreting the text, in an attempt to step away from possible Christian interpretations?

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

@@definitelynotsarcasm The very same Jews wrote the Bible. Protestants didn’t accept them because they weren’t part of the Jewish canon known as the Hebrew Bible. In the second and third centuries BC, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, creating what we know as the Septuagint (LXX). In addition to the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX contains a number of other books of Jewish piety. It is not clear whether some or all of these had existed in Hebrew and were translated into Greek, or were written in Greek and subsequently (for a few of them found in fragmentary form among the Dead Sea Scrolls) translated into Hebrew. However, none of these found their way into the Jewish canon known as the Masoretic text. The LXX was the main Old Testament used by Christians, but the question of whether or not the additional books should be part of it was never settled. Jerome included them in his Vulgate translation, which became the foundation of the Latin-speaking church, but he did not himself regard them as canonical. The Reformation took place in an age of advancing Biblical textual scholarship, and began a period of Bible translation from Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek. When the translators went to translate the Old Testament, they found that these other books did not exist in Hebrew. For this reason, Martin Luther placed them in a separate section, but he did not remove them. The first editions of the Authorised Version in English included them, but they progressively lost headway. In contrary motion, while the Protestants concluded that they were not part of the Jewish canon, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent decided that they should be included. Most Bibles these days are available both with and without the deuterocanonical books, but Bibles without vastly outsell those with. If you read them, it’s clear why they don’t fit with the Old Testament. They are obviously considerably later. The one most likely to interest Christians, the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, explicitly identifies itself as not part of the canon. The writing style is different, and there is a substantial shift in theology, which reflects the fascination with angels and demons of other inter-testamental literature. The New Testament quotes from the canonical parts of the Septuagint 300 times, but it never quotes from the apocryphal parts. The closest it gets is a reference in Hebrews 11:35 which refers to an event described in the deuterocanonicals, although it is not a quotation. No two manuscripts of the Septuagint contain the same apocrypha. The Catholic and Orthodox churches both acknowledge Deuterocanonicals, but they have different lists of what they contain. The bottom line on this is that Protestants recognise that, historically, they were not part of the Bible that Jesus read or used. When Jesus stated that no part of the ‘law’ would pass away, they were evidently not included. Protestant epistemology goes like this: The Resurrection demonstrates that the claims Jesus made about himself were true, specifically that he was sent by God, as he claimed. Jesus explicitly authorised the Hebrew Old Testament. At the end of Matthew’s Gospel, he authorises and requires the apostles to teach everything he taught them. The canonical New Testament is what became accepted by the church as this teaching of the apostles and their associates. For this reason, the cut-off point for the New Testament is the end of the first century, when John, last of the apostles, died. Although there are many second century works of Christian piety, they have never been considered for acceptance. There are two first century documents which are valued by Christians, but which have no particular association with the apostles and therefore were never considered for inclusion. These are Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Luther wanted take out Revelation and Hebrews, but he was talked out of it.

@Hboogie182

Ай бұрын

He also wanted to remove James

@Si_Mondo

Ай бұрын

​@@Hboogie182Came to say the same.

@the-hollywood-dog-says-6072

Ай бұрын

And he hated the Jews.

@user-om5db7xx2u

Ай бұрын

Boy there are some haters in the thread of the man God chose to protest the abuses of the Catholic Church. What is the truth? Don’t hang on to Catholic dogma but look and study truth. It’s all in God’s revealed word.

@wordforever117

Ай бұрын

@@Hboogie182 No wonder! It is an awful book if you have a non-Christian view on salvation!

Greeaaaat conversation - this is how Mere Christian discussions should go. Question:response with heaps of respect. We don't have to agree on everything. We'll all be wrong about something. "They'll know we are Christians by our love."

@taniaashby137

Ай бұрын

AMEN!

@jennifermcc2279

6 күн бұрын

👏👏👏

Saying that Jerome didn't want to translate the apocrypha is like Martin Luther calling the book of James in the New Testament is a book of straw

@richardpaskach3084

Ай бұрын

Exactly! Jerome did translate those books after expressing his concerns. He understood that those books were in the Septuagint. They would have been the cannon of scripture at the time of Jesus.

@brianrich7828

Ай бұрын

@@richardpaskach3084 They never were Canon. Not even by the Jews. Catholics are the first. Not the first to make things up as they go,but to consider the Septuagint inspired.

@KSTrekker

Ай бұрын

Protestants LOVE to try to use our own Saints and Church Fathers against us. The weakest argument against those 7 books is "well the Jews didn't accept them." Well, newsflash, they also didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. First century Jews were very reluctant to accept anything that might point to Christ being the Messiah. They would have outright rejected these books as well because they were written in Greek.

@cyril_s

Ай бұрын

@@brianrich7828 So what is Septuagint to Jews? Why did Luke quote from Septuagint instead of Hebrew Tanakh?

@TheEagleChristian

Ай бұрын

​@@cyril_s probably because he didn't speak Hebrew.

The Catholic kid was correct, the New Testament has no quotes from Esther, nor from Song of Solomon, nor from Job. Job was mentioned by the Apostle James (James 5:11), but the book was not quoted. Furthermore, while the observation is correct about Jesus and the Apostles not quoting from the so-called Apocrypha, they did quote or allude to a number of books that nobody considers canonical--the book of Enoch,** the book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and several others. So we can't say that "quoted by the Apostles" is a criterion for canonicity. Of course, Mr. Turek didn't say that, but since it wasn't one of the criteria mentioned in Mr. Turek's list of criteria applied by the early church, we need to understand why he brought it up. He brought it up to claim that Jesus and the Apostles did not take those books seriously, and that's fair enough--but they did seem to take Enoch, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, etc. seriously. Those were excluded from the canon for other reasons. (In the Talmud, there were at least 3 rabbis who referred to the Apocryphal book called "The Wisdom of Sirach" as scripture, so there were Jews who did include at least that one book in their idea of the canon. But most did not.) Turek's answer was pretty good if you put it all together. Still, "they didn't quote from those books" is not a complete argument, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The question of canonicity is a difficult question, and not one usually handled at the popular level. ** The book of Enoch is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Rite Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken, but not by anybody else.

@domanicvaldez

Ай бұрын

Catholic Here: You are mistaken on your last line. It is the Ethiopian Orthodox. They are not Catholic. They have an 81 book "canon."

@philWynk

Ай бұрын

@@domanicvaldez, thanks.

@domanicvaldez

Ай бұрын

@@philWynk of course. God Bless you brother!

@paulobaptista6026

19 күн бұрын

thanks… nice to know

@Dub4Yah

15 күн бұрын

Catholicism is bunk but so was franks claim. Yeshua quoted Enoch so did Jude

Faith is essential for salvation, but faith without works is dead. James 2:24. Can’t get more clear than that.

@fr.Angel21

Ай бұрын

Luther wanted to remove James, a radical movement that even protestant admits. Makes you ask you think.

@MrSeedi76

Ай бұрын

​@@fr.Angel21he didn't remove it though. Just as he never removed any other books. And it's funny that catholics complain about it, considering how many things they do that are clearly not in the Bible.

@malcolmknight345

Ай бұрын

You don't understand the context of James 2:24 because Ephesians 2:8-9 refutes a work's based salvation.

@MD23230

Ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@malcolmknight345Completely wrong. You have taken Ephesians 2:8-9 completely out of context - it is clear that God is the source of our salvation and not our own works, indicating our need for humility! not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:9 “God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent! Homily on Ephesians.” - John Chrysostom

@richardpaskach3084

Ай бұрын

Ephesians references to works are works of the law. James refers to works as a response to faith. These are very different concepts. But since they both are referred to as works, Protestants often get confused.

The student worked him. He specifically says “my view isn’t hinging on the pope,” and the speaker immediately responds to papal authority. Not to mention, Jerome did translate the 7 books AT THE URGING OF THE POPE

@pmlm1571

21 күн бұрын

Yes, Jerome had his opinion but guess what he DID. He submitted the whole bible including the Deuterocanonicals, to the pope. And that's the famous Vulgate which changed the world. He had an opinion, but he was Catholic.

@williamjpellas0314

7 күн бұрын

That's strange, given that when Jerome lived there was no such thing as quote, the pope, unquote. There was the Bishop of Rome, yes. But not a pope in the modern sense of the word.

@pmlm1571

7 күн бұрын

@@williamjpellas0314 Just because a word is not used doesn't mean the thing signified by the word doesn't exist: the word "Trinity" for example, is not in the bible. Jerome submitted his work to the man in charge. I wonder who that was, hmmm.

@williamjpellas0314

7 күн бұрын

Yeah, who was it?

The Savior taught, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

"The canon is not an authoritative list of books, it's a list of authoritative books" still doesn't answer the question: How do you KNOW with certainty that these 66 or 73 books are authoritative? How do you discover that they are the inspired Word of God? There's no verse in the Bible that tells us specifically which books belong in it. No verse gives the criteria that Frank gave for recognizing what is or is not inspired. But there is a Church that Jesus established that the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). And this Church can recognize with Divine authority and certainty what are the Sacred Scriptures. To believe that the Bible we have today is the inspired, infallible Word of God, requires us to trust in another infallible authority OUTSIDE of that book. If we don't, then there's nothing preventing people from removing books or certain passages they disagree with from the Bible; We saw this happen with Luther on "praying for the dead" and the deuterocanonical books (he also wasn't too keen on the book of James because of James' emphasis on works), and we see this happening today with more "Progressive" Christians and passages of St. Paul on sexual sin. The Bible alone doesn't tell us what the Bible is, but the Catholic Church which Jesus founded has preserved these Sacred Scriptures so that we can confidently follow Christ to the end. Also... Jerome definitely included those 7 "extra" OT books in the Latin Vulgate. He expressed reservations about them but assented to the authority of the Church in the end. The Church continued to include those books in Her canon and didn't have a need to dogmatically define which books belonged in the canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, when Protestants began calling the canon into question.

@8shizzle

25 күн бұрын

" To believe that the Bible we have today is the inspired, infallible Word of God, requires us to trust in another infallible authority OUTSIDE of that book." ....Who said what is OUTSIDE the Book is infallible ?

@RangerGrant

25 күн бұрын

@@8shizzle Because the Bible itself doesn't tell you which books belong in it. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, by extension you trust in an infallible authority outside of the Bible to tell you what the Bible is; that authority is the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

@pmlm1571

21 күн бұрын

Yes, except the Church did dogmatically define the canon more than a thousand years before Trent. Trent's list is merely a RE-RE-RE-RE-affirmation of a canon long officially established.

@MrDoyle07

19 күн бұрын

The Bible does say it is not complete. You’re going to have to have faith. That’s a wee fact with a HUGE consequence.

@MrDoyle07

19 күн бұрын

@@8shizzle Jesus commissioned his Church. That’s clearly done in Matthew. If Jesus said it, and Jesus being God it is by that true. It’s an omnipotence rule. When the omnipotence speaks, that which is spoken shall be true. He told it as bound and loosed and gave the keys to the Kingdom to His earthly successor, Peter, who was called Simon. At some point you have to believe or not believe. He did those miracles as much for those He helped as He did them for you so that you would have reason to believe. Then he was nailed up and died a grueling death for you and I then he did perform another miracle, for every single one of us… …He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and had witnesses who saw it and every one of them died too for what they knew and not one of them back-peddled. They all professed of Jesus Christ into their own deaths. That’s to much love for this guy to deny. I’m holding fast and I am doing it in the Church He founded.

Thank You Lord Jesus Christ for the Catholic faith ❤

@cristinamz2137

Ай бұрын

Amen!!@

@lazyriver53

Ай бұрын

Amen!

@jerrythompson5967

Ай бұрын

I was raised catholic but their are way to many things that they teach that contradict the Bible!

@morganclare4704

Ай бұрын

EVEN THOUGH IT WILL SEND YOU TO HELL???

@lazyriver53

Ай бұрын

@@morganclare4704 We choose between Heaven and Hell. God doesn’t send us there. He gives us freedom to choose life or death. I choose life!

Jerome did translate those books. Councils of Rome 382 has the list of books. Florence prior to Trent gave the list, but it was solemnly defined at Trent because of the reformation. He didn’t answer how it was discovered that certain books were inspired. And if it’s not authoritative, then it follows that it could be wrong. Definitely 7 books of the OT he accepts are not quoted in the NT. That argument cuts against him. If it’s valid, that means his canon is screed up. Jews didn’t accept Christ, should we follow them in that too? Jews didn’t have a set canon during the time of Christ. The different parties of Jews had different canons. So if we do follow the Jews during that time, which Jews do we follow?

@geraldmurphy321

11 күн бұрын

In summary, he couldn't answer the question.

Around 6:50 Frank makes an error and it causes his argument to fail. Regardless of your opinions on the magisterium and its place, using just the standard of "old accepted books", the apocrypha were included in the Greek Septuagint which is the basis for the old testament for the Christian Church from its earliest beginnings. Additionally the Eastern Orthodox Church (split in 11th century) and Oriental Orthodox Church (split in 5th century) accept these books as part of the canon and tradition that has remained largely unchanged since those times. These books were not introduced in response to Martin Luther and the reformation in the 16th century. That is just false to suggest.

@shortyshea2728

Ай бұрын

He was doing gymnastics avoiding the fact a council of apostolic successors came together with the holy spirit to know these things to be true

@bowez9

Ай бұрын

So what about the Church in Ethiopia or do you deny thier direct succession?

@infinitelink

Ай бұрын

The LXX did not originally contain the Apocrypha, but first translated the Torah, and later the Jewish canon. The Apocrypha were either themselves not in Hebrew or translations that Jews themselves considered Jewish literature, reading that might be edifying for spiritual themes for example, but not for reading in religious gatherings. Only later are they bound into copies of the LXX, by which time it's not only far from the original LXX, it's likely not even mere revision 10... EO & Rome only much later insist otherwise, including arguments that the ancient faithful (Jewish Patriarchs etc, and tgwy were faithful--say otherwise and you're Marcionite) didn't have a Canon... which is historically and provably wrong: not only do (ancient( Jewish aources & lists show otherwise (that EOs & R Catholics tend to then twust further in ahistorical ways if they admit that), even Jesus & disciples use terms known to Jews to indicate the specific sets of books. Simply put, arguing with EOs and Catholics on this is analogous to listening to Mormons on their book (whose many "tells" reveal it is historical fabrication much less inspired), or [another big faith] on historical mistatements (strongly asseverated) in their holy writ, or "a certain American cult" on its scifi alien books ripped off from others.... Insisting to an ancient believer before Christ's birth that the (then-ectant} Apocrypha are Canon would be like insisting to a Protestant that Pilgrim's Progress is... who knows better. Insisting on them in the early Church (despite all evidences)... There are internal design matters that also "tell", besides the facts of Jews having preserved the history, especially given that Jews in Alexandria & Egypt & North Africa & thorought Rome weren't wiped out as Jerusalem was... but there are good reasons that the early counsels of Christians *and* the earlier ones of ancient Patristics (pre-Christ) had the same methods & came to the same conclusions. Even using the same statement: the books [today called Apocrypha] are (often) good for edification but not for public (in religious gatherings) reading. And that's before we get into Rome (pre-split of east & West) is infamous (and Rome the Western part post-split ADMITTED) to "creative" arguments from documents it knew were forged but insisted weren't for... many centuries. And all that's before the observation: there really was no controversy here among actually-informed people until partisans started reaching to find Scriptures to rest doctrinal positions upon.

@wildman4126

Ай бұрын

Another question: So all of the early church magisterium is wrong?

@bowez9

Ай бұрын

@@wildman4126 yes, and the current stratification is too.

Ahhh my brother. Thank you for questioning! God has given us intellect to commune with him...we should always question to grow deeper in our faith.

I loved the end how Frank stopped to at least assure that young man was saved!! A ground level of understanding Catholicism excludes it from Christianity. Works being at the top of the list.

"Rome didnt exercise its unique authority until after 500AD" That's just not true there was 5 church councils up to that point

@ReadItAgainBJ

Ай бұрын

There just might be a wee bit of difference between a church council and Rome.

@mattduin7144

Ай бұрын

@@ReadItAgainBJ who called the Chuch council, sat in on it, presided over it, and ensured what was agreed applied to all of Christianity?

@user-gs4oi1fm4l

Ай бұрын

Yeah whether Rome exercised unique authority or the church council exercised its general magisterial authority is doesn't change anything. Magisterial authority defined the canon either way which is an authority evangelicals and rogue priests do not have.

@elliotlazarus9257

Ай бұрын

@@mattduin7144 The bishop of Rome didn’t preside in NT canon, there was no pope during that time, The canon of the New Testament was not officially announced at a single definitive moment. Instead, it was a gradual process of consensus-building among early Christian communities. In 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, listed all 27 books of the New Testament in his 39th Festal Letter. This is the first known reference to the exact list of New Testament books that we have today, showing a significant step toward canonization. The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) in North Africa were regional councils that confirmed the New Testament canon as the 27 books we now recognize. These councils played a crucial role in solidifying the canon's acceptance, although they were regional in scope.

@mattduin7144

Ай бұрын

@@elliotlazarus9257 The canon of scripture was defined at the council of Rome on 382AD. When you say "churches", who were those church? All catholic

Normally I come down largely on the side of Frank here, but I think he was lofting air-balls on this whole thing. For instance, as to whether or not the Apocrypha was ever cited or quoted in the NT, it's quite immaterial. There are tons of canonical OT books that are also not cited or quoted. Furthermore, the Book of Enoch is once referenced, which is not in the canon for either Protestants or Catholics. For that matter, Paul even quotes Greek philosophers in order to make a larger point to his hearers. So citation does not necessarily equate canonicity, nor its lack preclude it. An additional observation: Catholics never removed books from their OT canon. It may come as considerable shock to some that the first printings of the venerable old King James version included the Apocrypha, and for almost 200 years after it was first published (1804 to be precise!) Additionally, why are we appealing to Jewish canon that was established AFTER the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora? The now rather historically dubious Council of Jamnia, said to have convened somewhere between 70-90 AD, allegedly established the all-Hebrew canon (excepting Esther and portions of Daniel, which both appear only in Aramaic.) There's precious little to actually support this view today, and was more likely locked in at around the same time the Mishna was compiled at the end of the 2nd century. Early Christians, on the other hand, took their cue from the Septuagint canon, which includes said "missing" books, and would have been a version very familiar to the early Church. This is Church History 101 Frank. You can do better than this! C'mon man! 😄

@leechrec

Ай бұрын

Personally I think the Christian OT is more true to the original Jewish. Judaism today is different from what it originally as.

@wordforever117

Ай бұрын

Frank is amazing at logical arguments for believing in God. But like all protestants, seriously let's himself down when it comes to knowledge of history

@GamingxKnight

Ай бұрын

Not only that but he completely misrepresents Jerome's position in regards to the books of the Bible. Yes Jerome disagreed with Pope Damascus (forgive me I forget which number he was lol) on what books to translate, but Jerome eventually submits to the authority of the Church saying that his disagreement was borderline sinful because he was going against the authority of the Church that Christ established.

@wordforever117

Ай бұрын

@@GamingxKnight Such an important point. It was the Council of Rome that decreed the canon, not Jerome on his own. If we reject the authority of church councils then the whole debate around circumcision of the Gentiles is still unresolved since the Councilof Jerusalem!

@infinitelink

Ай бұрын

The LXX didn't originally contain the Apocrypha. But Jews in second-temple Judaiam began to include books they didn't consider canonical so not allowed for public reading, but nevertheless religiously useful or edifying, along with their scroll collections... Analogously I have an old American Bible that includes a copy of Pilgrim's progress: nobody that bound it nor original buyers thought Pilgrim's was Holy Scripture... Likewise I have a Bible to which I added Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts at the back: that's not Scripture but it's material early Christians knew well, even claiming Plutarch (morally) as one of their own.

That was excellent...respect on both sides...hard to find in debates today.

Some problems with Frank’s Argument (from an Orthodox perspective in defense of the Catholic position): 1. Catholics did not “add” books to the Bible. Instead, Protestants removed them. It was disputed at the time whether or not some books should be in the canon and this canon differed throughout the churches until they became unified into one canon by means of agreement. What I mean by this, is that just because Jerome disagreed doesn’t mean all church fathers agreed with him. Some churches, such as the church in Syria, did not even consider revelation to be canon until 1-2 centuries later. Catholics did not “add” books, the canon varied across the different churches (by different churches I mean the same universal church but in different countries). 2. Just because the apostles do not quote from the deuterocanon, does not mean that they are not inspired books. As mentioned by the Catholic man, the New Testament does not quote Esther. Furthermore, Jude 1:9 quotes the Book of Enoch (verse 1:14 I am pretty sure) yet the book of Enoch is not in any Christian canon other than the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. If we take Frake’s perspective, then Jude should not be canon as it quotes from a non-canonical book which was refrained from being put into the Bible as the inspired word of God. 3. The New Testament writers do not quote the deuterocanon, but their Old Testament citations are from the Septuagint and NOT from the Masoretic. The masoretic is the OT text used by modern-say Jews, while the Septuagint was used by the Jews at the time of the apostles and was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. This version of the Old Testament included these other books, such as Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Tobit, and Maccabees. The Jews stopped using the Septuagint because Christianity was becoming so popular and some of these books included prophecies of Christ, so they were ultimately removed thus forming the Masoretic text as to avoid more Christians converting. The Jews at Jesus’ time DID have these books in their canon.

@Arconiaous

Ай бұрын

Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She needed a Savior. The Bible says that because of one man-Adam-death-which is sin-came to all. It doesn’t say “excluding Mary.” Praying to angels and saints is unbiblical. Never in the Bible does anyone who follows the Living God pray to a saint or angel. I feel like I had to type this because I don’t understand why Catholics do it. Mary was an ordinary sinner like all of us. And she had to repent like all of us. What’s this obsession with her?

@bassmanjr100

Ай бұрын

I will sum up a quick point rather than wasting time writing a book. According to Paul, the apostle, there is one mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus. There is no need for a pope, or a multitrillion dollar hierarchical corporate enterprise protificating edicts from in highly ornate, ridiculously expensive, ugly, ceremonies. The church closest to Christ and the 12 met in homes, they prayed and talked directly to God in Jesus' name. No pope was or, therefore, is necessary. No pope means no Catholic church.

@ronviejo4994

Ай бұрын

Esther is included to provide scriptural basis for Purim. The Jews also believe that the Talmud i.e. the "oral law" developed during the Babylonian exile, is based on mosaic law. This is also false and has no scriptural basis in ANY canon. Nowhere in any canon or inspired book does it say spilling water on an infant's head imparts eternal salvation. You can not REPENT and be BAPTISED if you don't know that you've sinned. Starting in EXODUS the worshiping of idols is strictly forbidden, including in the Ten Commandments, yet Catholics constantly pray to a myriad of statues and crosses which are also known as "graven images" that are made by man. I have never had a pastor of any sect say to me or anyone else I know that I should NOT go to GOD for forgiveness but come to him. The current pope said this just 3 years ago. This is, according to the book of Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation the spirit of the antichrist in action. You can bandy about all your theories and excuses until you're blue in the face. Catholicism goes directly AGAINST scripture regardless of the books that are and are not included. IF you believe that the CHRIST died on a cross and the curtain in the Holy of Holies was ripped from top to bottom then you will need to explain why I need any other Priest than the MESSIAH.

@alexm6715

Ай бұрын

@@bassmanjr100 I don’t know why you are bringing up the Pope and Vatican when I said I was Orthodox lol. I have a pope but he’s not at all like the Catholic pope in terms of doctrine, wealth, and power. Not sure what that has to do with my comment.

@alexm6715

Ай бұрын

@@ronviejo4994 again, I am not a Catholic and I said this in my original comment so already 80% of your reply is irrelevant to me as an argument. Other than that, I will not bother to reply to you as you seem to just spout out the same nonsensical arguments that you can easily have a Catholic or Orthodox give you an answer for by doing a 10 minute google search.

He's right to bring up Jerome, but he completely ignores the fact that though Jerome may have had his own disagreements on what should be in the Bible, he ultimately said that his disagreements were borderline sinful because he was personally going against the authority and power of the Church that Christ established. Martin Luther didn't break from the Church only because he didn't like what was in the Bible. He broke from the Church because of his personal interpretation of the Scriptures and believing in that more than the authority of the Church to fit his worldview. This is the main problem, Protestants ignore facts of history. The Council of Rome is when the Biblical Canon was established. Not to mention that the early Christians did in fact believe in, what Protestants wrongly describe as, 'praying to the dead'. There are tombstones from early Christian graves in Christian catacombs that ask for prayers from the Apostles and other saints who had already passed.

@robertgriffis7682

Ай бұрын

Not an argument but a statement here. Just because they asked for prayers from the deceased in antiquity, it doesn’t mean that it’s okay. Much of the New Testament are Paul’s letters that correct behavior not backed by scripture and urged them to reject traditions of man. Praying to the deceased, or asking them to pray for you, is not supported by scripture and is urged against. The Spirit of God intercedes for you (Romans 8:26-27)

@kevinzrenda8753

Ай бұрын

Also, one of Jerome's reasons for not thinking some of those books should be included was the same used by Luther/Calvin: that there were no Hebrew versions (only the greek/Septuagint). That was true at the time, but Hebrew copies of several of the 'deutero/apocrypha' books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls... Making that objection moot. And both Luther/Calvin wanted to remove more books (each had their own ideas about which), but agreed not to because they realized how obvious it would make their position open to attack as 'traditions of men'... Imagine if after Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls were found, that Protestant churches said, "gee, looks like the Catholic Church was right on the canon the whole time?" and started to use them? Wow.... Unity one step closer... and for what it's worth, those Hebrew versions found in that Essene community in Qumran showed how accurate the greek septuagint versions were to the Hebrew versions (makes sense since 70 or 72 senior jewish rabbis created the Septuagint used by the Catholic church for the OT) !! God bless everyone!

2:30 Turek’s initial statement is still correct in that he said, Jesus and the apostles quoted from each major “section” of the Hebrew Bible excluding the Apocrypha. Esther is part of the Megillah of the Khetuvim (“Writings”) section, and though not quoted, it is still part of a section that does get quoted. The problem with possible (and actual) allusions to the Apocryphal (Deuteroncanonical) and other extra biblical works in the NT is that not a single one of them is introduced with the formula, “it is written …”, “God said …”, “Moses said …”, as many of the NT quotes and allusions to the Hebrew Bible are.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

The problem Matthew, is that the Church accepted the Catholic old testament and nobody had a problem with it, until Luther lost a debate. If you notice, Luther in is 95 page thesis never once talks about how he rejects these books. It is a non issue until it contradicted or threatened Luthers heresies.

@pazu8728

Ай бұрын

Argument from negative is a weak argument. It is like saying "I never see a XYZ species, therefore XYZ does not exist." Also, quoting a bible scholar does not add weight to his defence. The quote he gave is a statement that the books are authoritative to the Biblical Scholar. You cannot have a debate on a faith statement because I can flip that and use any well- known Biblical Scholar of all times that says the opposite thing, "not one book is inspired", or "Aprocyph is part of the inspired scripture".

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

@@pazu8728 I am merely pointing out that Luther's rejection of the Christian Canon in use was based on his ego, not some theological disagreement.

@apachewraith

Ай бұрын

@@dman7668 That's because they've never rejected them. They're even in the king james bible. It's only today's misinformed Protestants that make this mistake (among the thousands of other mistakes they make). Protestants have removed themselves from any historical link to Jesus and 1st century Christianity, so they kinda of make it up as they go.

@hans9894

Ай бұрын

seeing who were called to be apostle, it's very unlikely they could quote, simply because they were from the lowest social status, and not schooled. And we have no scriptures from them, in any form.

I would very much enjoy watching the two of you just sit down together and have more discussion. It was very interesting to listen to.

Thanks To Holy Catholic Church

@joshportie

Ай бұрын

Unholy church of antichrist.

@joshportie

Ай бұрын

I literally get Catholics justifying murdering bible believers all the time. That's your church's official position. Holy? Are you out of your mind?

Food for thought on the Protestant Bible. Luther’s first German translation was missing 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He referred to the Epistle of James as “straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder.” The rest he called “Judaizing nonsense.” Subsequent Protestants, deciding that Luther wasn’t really inspired by the Holy Spirit, replaced most of the books he had removed.

@FireBlockerPro

Ай бұрын

This is fascinating...

@LartinBeats-rg6pf

17 күн бұрын

Honestly I'd doubt this, Catholicism really hated Luther, I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote disparaging accounts against Luther

@joeschatz6069

16 күн бұрын

@@LartinBeats-rg6pf it is the other way around. I would suggest you really look into the matter and see what you discover. It will not end well if your plan is to stay Protestant.

I got Catholic friends and we disagree...but I and my friends both believe that ultimately Faith in Christ is the only way to heaven..and I always say we need to ask when we get to heaven who was the closest..and we laugh and remain good friends..

@RobertA-ej4tz

Ай бұрын

That's how it's got to be (obviously). I'm a Christian (Catholic) and I have nothing but non-catholic friends (because of where I live, there simply aren't many here 😄). Some people just love to belong to a group, and then love to hate on others that aren't in their specific group. It's like they need adversaries to feel important. I don't think God will send anybody to eternal damnation because they don't get every single detail right. That just seems completely unreasonable to me. Just as I don't think people that have never actually had the chance to know Christ probably don't get damned to an eternity without him, never been given a chance to accept/reject him. But, as long as your belief is that Jesus is your Lord and savior, I'm quite sure he'll have mercy on all (relatively) small disagreements. Anything else would be the opposite of merciful, I think.

@bryant475

Ай бұрын

@@RobertA-ej4tz I'm an ex-Catholic, now born again Christian. In order to be saved, you must still repent of your sins and be born again, trusting in Jesus as the only way to heaven- not works, including the communion/confirmation and so on, praying the rosary, praying to Mary, confessing to a priest, believing in Purgatory (arguably the most important false belief), and so on. I'll keep you in prayer!

@claytonhall989

Ай бұрын

I’m Catholic and my wife is Protestant and this is how our families view things as well. We are worshipping the same Jesus and we put our faith and trust in Him. We have had the same conversation of getting to heaven and figuring out who got what right or wrong when it comes to theology. I heard a talk about the subject of picking a Christian denomination and he stated a paraphrase of the following: If Jesus Christ was willing to be tortured and nailed to cross for our sins, do you think he cares a whole lot about what denomination we pick? I doubt it. I doubt he’s going to ask what denomination we picked and then scold us for not arriving at the “right” denomination.

@peterbassey9668

Ай бұрын

Sadly, that doesn’t work with Moslems. Two streams of water that will never mix.

@Si_Mondo

Ай бұрын

​@@bryant475No Communion? 😂 It's a required, perpetual ritual. "Do this in remembrance of me,"

This was an excellent exchange that really got me to want to look into the topic more. Very interesting!

Love how Frank finishes. If we all, as Christians agree on that one simple truth, then we can debate all night on every other point and still be good in the morning.

Regarding the answer. #1 - The whole notion that "we don't determine what should be in the canon, we discover it" and "the canon is not an authoritative list of books, it is a list of authoritative books" is just an evasion and is not really an answer. This is the kind of thing I'm tempted to point out as dishonest, but I don't believe the speaker is intentionally being dishonest. I think his need to uphold his doctrine has just blinded him to the fact that his answer is nothing more than a semantic game. If you have a list and you say that this list is definitive, and it can't be added to or removed from, and we are obligated to accept the list, then the list, by definition is authoritative. You can play semantic games, but it doesn't change the reality. Likewise, whether you call it "determining" or "discovering" the fact is that there was a point in history where people recognized as authorities, said "this book is in" and "this book is out" and their judgement has been held as binding ever since. The fact is that the Bible does not define itself. Thus there are only three possible ways of defining it (in the sense of what books are part of it and what are not) First, you have an authority that can establish it (ie the Church). Second, you have your own reason. Third, you can believe that your reason is personally inspired by the Holy Spirit That's basically it. I grew up being taught a combination of the second and the third. I defended those positions until I was in my 30's. Then I realized that they were historically indefensible as well as not Biblical, nor particularly logical. #2 - First, notice the contradiction between what he says here, and the first answer he gave. We are no longer discovering whether these books are authoritative. We are no longer saying the list is not authoritative... now we reject these books specifically because they were not on the authoritative list. Second, notice that the authoritative list he was talking about is not even a Christian list. Third, what he says is partially false. The historical fact of the matter is that the Jews did not have a unified canon of scripture until after the time of Jesus. Even at the time of Jesus, the Jews had significant disagreements amongst themselves as to what books were considered scripture and what books were not. There was not an authoritative Jewish canon until later. Since it may come up, one of the historical myths associated with this topic is the "council of Jamnia" which supposedly took place in 90 AD, where the Jews supposedly finalized the canon of their scriptures. The idea of this council was invented in 1871 by a historian after he noticed that in the Mishnah there was debate between the rabbi's over what books of the Ketuvim should be considered Holy Scripture. In the Mishnah (the only source for any of this speculation) it never mentions any book being excluded and primarily centers around affirming that Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes should be considered Scripture. Moreover, the debates occurring among Rabbis in the time right after Christ centered heavily around dealing with the problem of Jews converting to Christianity. They were deliberately making decisions in order to prevent people from converting to Christianity. Why would a Christian accept their judgement as authoritative? #3 - The point about Jerome, again, points out how wrong the speaker's first point was. To give context, Jerome lived about 400 years after Christ. During that first 400 years, if you look around the Christian world you will find that different localities had their own lists of which books they considered to be scripture. Those lists were not all the same. Some of the early Christians had doubts about Revelation, James, the Epistles of Peter and John, and Jude. In fact, if you read some current scholars, you will find that in early writings, the New Testament in general is rarely referenced as "scripture" and most of the time when early Christians spoke about "scripture" they specifically were citing the Old Testament. The canon of scripture was established by the authority of the Church. When people disputed which books were scripture, Synod's and Councils came together and declared authoritative lists to settle the question. Jerome proves this point because he records that he deferred his own judgement to the decisions of the Church regarding what was scripture. The reason he excluded some of the Deuterocanonical texts was because he had friends in the Jewish community, and he based his decision on the fact that those books were not read among Hebrew speaking Jews. Keep in mind this is 400 years after Christ. It is great to look at early sources like Jerome, but no one person's opinion should be your Rule of Faith. Not even a Church Father's. It also raises the question, if you want to site Jerome as an authority on the canon of scripture, why not listen to the rest of what he says? The canon of scripture was established over time and through a process of Church synods and council making rulings on it. The reason why books were in the canon, and other books were not in the canon, is because the authority of the Church established it and the people followed that authority. That is simply the historical fact. The full modern canon of the Catholic scriptures was stated at the Council of Carthage in about 450 AD. That was a local council was a local council, and was therefore not universally binding. However, the canon given there became the traditional canon of the entire Church. There was not a universal statement of the Canon until the Council of Trent. The reason this universal statement came so late, was because the Church does not authoritatively define doctrine, until there is controversy that questions it, which needs to be settled. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ was not universally authoritatively stated until Nicea in 325 AD. It happened then because that was the first time it became a controversy. People whos ay that Christians did not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus before that point are either ignorant or are dishonest. This happens repeatedly down through Church history. The fact that the statement of the canon is so late, does not demonstrate that the canon itself was a late development (again, ignorance or dishonesty). What it actually demonstrates is that the canon was never controversial until that time. Prior to that the whole Church basically accepted without dispute the canon that was traditionally promulgated by local synods and councils. Another point, if you doubt this, is to look at ancient Churches that are non-Catholic, like the Orthodox, the Coptic, the Ethiopian, etc. You will find that they all have the same canon as the Catholic church with minor differences. #4 - The idea that the NT authors quoted the OT canon, and did not quote the Deuterocanonical texts is not true. As the student points out there are OT books which are not quoted. There are also non-canonical texts like the Book of Enoch which ARE quoted. This alone should establish the principle that whether or not something is quoted in the NT does not either prove or disprove it's inspired status. However, the claim that the Deuterocanon is never quoted is based, again, on a doctrinal blindness at best. The first fact you must take into account here is that the NT routinely quotes the OT in a very loose and partial referential way. There are a few places in the gospels, for example, where the gospel writer will say that Jesus fulfilled an OT prophecy and says "to fulfill what was written..." and then the quote of "what was written" is not a direct quote of any OT passage, but rather references an idea, or is a very loose paraphrase etc. The same thing is done with the Deuterocanonical books. Because they are often not direct quotes, they are easy to dismiss if you want to say "this is never quoted". There are numerous things in the NT that refer and paraphrase Deuterocanonical books. I'm only about half way in, but I have to go. If I get a chance and remember, I'll come back and finish.

i would love to listen to a 4 hour podcast of them two

Thank you CrossExamined

I like the respectful and thought provoking convo👍

I absolutely love that ending statement. Frank wanted to make sure they were on the same page as the single most important thing a person should right about.

@mattslater2603

Ай бұрын

Lol... yet they can't show it to be correct... at all.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

But we are not really on the same page, otherwise protestants would not just keep inventing new Churches. Jesus only made one Church. Just one. He did not need Luther or anybody else to keep making new ones.

@danieldefonce

Ай бұрын

We must become believing, confessing, baptized members of the Body of Christ, the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” which is “the household of God, founded upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.”

@1106hdgaming

Ай бұрын

Bro, what a coincidence to find you here!

@shadowspector3611

Ай бұрын

@@1106hdgaming: Bro, no way. It’s a small platform after all!

Loved this dialogue

Thank you for posting this

I am just so heartbroken 💔My husband and I were both born and raised Catholic. I went to 2 different catholic schools and went to several different catholic churches over the years. My husband went to church at several different catholic churches as well. Through first communion to senior year of high school I don't remember any thing about the catholic faith. I stopped attending church because I worked many different church festivals around Milwaukee, Wisconsin and saw drinking and gambling. I just saw a Bunch of people who said they were religious but lived Monday through Friday. Whatever way they wanted. My husband had a similar experience, When we got engaged I knew I wanted to be married in a church but because I hadn't finished the requied catholic steps to be welcome so We got married in a pentecostal church, 2 kids and 15 years later. I still go to that same church, And i'm so frustrated because some catholic co workers Pretty much told me. My children are going to hell because I didn't get them baptized in a catholic church, And I'm just really trying to understand if Catholic is the one true church. Then how come they are doing so poorly in reaching the lost? Because now I'm so torn with how I was raised. Because people say that's the one true religion. But the Protestant church, actually truly taught me to live like jesus and serve other people, But the thought of going back to the mindless, Rituals of the Catholic Church, which I still Get such an uneasy feeling about to this day just makes me sad. I just want my family to love Jesus and go to heaven! I hate that we all can't just come together to love Jesus!

@eddapra3198

4 күн бұрын

Danielle, I would invite you to check out Chris Stephanik, he is a very good Catholic speaker. Many Catholics are lukewarm and unfaithful to Christ. But many are living very radical lives spent for Jesus. I found Christ in high school and had to rediscover my Catholic faith from scratch. I am praying for you and your family!

Very interesting discussion. As a Catholic that was once Evangelical Protestant, I must say it appears to be some references in the New Testament from Apocryphal books. Look for yourself but for instance, we could cite this one: Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?” Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?” Regarding the canon of the Bible, it appears we can find one way before the Council of Trent and Luther's time. According to Wikipedia: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states:[1] A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." Could I suggest you to pray God to know if you are maybe missing some truth regarding Catholicism? Nothing to lose and everything to gain. God bless you all brothers and sisters in Christ !

@infinitelink

Ай бұрын

The source you cite apparently also explains that it's considered a 6th center forgery...but you seem to have left that out. Ironically you cite Wikipedia, which also cites that source & quotes it about the decree being an unattributed forgery. I hate to break this to you but much "tradition" in Catholicism has turned it to be based on forged documents, often that the Church knew (& later admitted it knew were) forgeries (e.g. the Donation).

@pate6357

Ай бұрын

Not really. I have yet to meet a Catholic that really studies the Bible or (unbiased) church history. But cult members are ALWAYS discouraged from examining for themselves.......................

@matheuscaneta1194

Ай бұрын

@infinitelink Are you saying that in the 6th century (500-599) someone forged a document saying that the council of Rome in the 4th century had the same list of books as in the council of Trent of the 16th century ? Is there a Time Machine in this forgery plot ?

Great Catholic guy, well speak..

I trust in No church that elevates Mary above Jesus Christ. Mary didn't save anyone....JESUS CHRIST DID ❤❤❤

@zeroch1ll150

Ай бұрын

Exactly, Mary had to be saved her self!

@jacquelineharris6124

Ай бұрын

He saved everyone from himself...I can't believe y'all really believe this stuff. It's honestly frightening to see.

@cmanalansan

Ай бұрын

Neither do Catholics 😒

@tomiou6332

Ай бұрын

The catholic church doesnt elevate Mary above Jesus. We just pray to Mary to intercede with God for us. Remember that Jesus started his first miracle at the wedding when Mary said to him that they ran out of wine Jesus replied: “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” And than he made His first miracle. Catholics don't worship Mary like Jesus/God (which is forbidden) but like i said they ask her for help in front of her Son/God. Even as a catholic one can surely avoid asking Mary for help but it would be harsh and unfair towards her to ignore her completly since she is the best advocate for us sinners in front of gods throne.

@davec332011

Ай бұрын

What churches elevate Mary above Jesus? Certainly not orthodoxy or Catholicism. Can you cite your sources I’d like to see I’m interested. Is one of the 40,000 Protestant denominations?

This video is an excellent display of respect and courtesy in the midst of opposing viewpoints. I am a former catholic. Upon my first reading of the Bible from cover to cover I noticed numerous contradictions between God’s word and catholic teachings. If you answer the question: are you a Christian? with “I’m catholic”. Please look into the three pillars of catholicism versus Sola Scriptura. Your current pope is an excellent display of why papal infallibility is a ridiculous proposition. Romans 3:23, Isaiah 53:6. Please just read God’s word in its entirety and the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth. You can be free from trying to earn your way to heaven and instead trust fully in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, on your behalf.

@kevinzrenda8753

Ай бұрын

The Catholic Church was established by Christ. He left a teaching church, an institution to protect the meaning. The Catholic Church does not claim the Pope is always infallible-- in fact, that 'power' has only been invoked or used a handful of times... I (as a Catholic now) also share your concerns with this Pope. But if we follow your guidance than we end up with the 30,000+ "traditions of men", aka every Protestant denomination founder who (sincerely) believes that "they" have the correct understanding... But to be honest, you know that Protestants have their own traditions of men and understandings, they certainly don't just "read the Bible"-- they have trusted authorities (pastors giving hour long sermons breaking it down), study bibles, bible concordances, bible study groups, etc... It's the same thing as 'Tradition' accept the Catholic church has an unfair advantage because the 12 Apostles didn't just die and leave no more church... they taught others-- for example, St Ignatius of Antioch was taught by the Apostle John, and Ignatius repeats the claim: "“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])." So I have to defer to the Bible and the Apostles, and certainly the writings of those who were made church officials directly by the Apostles themselves-- they would certainly have a better interpretation than me picking up a Bible today. That being said, may you always encourage those Christians around you (as St Paul says) and bring more to our Lord! God bless-

@tl57345

Ай бұрын

@@kevinzrenda8753 Good points, we could debate but I don’t expect To change your opinion. You sound like someone who believes in critical thinking as well as a person who believes in the Holy Spirit. As a Christians we are encouraged to imitate the example of the Bereans. ”Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.“ ‭‭Acts‬ ‭17‬:‭11‬ ‭NIV‬‬ Yes many theologians are way more intelligent and discerning than I, just as the Apostlle Paul was a far greater theologian than (probably) any Berean yet they were still applauded for their study and search for the truth. Here’s the critical question, when you die and face judgment (Hebrews 9), knowing that all have sinned (Isaiah 53:6) and the wages of sin is death (Roman 6:23) what will save you from perishing? Is it Church attendance, good works, 1000’s of rosaries, the communion of saints, the suffering you’ve endured in this life or a myriad of other possibilities? I’m going with Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. I will be saved from the fires of hell based solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross on my behalf-please join me.

@gerry30

Ай бұрын

@@tl57345 What did Christ say about eating His flesh and drinking His blood? What did Paul say about failing to discern the body and blood of the Lord? What did Peter say about Baptism saving you? What did Jesus say about people who say "Lord, Lord..." What did Paul say about faith without charity? Maybe you should learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches and you'll find out that it takes in the whole of the Bible and not just a convenient phrase here and there out of context.

@kevinzrenda8753

Ай бұрын

@@tl57345 I believe I was saved, I believe am being saved, and I hope to be saved.... Those are the thoughts of the Christian (and in this case Catholic) who heeds the words of Paul to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." When it comes to that final moment (here on earth) of death, 100% agree that Christ is who/what saves us! That being said, the Bible (and Christ's message) isn't just a simple "accept Christ as your lord and savior and you'll be saved!"... If that was the case the Bible would be one paragraph, not one thousand pages. The things you mention (meditating on the moments in Christ's life that we ponder during a rosary, going to church, suffering but uniting that to Christ) are all examples of things that an outsider would notice in the life of a believer. If you really believe a bus is going to hit you, you move (works). Paul asks others to pray for him -- that doesn't mean Christ is 'less' of a mediator for us, since Christ is ultimately THE mediator. Paul also says that we "complete" Christ's suffering on the cross- we take that to mean that our suffering can have redemptive value if we offer it to Christ and draw closer to Him through that suffering. Since I believe Christ wants to be with us on every level (mental, spiritual, and physical), then of course I go to church to offer thanks and receive Him physically. I'm sure your life (as a believer) shows up and leads you to do things too... As to the Bereans, it's great that they searched the scripture, Catholic Tradition is in full accord with scripture, since the early Church of Acts is the first chapter in Catholic Church history... they wrote it and they followed its meaning. There was no "Hebrew Bible" (the typical Protestant OT), so at least we know the Bereans weren't searching that! If anything, they searched the Septuagint (the Catholic OT). But-- in the end-- your point is the most important... do we love Him enough to follow Him and continue to rely on Him and acknowledge Him even when or after we fail, and try to follow His words to "go now and sin no more"? If we are doing that, then we seem to be in a pretty good position to already be falling on His mercy when we die...

@sweetsilage

Ай бұрын

@@kevinzrenda8753 well said - Praise be to God

2 Timothy 3:16- “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

Hard to quote from something that has not been written yet They did quote from the book of Enoch and Jasher

@bowez9

Ай бұрын

Not quoted but are mentioned.

@jamesfields4149

Ай бұрын

@@bowez9 quoted not mentioned 2Sa_1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

@bowez9

Ай бұрын

@@jamesfields4149 so Jasher was a technical manaul, and Enoch prophesied but didn't write a book.

@jamesfields4149

Ай бұрын

@@bowez9 Who is the author of the Book of Enoch in the Bible? Lesson Summary. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 paved the way for scholars to understand better the Hebraic Bible and traditions during the Second Temple era. Among the preserved documents, archeologists discovered the Book of Enoch, a scripture supposedly written by Noah's great-grandfather Enoch.Feb 6, 2023

@GamingxKnight

Ай бұрын

Peter quoted from pagan poems. That mean that pagan religions that he quoted from are inspired as well? The book of Enoch has always been considered a book of heresy because it teaches directly against Christ teachings, such as it teaches polytheism and that Enoch, not Jesus, is the Son of Man/God. The book was never considered to be inspired at any point and Enoch didn't write it. To say that the book of Enoch is inspired is like saying that the 'gospels' of Peter, Thomas, Barnabas, Phillip, and Mary are inspired when they are forgeries.

I love the last question, a great way to cap the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics.

Good Information

I understand the young man’s questions, and they lead me to believe that he is not fully committed to being a Catholic. All that said, I am impressed with how respectful he was, no yelling or name-calling, and willing to read the book that Frank recommended.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

He is. He even commented on this video in the comments section. The point is trying to show you the protestant that protest beliefs run into alot of problems when you question their ideas. Which they do.

@jherandsoleil6335

Ай бұрын

@@dman7668 Catholics have the same issue lol

@Hesoyam31

Ай бұрын

@@jherandsoleil6335 nope. the catholics that you are pertaining to are the cradle catholics who tries to prove their faith and then fail miserably. try asking people like Scott Hahn or other catholic apologist with good backgrounds etc. they would answer your misconceptions perfectly.

@BrianGondo

Ай бұрын

@@jherandsoleil6335 they don't lol

@elle9082

18 күн бұрын

@@jherandsoleil6335like what? lol

Catholic here. This is the key: "*I* don't think..." "If the Jews didn't have it, *why* do we?" And that bulleted list by Metzger. These all illustrate the problem: who gets to make the call? You need a referee or else these standards can be unevenly applied, if you even can agree on a standard in the first place. My belief is that the Savior instituted the Apostles and, after their deaths, their successors to govern the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, including by being the referee on such matters. Otherwise it's open to arbitrary choices.

Wow this is so enlightening. I’m going to bookmark this and watch this many and many times over lol thank you Frank !!!

Logically, you can't argue like Frank did and say the NT writers and Jesus didn't quote from the Apocraphya so therefore they were not inspired. The rejoinder is but if Song of Solomon wasn't quoted does that mean the Song of Solomon was not inspired?

@robusc4940

Ай бұрын

What is the problem ? RC & Pros agree on the New Testament and it is the New Testament (Christ through Paul) that teaches how you & I are saved and that's what matters :)

@ferrywibowo339

Ай бұрын

@@robusc4940 No problem brother, he is simply pointed out that Frank's argument fail on a certain point. But i think any Christian, include Frank, agree Song of Solomon was inspired.

@mattslater2603

Ай бұрын

Logic and Frank Turek don't really mix....

@thefriesens1071

Ай бұрын

I think the evidence mostly lies in the ratio. Out of 39 accepted books by all, only one or two aren't quoted in the NT. That's a pretty good ratio. But the Apocrypha has 14 books but none are quoted. That's a pretty bad ratio. That at least should make one think. Neither Jesus nor the apostles thought much about these books.

Ou..MAJOR RED FLAG!! THEY DID!! THEY QUOTED FROM APOCRYPHA!

An interesting and respectful discussion. I enjoyed that and learned a lot.

The criteria at 4:13 is a great explanation that I've not heard for how the books were chosen for the canon.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

The Catholic Church decided the Canon of the Bible. Nobody rejected it until the failed protestant reformation

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

Another thing you need to consider, is that the Bibles canon isn't just the old testament, that includes the new testament also. The Catholic Church factually choose the entire Bible canon, both Old and New Testament. You have google and can learn more about it because that's what I did. This fantasy the protestant Christians have about those books not being part of the bible is in fact a fantasy. The Church did accept those books and it was not a controversy until AFTER over a thousand of years of the Church using those books! If the Catholic Church selected the wrong Old Testament Canon then why do they trust the Catholic Churches judgememt on what is considered to be The New Testament? Ask yourself that question. It's rhetorical.

In order for the books to be authoritative, the canon must be authoritative as well. Otherwise you could reject books, add books, or reject teachings at will.

@apax9856

Ай бұрын

Just as martin luther did

@YAHOOISNOTG

Ай бұрын

This is a textbook logical fallacy known as a false premise. If the authoritative books by definition are authoritative in of themselves, they do not need an "authoritative" canon that validates their authority. Rather, it's the other way around, because the books are authoritative, they are included in the canon. Which is literally the refutation of the argument you're presenting. All you're doing is repeating the argument that was already addressed appropriately. Like a Cockatoo who keeps repeating the same word over and over again no matter the human's response because they can't comprehend the meaning of it or what it implies.

@liammurphy3513

Ай бұрын

@@YAHOOISNOTG But the epistemological question of how to determine which books are authoritative remains unanswered. Saying "they are in the canon because they are authoritative" is circular reasoning. If the canon itself is not authoritative, I could start my own Church with new Bibles that exclude the letter to the Romans, for example.

@YAHOOISNOTG

Ай бұрын

@@liammurphy3513 Actually, what you’re doing is circular reason. I don’t know if you’re trolling or you sincerely can’t see how by definition it is your argument that is circular not the other way around. If you watch the video again you can see that it outlines the criteria used for determining the authority of the canonical books. They didn’t pick and choose at random or cherry pick their favorites like you’re insinuating.

@liammurphy3513

Ай бұрын

@@YAHOOISNOTG I did not insinuate that the canon was cherry picked or chosen at random. If the criteria for determining the canon is not itself authoritative, the contents of the canon could be rejected. It is not circular to say that a separate authoritative source determined the canon, any more than it's circular to say that a non-authoritative source determined the canon, as you say.

When Frank said that Jesus and the apostles never quote from Apocrypha, the student said it's not true. I just help to give the reference: * Matthew 7:12 / Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15 * Matthew 6:14-15 Sirach 28:2 My earlier post was deleted, for some reason, I hope this one is not deleted.

@Miguel_77

Ай бұрын

Sirach: "All wisdom is from the Lord God, and has always been with him, and is before all time." (Sirach I, 1) Saint John the Apostle: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was with God in the beginning." (John I, 1-2) No one can deny the obvious parallel and citation in this passage, as verse 5 of Sirach goes so far as to say the following in verse 5: " *The Word of God* on high is the source of wisdom, whose steps are eternal commandments." (Sirach I, 5), Saint John calls God the Son "Word of God" *with the book of Sirach in mind*

I'm never sure on these clips whether I"m watching the beginning of it or s elected clip first. I have to fast-forward a ways to figure it out.

Excellent Video discussion!

Jesus affirmed the Old Testament canon when He mentioned the first martyr and last martyr in Luke 11:51 ("from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah"). This is Genesis to Chronicles (Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon).

@grrlsouljah

Ай бұрын

Actually he’s talking about Zechariah father of John the Baptist so that takes you into the New Testament. The final prophet proclaiming Jesus and making a way for him was John the Baptist.

Jesus quoted from Esdras. The "how I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings" and "your house is left unto you desolate" both came from Esdras. In Revelation, John saw a vast multitude in heaven with palms. The exact same scene is recounted by Esdras. So there are some good arguments for canonicity.

@buzztrucker

Ай бұрын

Thank you. Tired of the argument that Jesus nor the Apostles never quoted from books of the Apocrypha. They did.

Awesome question and great answer as well. Loved this coversation.

Great topic and conversation.

Brother Frank got it wrong. The new testament writters, used septuagint, Greek version of the Hebrew Bible to take Old Testament quotes in their writings. Septugint had the extra books that catholics have. So our Protestant brothers are trying to say thst thwt cant even trust the apostles of Jesus who wrote the New testament.😊

@EternalArchetypeMusic

19 күн бұрын

Church fathers also used the LXX

You cannot find the truth if God did not reveal it to you through the Holy Spirit in the word of God. You have to be born again first before God will reveal the truth to you. You can choose your religion, but only God can regenerate the heart to be born again to love His word.

This was a really, really, really good response. The Canon is “not an authoritative list of books, but a list of authoritative books.” I’ve never heard it put that way before. That’s great! A lot more has been written on this topic; I’m surprised that this person’s “Protestant friends” didn’t give an answer that convinced him. And that got me thinking: How do we determine if something is true? By asking our friends? Maybe. Or, should we go to the “experts”? Anyway…love this video.

@gerry30

Ай бұрын

He's calling it a fallible list or infallible books. It's self contradicting.

Final question was the most important to have the answer to.

"By the Grace of God, By Faith", what a wonderful truth revealed in this young man's heart by the "The Grace of God" through His Holy Spirit.....although, according to one of the Council of Trent declarations, he would be "anathema" (damned) by saying and believing that.... 😬 (Canon # 9, Chapter XVI, under Canons Concerning Justification) . Salvation is by faith alone (Eph. 2:8) and expanded and explained in many passages of the New Testament. The "good works" (Eph.2:10) we do, is the subsequent fruit (james 2:18) arising from such faith and salvation, out of gratitude and love for our God and Savior. Pray for this young man so that "His light shine in" his heart (2Cor. 4:6) for salvation and continued santification in life by His Word (John 17:17).

@guns4786

11 күн бұрын

Wrong. Catholics believe we are saved by grace. Freely given and no works can be done to earn it. But, that doesn’t mean we can keep it and live a life of sin. We could not earn Christ love but we can accept his gift; and to accept his gift requires us to turn from our sin (works), picking up your cross and following him.

Frank’s quite wrong on when the authority of the Bishop of Rome began.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

Of course he is lol

By the grace of God through faith. "We're good."❤

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

Ай бұрын

I'm good on my own account, I definitely do not need the biblical god who is not good to be good.

@cassiebennet4262

Ай бұрын

​@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARDThen why are you watching these videos and commenting? Seems unnecessary.

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

Ай бұрын

@@cassiebennet4262 It only seems unnecessary to the people who think that only religious people can watch and comment on these videos. The ones who refuse to look into the truth of any of their misguided mindset and beliefs that fail at every turn.

@cassiebennet4262

Ай бұрын

@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Yes but what is the point of doing so? I don't like veganism, but I don't go to vegan channels and insult them. I wasn't raised in Christianity. I've come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the truth. Not sure why you're so offended by that. What exactly do you expect to accomplish here because the only thing you're doing is engaging in ad hominem attacks to ingratiate your ego.

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

Ай бұрын

@@cassiebennet4262 The funny thing is that you think I'm offended by you saying you're a Christian, I'm not. Does being a vegan answer any questions of the world? No, but Christianity claims to have answered all the questions. But when asked they fail. Tell me how I'm using an ad homenium? No I don't have an ego, I'm literally trying to get an answer.

Here's what you missed in the first part, though - The Jews didn't decide the seven deuterocanonical books wasn't a part of their canon until AFTER the events of the gospels - the late first century at the earliest. The old testament used by the Apostles was the Septuagint, which DID include those books. Also, the Letter of Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. Should we add that to the canon? The Council of Rome in 380-ish was the first to publish a list of canonical books for the bible, and work on the Latin Vulgate was started by St. Jerome soon after. The Council of Trent only confirmed the Council of Rome's original list.

It's quite simple. The OT is based on the Masoretic Text, which was used by believers long before the claim of the so-called church that Peter was the rock it was built upon. The NT is determined based upon the writings of the apostles/disciples and the eyewitness testimony of their teachings. It isn't any more complicated than that.

@JohnDoe-le8fy

Ай бұрын

The Masoretic text is a much later pieced / patched back together by Jews that rejected the Messiah and have no covenant (as that went away in 70A.D) and practice a different religion (Rabbinic Judaism) than those of the Old Testament / Covenant, from the 7th to 11th century. The Septuagint was a direct copy by actual Ancient Israelites into Greek and the most quoted by the New Testament.

@grrlsouljah

Ай бұрын

Even the Jews themselves still fight TO THIS DAY what books they consider canon to Judaism. Some believe ONLY the Torah/Pentetuch is the word of God, some include the prophets, more than half the OT is simply history. And Protestants can’t come together under ONE banner and declare their unity that’s why there are thousands of denominations or none at all. Catholics have existed as ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC church. Under JESUS the Christ. We’ve never changed only evolved. Which is right and just.

@infinitelink

Ай бұрын

​@@JohnDoe-le8fyJerome himself countered your idea as Messianism is clearer in Hebrew than i the LXX. The Massoretes were also Karaites reflecting Pharisaicaliam by the way. The Hebrew he had and the Massoretes voxalizations (vowel pointings) are, quiye literally, anything but what you claimed. You don't apparently know much. This line of thinking you just expressed was the ancient equivalent of uneducated fundamentalists in backwater swamps of America screaming "The King James in English is God's one true, inspired, preserved version of Scripture!"

@JohnDoe-le8fy

Ай бұрын

@@infinitelink Lets start with, what you just typed makes no real sense, so lets dive into it a bit more, can we? Which parts exactly are you taking exception to as you did not make that clear at all, rather it was mostly ad hominem attacks. So your main contention is the "Massoretes" were still OT biblical Hebrews, so you hold to a dual covenant theology? Or are we still living in the OT Mosaic age under Torah law? It's quite funny you use that analogy while defending the Masoretic text since that's what the King James uses.

@JohnDoe-le8fy

Ай бұрын

@@infinitelink "Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament: The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with. The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original. The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original. The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures. The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine."

6:30 The church is not a denomination nor a building!

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

You are right, none of the protestant denominations are the Church Jesus made. It's only the Catholic Church

@NZIGNANTI

Ай бұрын

​@@dman7668 Hah, by that angle the first church is Eastern Orthodox & was in Antioch

@bassmanjr100

Ай бұрын

​@dman7668 I don't worship the pope. I worship God, Jesus Christ. You do realize many popes were murderous, sexual scandalous, sinful men, right?

@bradleesargent

Ай бұрын

Jesus was Jewish and whipped people for desecrating the temple by selling stuff.

@Carl_Heisenberg

Ай бұрын

⁠@@NZIGNANTIHello God bless you, Saint ignatius of Antioch use to refers to the primitive church as Catholic(universal) in the 115 a. C. And Saint Ignatius was disciple of Saint Paul and Saint John, while the term orthodox was popularize after the Nicea councile in 325 but don’t get me wrong I say popularize not that the orthodox church was literally created after the Nicea councile, however people forget one things the Orthodox and Catholic church were once the same so is useless to say My church is the one created by Jesus while boths churches were literally one church, I mean both catholic and orthodox have a different teological stuff and we get separate by it but we are united by one “Person” God, May God bless you

All those test are not in the Bible! Those test are tradition of men.

Now, this is a great discussion the guy asking questions was respectful and well informed and intelligent.

What I admire about Frank is his empathy for Christians regardless of denomination or non-Christians for that matter. Even though Frank is an ex-catholic you won't see him talk down to Catholics despite the theological differences.

@GreatBehoover

Ай бұрын

Understand that he isn't catholic, nor is J Warner Wallace, nor most apologists. When you study the Bible, you start to realize that Luther was not only right about his complaints, but the whole of the catholic church was in great Apostasy. They remain there to this day. I will say that they aren't far from truth, but their refusal to allow scripture to speak for themselves exposes each and every error. You can't seriously believe Mary is God's mother! She is the HUMAN MOTHER of the Human part of Jesus Christ the man. God is fully His Father. Without this miraculous conception, He wouldn't be BOTH God and Human. Nowhere are we EVER told to pray to the dead...we are WARNED NOT TO DO SO! Jesus is the only Living person who died from his time. The the eunuch isn't a living deity to be prayed to any more than Mary is. Both went to heaven directly accordingto catholic dogma. Yet only the eunuch does in actual scripture. Luke 6 CLEARLY dispels the myth that we are to take and eat physically the body and blood of Jesus but the pope ignores this as the catholic church does. Jesus never called Mary Holy nor said to pray to her. THINK!

@chibu3212

Ай бұрын

@@GreatBehooverLuther’s critique was about the Catholic Church at that time in recent history. He along with many other reformers still thought of themselves as part of the church but argued that the recent teachings had gone astray due to corruption from the papacy. If the Great Apostasy was true as you’re implying then the faith was lost for centuries before the Reformation and there were no saved Christians, which is false.

@nathanielalderson9111

Ай бұрын

@@GreatBehoover I'm doing my Berean duty, and I checked Luke 6, but I can't find where it dispels the myth. Did you mean another reference or is there something I missed?

@GreatBehoover

Ай бұрын

@@nathanielalderson9111 So sorry! John 6...not Luke 6. When the other followers walk away. Watch what they say to him and EXACTLY WHAT JESUS REPLIES WITH! He confirmed that He spoke about the Body and Blood in a spiritual way! Read it! It was ALWAYS A METAPHOR! It was first done at the last supper before His Body and Blood were even sacrificed...that's why it was done before and not after! It is important to read all the Bible in context and not focus on only the parts that any particular dogma leans upon.

@GreatBehoover

Ай бұрын

​@nathanielalderson9111 Also...What do you mean by Berean duty? I've never heard that term used.

We know that a book is canonical if it is written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle, so the gospels and Acts were quickly recognized as inspired, from God. So canonicity and authorship are tangible evidences of inspiration. Very early on, the letters of Paul were considered “the other scriptures,“ 2 Peter 3:16. Also, did the early church decide which books were inspired, or did they recognize which books were inspired? The church has always argued the latter. Many of the Hebrew Bible books have been authenticated by Christ’s fulfillment of them and his usage of them. There were a few New Testament writings, where it took a little longer for there to be ecclesiastical consensus, and the apocryphal books have always had their supporters and questioners, but for most of the canon, there has not been this debate.

Fantastic description

This is a fair and valid question and unfortunately Frank did not do a good job responding to the person concerns. So I will add what I know. Regarding not using Jew canon there were multiple canonical traditions in the first century. The Pharisee tradition, which gave rise to the canon used by rabbinic Judaism, was only one tradition. First-century Christians did not use the Pharisee canonical tradition. They used the Septuagint tradition (which is basically the Greek translation of Hebrew OT), which they passed on to the early Church and that included all deuterocanonical books. Therefore there was no "settled" Jew canon at time of Jesus or in early Church rather there were various Jew canons. This also address the claim that "Catholics" added them to fit their doctrines, they did not, they were always part of Sacred Scripture right from first century Christians and early Church. Outside of Jerome, few early Church father question them, one person (even a great early Church father) having doubts (he eventually agreed to submit to Church teachings anyway) cannot definitely settle Sacred Scripture canon. Ultimately its the Catholic Church the only one that can provide and settle the Sacred Scripture canon. To use the criteria of "never quoted in NT" to determine if a book is canonical or not would be inconsistent even with Protestant canon. The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted either. Yet no Protestant has a problem with including them in their canon. While there are no direct quotes from deuterocanonical books, there are plenty of allusion toward them, some are: Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.” Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.” Tobit 4:16: “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another” Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.” Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.” Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?” Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”

I love Frank - But this is one that he stumbled on….

@Jerome616

Ай бұрын

Yup

"The Scriptures are a list of authoritative books, not an authoritative list of books" is another way of saying "A fallible collection of infallible books". It's logically self-refuting. I think the term is "self-referential incoherence". The reason is because of modal dependency. In order for the Bible to be a collection of infallible books then the process of determining their infallibility must be infallible. It's modally dependent. If the process is not infallible then we cannot trust their infallibility.

@TheLeftRbabieskillers

Ай бұрын

Right on, He throws a quote from some guy to make his point, but when you think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

@KarateCowboy05

Ай бұрын

@@TheLeftRbabieskillers Thank you. What you've described is the essence of sophistry: Good rhetoric seated on bad logic. And it is bad logic. The logic is inescapable. It ends here. The only question remaining is highly personal: Do I have the integrity to acknowledge the logic, abandon Protestantism, and embrace Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

Historical? The Orthodox Also have the Apochrphya … all historical churches do

New Testament this Enoch prophesies "to" ungodly men, that God shall come with His holy ones to judge and convict them (Jude 1:14-15). Do I have this wrong?

When Frank says that the Jews didn’t consider the deuterocanon part of the canon, he hasn’t researched this thoroughly: The Jews had different opinions of what was canon in the second temple period. The Qumran community didn’t consider Esther canon. And other communities clearly believed Sirach was canon. Jerome wasn’t convinced because all he had to work with was the Masoretic text which removed these books. So when Jerome looked at the Septuagint (which is in Koine Greek) he assumed that the Masoretic text was correct (seeing as it was in Hebrew and he assumed was the more preserved text). The irony of this is that the New Testament heavily relies upon the Septuagint for Old Testament quotations. Jerome was wrong. The biggest issue here for Frank is: The Bible does not give you a list of what it considers canon, so without a church authority to determine and pass this down, how do you know? What is the foundation? This is an issue I am still wrestling with, but giving cookie cutter answers like Frank is does not resolve the issue for people that are aware of what’s really going on.

@benjaminwatt2436

Ай бұрын

Frank is making the argument that Protestants have the list that is almost universally agreed on. Catholics and Orthodox chose to keep a few books that had been debated by church fathers throughout. whether Catholics or Protestants are correct is hard to determine, but it is no doubt Protestants are holding to a Bible in which the early church would have agreed had the message and inspiration of God

@jamiebroadhurst5277

Ай бұрын

Recommendation for your journey. "A dictionary of early Christian beliefs" by David Bercot. He takes all the ante-nicene church leaders writings and categorizes them by topic.

@dman7668

Ай бұрын

@benjaminwatt2436 Actually it's not hard to determine Ben. The Catholic Church had authority to bind the Canon of the Bible and the protestant Churches do not. Ergo we use the Catholic Canon and you should be, also. The widely accepted Canon was the Catholic Canon.

@benjaminwatt2436

Ай бұрын

@@dman7668 The canon from the early church is protestant. The protestant church is the continuation of the early church.

Turek abandoned the Church to focus on text. Also, the apostle Jude definitely quoted from the book of Enoch. The Bible is for the Church, not the Church for the Bible.

6:56 Council of Trent 1545 * came more than a millennium after synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage; * was independently confirmed by two orthodox councils, Iasi and Jerusalem (the latter under Dositheus), on the point of the OT canon, or at least, if they pretended we had the wrong canon, it was more like it lacked books.

That was a good discussion. Very enjoyable.

I makes me really sad whenever my fellow Protestants say that Catholics added more books into the Bible. It's actually the opposite. We Protestants are the ones who removed precious books from the Bible. Who came first, Protestants or Catholics? It's as simple as that. I grew up in an Evangelical Church and I always thought that Catholics added extra books in their Bible but when I read the history of Christianity and the Bible I realized that we are the ones who removed important books from the Bible. Just because Jews updated their canon, we Christians do not need to do the same. We don't need to copy the Jews. We should stick with the original canon we had from the beginning. I am still a Protestant but I now read only the Catholic edition of the Bible.

@LordJesusEvangelism3158

Ай бұрын

Just like Frank said the the apocrypha books were added by catholic to the Old Testament. And the Jews don’t have the apocrypha books in their Old Testament. So by reading a Catholic bible. You’re reading an Old Testament that the Jews don’t even read. Which means it’s inaccurate.

@LordJesusEvangelism3158

Ай бұрын

And saying the Jews updated their canon was incorrect. That was the Catholics

@electric336

Ай бұрын

False. Local councils and synods were never authoritative on the whole Church. The Canon was very much not closed until Trent. This is evidenced by the fact that numerous Roman Catholic clergy did not view the apocrypha as divinely inspired, but good and beneficial to read. This is the historic view of the canon. Even Cardinal Cajetan, the man who opposed Luther at his hearings and helped draw up the bill of Luther's excommunication, held this view. In fact, at the Council of Trent, the vote to settle on the 73-book cannon that the Roman church uses today was 24 for, 15 against, and 16 abstained. More people abstained or voted against that canon than actually voted in favor of it.

@jacksonkerr2095

Ай бұрын

Outside of Catholicism and Protestantism, Judaism came first. Both Catholicism and Protestantism can trace themselves back to Judaism, but no serious difference with Judaism came about until about 1,000 years after Christ. If we want to understand Christianity, we have to understand that is an extension of Judaism. Most of the first followers of Christ were Jews, excepting some Greeks and Romans. When we study the New and Old Testaments it helps to understand that we’re studying the works ofJews. My point is that if we want to understand Christianity we need to understand Judaism. That gives us the context and understanding for Christianity.

@jdshl8423

Ай бұрын

Except there is one problem with your argument. Why would the Catholics care if the Protestants removed books from their canon? They could simply maintain their original canon, right? Yet somehow, they had to add books Protestants took out back into it. You don't find that odd? What do you mean by original canon? The one that includes the Apocrypha that the Jews don't use and Jesus and his disciples never quoted from? Something doesn't fit right, that is why the Protestants removed books from their canon, because obviously it wasn't in there in the very early church. You can make an educated guess as to who put them in later.

Let's stop calling them church fathers.

@luzclara3855

Ай бұрын

The actually are the Fathers of the Church.

@intentionally-blank

Ай бұрын

@@luzclara3855 Oh is that what Jesus taught? I that what we read in the New Testament?

In doing my own searching as a Protestant, I found that there are meaningful lists available that show references if not quotes from the so-called apocrypha. Is this not the case then? Are there actually no references in the NT to the apocrypha? (I recognize that a quotation doesn't validate a whole book, but it does validate the truth of a verse or passage if quoted in the NT)

@Antonio.R.O.C.

Ай бұрын

🕊️Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church❓ The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: 📖"Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: 📖“Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: 📖“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: 📖“[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: 📖“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: 📖“We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: 📖“It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: 📖“The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: 📖“After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: 📖“The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: 📖“The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church❓Yes❗️ Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record❓Of course not❗️As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian denominations and the ignorance which has flourished from it. 🕊️”And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,” Ephesians 4:11-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started. EXTRA⬇️ Historical fact that can be easily confirmed by any Christian historian is that the Holy Spirit who is God, who sees past, present and future chose the Catholic Church to compile the Bible, specifically the New Testament which all Christians base their entire religion from and yet reject God’s decision to have picked the Catholic Church.

@AndrewKendall71

Ай бұрын

@@Antonio.R.O.C. I'm not certain how it is a response to my comment, but you've provided a good resource - lots of good info.

Jesus did quote from the septuagint which included the Apocrypha, and also Catholicism never added books. The canon was already discovered and established before the protestant reformation. In In Mark 7:6-7, Jesus quotes the septuagint--Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” The works being necessary for salvation doesn't contradict paul or peter at all when you understand the doctrine being said.