Your typical tiktok viewer isn't gonna know what hit them when they see something from Jimmy Akin on that platform

Most Protestant friends I've spoken to - including an ordained pastor and also a Lutheran pastor's son, have matter of factly told me that they were taught the Catholic Church "added" these books at the Council of Trent. When it's pointed out that no, the "reformers" tossed them out, and the Council of Trent, in light of that rejection, reaffirmed them as inspired Scripture, and that they were included since the late 4th century councils (Hippo, Carthage), they are understandably confused why they were taught otherwise.

@ST-ov8cm

6 ай бұрын

They will really be blown away when you tell them that all Protestant bibles, for the first 200 years of Protestantism, included the deuterocannon - yes, even the original King James versions. The first Protestant bibles to be published without the deuterocannon came around 1825 and were published by the British Bible Society.

@dumbidols

6 ай бұрын

I was taught in college they were added as part of the counter Reformation in order to gain back believers from the Protestants by having extra revelation. History of Western Civ Class, 2002. Lies.

@dumbidols

6 ай бұрын

@@Shepherd1647 The Glossa Ordinaria is a medieval Latin commentary on the Bible, created during the 12th and 13th centuries. It's not a canon itself but rather a compilation of glosses or annotations by various theologians, providing insights into the interpretation of biblical texts.

@MrProsat

6 ай бұрын

Once Protestants read up on early Christianity, it is generally inevitable that they will ditch protesting.

@nukedmoji-wt9cd

5 ай бұрын

Because it’s a lie, playing on words and relying on slogans. Catholics moved books from the Deuterocanon, to the Protocanon in response to the reformation, otherwise Catholics would include the entire 54 books of the Apocrypha. But Catholics don’t. Because everyone knew what was First and what was Second Canon, and by the 1800’s Catholics and Protestants did away with what they considered Second Canon in their Bibles. But since Catholics added books from the second canon, to the first canon in response to the reformation, Catholics removed less books. To hold onto the sinking anchor that is “Protestants removed books from Scripture” you’d have to then concede we simply removed more, but Catholics removed ‘Scripture’ as well, just less, if that is the metric. The you have to justify why you removed those books, and your entire argument collapses.

I would add Tobit being referenced in Heb. 13:2, " Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares" - which is literally the story of the book of Tobit.

@linchpin1872

6 ай бұрын

Eh, that also happens in the book of Genesis in the Sodom and Gomorrah story so its not necessarily a reference to Tobit.

@dumbidols

6 ай бұрын

@@linchpin1872 Is Sodom and Gommorah a positive "entertaining" interaction? No. Was Lot aware of their nature from the beginning? Yes. Genesis 19:1 (New International Version) states: "The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground." Doesn't fit the story.

@linchpin1872

6 ай бұрын

@@dumbidols First of all, bowing one's face to the ground was also a sign of respect to earthly rulers, not necessarily angels; Lot never calls them angels explicitly so we cannot know for certain whether he did or didn't realize they were angels when he entertained them. Second of all, even if he did know they were angels, the people of the city didn't; they entertained them by letting them into the city and treated them wickedly because they didn't realize they were heavenly beings. Hebrews very well may be referring to this event, it's just not certain from the context.

@dumbidols

6 ай бұрын

@@linchpin1872 we probably won't come to agreement between us here, and that's all right. However I asked chat gpt these questions, and this is the answer that I got.. know that I'm only treating AI as if it were a reasonable and well-informed person, it is not the be all end all. Here is the convo. In the account in Genesis with Sodom and Gomorrah is lot aware that the visitors are angels? Yes, in the account from Genesis, Lot is aware that the visitors are angels. They come to Lot's house in Sodom, and he recognizes their divine nature, offering them hospitality and protection from the hostile crowd. So given the context of that story, and also considering the story of the book of tobit, in Hebrews 13 when it references be careful to entertain strangers, which story is it most likely referring to? The reference in Hebrews 13 is more aligned with the story in the book of Tobit, where Tobias and his companion are unaware that the angel Raphael is accompanying them. It emphasizes hospitality without prior knowledge of the divine nature of the strangers. Again, this is not a conclusive win, but it shows that this is a reasonable and well-informed interpretation.

@princessc660

6 ай бұрын

Revelation and Tobit are identical. The book of Tobit is parallel to Revelation. If Revelation is inspired so is Tobit. Tobit 12:15- “ I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.” This detail that Tobit provides showing the inner sanctum of heaven is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. Revelation 8:2-4- “ And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.” Tobit which was written centuries before Revelation but they both describe the same things. How can Tpbit get the details of heaven correct centuries before Revelation was written? Is Tobit's author just this amazing guesser or did God give inspiration? If you say Tobit is not inspired then why do you accept Revelation as inspired when they say the same thing? If the author of Tobit was not inspired are you saying centuries before John they just happened to know by chance there were seven angels in heaven and know their activity?

When I was trying to discern whether the deuterocanonicals were Scripture, the first book I read was Wisdom of Solomon and the detailed prophesy of Christ's passion in chapter two made me nearly fall out of my chair.

@theDUKE25-yt

6 ай бұрын

Exactly! Me as well!

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

I used to think that too…until I learned how to properly exegete Scripture from competent scholars and learned better than to fish for “prophecies” in Jewish wisdom literature that were never there in the first place. If the passage were a prophecy of Christ’s passion, you bet your money a church father would have consulted it in their case, especially Justin Martyr whose _Dialogue with Trypho_ is entirely dedicated to such arguments.

@alexdelosreyes6076

5 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 Really?..... You call the exact description of the Passion of the coming Christ described perfectly in a book written before Christ Himself as "fishing for prophecies"? Really?......

@chukulan

5 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 "exegeting" is your problem. The arrogance is awe inspiring.

@terrynboucher3219

5 ай бұрын

I recently read straight through Wisdom as part of a Bible study. I was struck by the beauty of the book, and its teachings on life after death. Bear in mind that this was one of the last books written of the OT. God was at the final stage of preparing the world for Christ, and it was time to be explicit about the afterlife and coming resurrection. Wisdom beautifully answers the questions raised in Ecclesiastes, about whether life is all vanity or not. The answer is a resounding “no”.

Wisdom 2:12-22 has a prophecy of a man who calls himself, "the Son of God," and outlines those who oppose him as his ways are unlike those of men and his ways are immutable. I would encourage everyone to read it.

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

It’s not a prophecy 🤦

@Timmyhimmyhhhh

5 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 then what is it 💀💀💀

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

The Bhagavad Gita: "For the salvation of those who are good, for the destruction of evil in men, for the fullfilment of the kingdom of righteousness, I COME TO THIS WORLD in the ages that pass. He who knows MY BIRTH AS GOD and who knows MY SACRIFICE, when he leaves his mortal body, goes no more from death to death, for he in truth comes to ME." Is the Bhagavad Gita then Scripture?

@hiswill-r122

4 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 why don't you tell us what it is then?

@hiswill-r122

4 ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter respectfully, this is a poor example. Wisdom was written for a Jewish audience and was accepted as Scripture by some Jews before and during the time of Christ, the Bhagavad Gita's audience is Hindu. Wisdom talks about the Son of God and his immutable ways and those who seek to condemn him to a shameful death. This is clearly a prophecy of the character of Christ and the condemnation by the Pharisees because he opposed their ways. The Bhagavad Gita is a dialogue between Krishna and Prince Arjuna. The Bhagavad Gita also discusses offering sacrifices to demigods. This is not consistent with anything in Sacred Scripture. These are just plain proofs for us to know this is not scripture. Hope this helps.

Most concise version of this answer I’ve ever heard!

I never knew that about Sirach. Thank you for this explanation.

@halcaannen

6 ай бұрын

Is Sirach Wisdom or Ecclesiastics.

@thiagoulart

4 ай бұрын

Then you should read Sirach 37:13 and compare to Jeremiah 17:9.

Do more videos on the 7 books please.

@catholiccom

6 ай бұрын

We would love to! Any specific questions you'd like answered about them?

@princessc660

6 ай бұрын

@@catholiccom can you talk about why we Catholics accept the books. The historical reasoning and how the 7 books relate to the New Testament and answering objections

@joshm7501

6 ай бұрын

@@catholiccom could you also do one on why Catholics dont accept 1&2 Esdras, while EO have them in the canon, and Protestants have them in their Apocrapha?

@donnaberube5480

3 ай бұрын

​@@joshm7501I like (mostly accept) 1 and 2 Esdras.

Just found your channel today, while I am protestant, I have noticed these connections and references as well since I started reading the apocrypha in my KJV cambridge, it has great center column references in the apocrypha. God bless!

Thank you Jimmy, wish you guys had done this sooner. I've spent hours combing Jimmy's extensive list and trying to validate them myself. These 2-3 verified references are handy to have in routine apologetics.

@mellowmartin4334

6 ай бұрын

Maybe you already know this, but this may help in apologetics. The following are supposedly not quoted in the New Testament (if I am wrong, I wouldn't mind knowing where): Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah. So now you have examples of "apocrypha" in the New Testament but also canonical books NOT in the New Testament.

@alisterrebelo9013

6 ай бұрын

@@mellowmartin4334 I know this only because I read it very recently. Ruth 4 is likely the source of Matthew 1, in the genealogy between Perez to David. Jonah is quoted by Jesus himself in Matthew and Luke. Thanks for the rest, I will try and validate that when I can, it's a good apologetic idea.

Paul quotes Sirach 7 “mourn with those who mourn” in Romans 12.

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

It says “walk with those who mourn” in Sirach 7:38. This is not a quote.

@mosesking2923

6 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 The Greek says "καὶ μετὰ πενθούντων πένθησον." It appears that you have a bad translation.

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

So what? He also quotes pagan philosophers. Doesn't make it scripture.

Thank you for this video Catholic Answers

I read the Deuterocanon, Sirach, Wisdom, and Tobit, were the ones that I remembered the most. I liked the Prayer of Manasseh but that's definitely apocryphal.

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

@@CatholicDefender-bp7mySo wouldn’t you say that the exact arguments Catholics could make against the books other churches have in excess of the Catholic Canon are the same arguments Protestants could make against all of them?

Thank You Jimmy !!!! God Bless You Folks at Catholic Answers

If we were to restrict ourselves to the Jewish books, we would need to keep in mind that the books were not 39. Some books existed together and the number would be 22 books, which correspond with the number of Hebrew letters. There is a problem here. The Greek Septuagint version of those same 22 books, when broken down, may have been more like 42 books, not 39. The New Testament writers more often than not quoted from the Greek Septuagint, so they may have been using three additional books. What are these? The book of Jeremiah most likely included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah (which the Catholic Church sets as Baruch chapter 6 even though it's a distinct book, so the Catholics actually have 47 Old Testament books, not 46). The book of Ezra most likely had 1st Esdras, as well as 2nd Esdras (2nd Esdras was comprised of Ezra-Nehemiah). Josephus, the 1st century scholar, makes use of 1st Esdras in Antiquities of the Jews Book 11. Saint Jerome supposedly removed 1st Esdras despite it being accepted at the Synod of Hippo and 2 councils at Carthage. Regardless, it's not very different from Ezra (although, it has an interesting passage about a discussion between 3 wise men and the Persian king). The letter of Clement is not part of the Bible, but Clement was a disciple of Paul (just like Luke). Any books he would have used were probably permitted by Paul. So what did he use? The book of Wisdom. He also talks about the story of Judith, which would have most likely come from the book of Judith since no other source is know to talk about her (at least to my knowledge). Besides these books, we must not forget that Jude 14 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 (or 2:1, depending on the translation). The story of the canon is not so simple, but the Church gave it a simple conclusion... sort of (Western canon of 74 books (not 73) and Eastern canon of 76 books).

I like the 1st and second book of Esdras included in an old bible I have under Apocrypha. I have studied some of the Anchor Bible on Esdras in which the complexity of the different names of the books of Esdras in different translations is apparent.

I believe the main point, often overlooked by many, is that the authors of the New Testament primarily used the Septuagint. In the majority of Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament, the Greek text is used, often cited verbatim! While many Catholics uphold the books they call deuterocanonical, for the rest of the Old Testament books, they give precedence to a Hebrew Text that would only be revered by Western Christians much later. I believe the crux of the discussion should be which text is authoritative: the Septuagint, utilised by the majority of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers, or the Hebrew Text. The canon of each text is just a consequence.

There are about 60+ references from these 7 books to the New Testament. These books were good enough for Jesus to quote from them but NOT good enough for Protestants. Martin Luther removed them because it went against his False teachings. AND, under NO ONE'S AUTHORITY!

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

Cyril of Jerusalem to catechumens, 350 A.D. Catechetical Lecture 4 
“And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.” Do you even realize that Paul also quotes Greek poets? Does that make them Scripture then too? My goodness the lack of logic these days. How come your Apocrypha isn't good enough for SO MANY early church fathers?

@justinking3558

4 ай бұрын

​@@hexahexametermeterthe deutercanon were not called apocrypha by the early church, they were called scripture

The writer of the book of Hebrews exhorts his readers to persevere amidst trials and persecution (Heb. 10:19-39). He reminds his readers that earlier they had earlier stood their ground “in a great contest in the face of suffering” (Heb, 10:32), even while being “publicly exposed to insult and persecution” (Heb. 10:33). They need to persevere (Heb. 10:36), because they are those who do not “shrink back” and are destroyed (Heb. 10:39).

@HillbillyBlack

5 ай бұрын

@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn well, actually, you’re in luck. Your own ecumenical system denies the apocrypha Cannon. Allow me to demonstrate. The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical., and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.” Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” Athanasius said the apocrypha was read by the catechumens, meaning those raised up in the church - Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids reading the apocrypha saying that the apostles rejected them. And on… Jerome writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.” Isidore, who lived in those times says that the OT was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books might correspond by the number of the letters.” John Damascus says “It must be known that there are only two and twenty books of the OT, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language.” Therefore, if these books either were canonical, or so declared and defined by any legitimate public judgment of the church, then these so numerous fathers, ancient and at the time of Trent, could not have been ignorant of it, nor would have dissented. However, they openly stated these books as apocryphal, and in no way included them in the canon before Trent. Sources- Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius - Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) Athanasius (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.) Epiphanius (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26) Jerome (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.)

@HillbillyBlack

5 ай бұрын

@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical., and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.” Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” Athanasius said the apocrypha was read by the catechumens, meaning those raised up in the church - Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids reading the apocrypha saying that the apostles rejected them. And on… Jerome writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.” Isidore, who lived in those times says that the OT was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books might correspond by the number of the letters.” John Damascus says “It must be known that there are only two and twenty books of the OT, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language.” Therefore, if these books either were canonical, or so declared and defined by any legitimate public judgment of the church, then these so numerous fathers, ancient and at the time of Trent, could not have been ignorant of it, nor would have dissented. However, they openly stated these books as apocryphal, and in no way included them in the canon before Trent. Sources- Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius - Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) Athanasius (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.) Epiphanius (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26) Jerome (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.)

@StoneCold-catholic

5 ай бұрын

BOOOOOM. Mic Drop. Nice one Billy

@HillbillyBlack

5 ай бұрын

@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn councils are irrelevant in the face of populous example. You can’t have a populous practice and then have one pope unilaterally stop over everyone. That doesn’t mean anything. That just means one guy is a douche.

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Where is the Ecumenical Council that declared the Apocrypha was Scripture?

That is super good stuff. Thank you.

Thanks for this! God bless

Paul mentions verse from the Book of Enoch, a book only found in the canons of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Beta Israel Jews, in Jude 1 (i think?). it's strange to think about now, but the Biblical Canon was still being sorted out before, during and about 400 years after (in the case of the Christian canon) Jesus' ministry. the current Hebrew Bible wasn't officially sorted until the 11th century!

Sirach 28:2 Forgive your neighbor the wrong done to you; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven. Matthew 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;

@nothingnothing7958

6 ай бұрын

This is not a quote, Jesus just said something similar.

@deusvult8340

6 ай бұрын

@@nothingnothing7958Yeah Jesus used Sirach, that’s the point

@nothingnothing7958

6 ай бұрын

@@deusvult8340 if Jesus said " God is Good" yet a book which is not genuine scripture says " God is good" is Jesus quoting that book? When Jesus made a quote he would say " it is written" or " have you not read", Jesus was not making a quote in this verse.

@Olivier1

6 ай бұрын

​​@@nothingnothing7958 Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. The book shares some of Jesus' words with us. Jesus is the objective and the one who saves, and who died for our sins. Suppose you were Jesus, and suppose a close friend of yours wrote about you in your physical absence, and then you came back later to explain to people what you wanted to convey to them, possibly in a different language as well. Would you always prefix every sentence you said by "it is written"? I say this without any enmity. The brother above possibly meant a reference of the idea, rather than the verbatim copy. God bless.

@nothingnothing7958

6 ай бұрын

@@Olivier1 ok then you agree Jesus was not quoting Sirach.

I heard that parts of Sirach may be inspired, I read Sirach and it was almost entirely like reading a New Testament epistle (about 200 years before any of the New Testament epistles were written?)

Do you have examples/evidence for the Jews treating the 7 Deuterocanon books as Scripture before the time of Jesus, like he mentioned? Thanks

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

To my knowledge, there is absolutely none. That’s why Catholic and Orthodox apologists have to make up this myth of the “Greek Diaspora Version” (GDV) of the Jewish Scriptures aka the Septuagint or LXX. They seriously want to make it sound like Jesus and his apostles had Greek Bibles with exactly the extra books they added in them. It’s honestly hilarious considering how zealously I once defended this view.

@juans6639

6 ай бұрын

It was the One and ONLY Catholic Church that produced the Bible in its ENTIRETY under Pope Damasus in 382A.D. who commissioned St. Jerome to gather all the writings, Epistles, Gospels..AND translate them from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek into the language of the day; LATIN! ALL 73 Books....NOT your Father of Protestantism, (Martin Luther) 1,520 years later after. It WAS, The Catholic Church that DETERMINED which writings were the TRUE AND INSPIRED WORD OF GOD AND IN WHAT ORDER THEY WOULD BE ALONG WITH THE TABLE OF CONTENTS!...NOT MARTIN LUTHER! There are over 60+ direct references and some where Jesus quotes from them...But as usual, over 70,000 False, Man Made, Reformed, Protestant, Religions and Churches don't believe.

@JonTopping

6 ай бұрын

@@juans6639 That doesn't answer the question at all though. If the Jews never considered the deuterocanonical books to be scripture, why are people a millennial later all of a sudden choosing to call them scripture? Just because the Pope says so? Why would God inspire books, 400 years before jesus, only to have nobody consider them scripture for a millennia?

@juans6639

6 ай бұрын

AND, How do and can, over 70,000 False, Man Made, Reformed, Protestant, Religions and Churches who use Martin Luther's Adulterated Bible say they are correct when NONE of you agree with each other! The Jews STILL hold on to and believe in Moses, the Old Covenant/Testament. Moses is not Our Savior. Jesus Christ is and by his One and ONLY Catholic Church he founded is the reason we have the Complete Bible. Martin Luther removed 7 books because it contradicted his False teachings; (Faith Alone and Scripture Only) NONE of these exist in the Bible, YET, Rev.22-18-19 clearly warns about what your Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther did...SADLY, Over 70,000 believe it is correct..WHY? PROTESTANTS CAN NEVER BE CALLED ONE FAITH!

@chukulan

5 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 several are in the dead sea scrolls.

Thank you

Great video

"Apocryphal" should be in quotes in the title

One thing that was missed is when a man approached Jesus and talks about a woman having 7 husband that died,That's from Tobit 3:8

So much disagreement amongst the denominations yet Scripture is CRYSTAL CLEAR who the Apostle is to you & I and what is required for you & I to enter Heaven. Acts 9:10-15, Gal 2:9, Rom 11:13 Paul is our Apostle - that settled that. What did Christ THROUGH Paul teach as to how you & I enter Heaven. 1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 2:8-9, Gal 2:16, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5 - that settles that. So why SO MANY denominations ?

I attend a Protestant Evangelical church, but I use the Catholic "New Jerusalem" Bible. I wish I had read Maccabees as a young Protestant. Of course, I don't dare read from the Deuterocanonical books at church or I'll be excommunicated.

What about the acts of peter ?

The book of Enoch is quoted in Jude, but that doesn't make it inspired Scripture. These are very loose criteria for inspiration.

@TruthHasSpoken

5 ай бұрын

" but that doesn't make it inspired Scripture. " What do you believe is the criteria for determine canonicity? From what authority do you get the criteria?

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

EXACTLY. Where is the logic, people? There is like ZERO here! Paul quotes Greek poets! Does that then make them Scripture?

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken Criteria? Its what was unanimously used by the church fathers. This is not hard to figure out. Also...authority? It's a matter of faith. How can anyone MAKE you believe something? That's is what God has called YOU to pursue and search for.

@TruthHasSpoken

5 ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter " Its what was unanimously used by the church fathers." You will have a hard time documenting what the criteria was as "unanimously" used by the church fathers. Suggest starting with a spreadhsheet. In columns write the Church Fathers names. In rows, write the criteria that they espoused. See what you find and make sure you define what the word unanimously means in this context. "Also...authority? It's a matter of faith. " God works his agency through men., including his Church that he promised to lead to ALL Truth. The Holy Spirit is guiding it. If it was purely a "matter of faith" decapitated from the Church from which scripture comes, we would have an endless bible editions, endless bible denominationalism, all with differing canons. One faith pitted against another, and against another ... endlessly, with no one having the authority to decided who is right. The latter reflects too, the fruits of the 16th c man-made sola scripture: doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division.

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken Jesus is interested in people not institutions. There has never been a time without confusion. No church has ever solved this. Because everyone contradicts everyone all the time. Whatever "unity" you are selling, its an illusion when you actually look into it.

NT scripture says this in Romans 3: "3 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Now, with that said, do even the Jews recognize Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, these being in the Catholic bible, in their canon? If not, who are these 16th century Gentiles, at the Council of Trent) to add what God ordained the Jews to be entrusted? Now you know why Protestants are sola scriptura. Catholics just willy-nilly their way through doctrine to match their eisegesis of scripture.

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

Yep. I go with the Jewish sages and scholars on this one. Hands down.

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

A great majority of the early church fathers also rejected those books and advised Christians not to read them.

I find it so funny when prots say "jews don't accept the deuterocanon so neither should we" yeah but jews also don't accept the new testament, should we throw it out too? 😂

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

The early church fathers didn't accept your deuterocanonical books either. They SPECIFICALLY say they are NOT divine scriptures. So your modern opinion is better than theirs?

Why wouldnt these books writers of Sirach copy from the new testament and say It was written first in this book. And is there any way of proof dating it before the new testament.

CONTEXT The writer of the book of Hebrews exhorts his readers to persevere amidst trials and persecution (Heb. 10:19-39). He reminds his readers that earlier they had earlier stood their ground “in a great contest in the face of suffering” (Heb, 10:32), even while being “publicly exposed to insult and persecution” (Heb. 10:33). They need to persevere (Heb. 10:36), because they are those who do not “shrink back” and are destroyed (Heb. 10:39). They are those who are to live by faith, and are themselves part of a great community of saints. Surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1) described at length in Hebrews 11, they are those whose faith was authored and finished be their great high priest, Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:3). Hebrews 11 presents a substantial panoply of specific events in Biblical history, beginning at creation, and taking the reader on a rapid journey through Hebrew history. The writer mentions and expounds briefly on specific individuals: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab. All these mentioned have explicit Biblical references to substantiate their place among the heroes of faith. The writer of Hebrews also speaks of Israel collectively living by faith during the Exodus, and the claiming of the land promised to them by God. This is zero to do with Maccabees

@voxangeli9205

6 ай бұрын

@HillBillyBlack, don't worry about the Hebrews, it really has nothing to do about Maccabees. Nothing changes, anyway, for those in the know: the deuterocanonicals are scripture, as decided by Christians in the 4th century, as compared to the Pharisees who rejected them in the 3rd century -- for obvious reasons.

@HillbillyBlack

6 ай бұрын

@@voxangeli9205 incorrect. They were read from but not unilaterally agreed upon or declares scripture until Trent. The disagreement is 2000 years strong.

@voxangeli9205

6 ай бұрын

@@HillbillyBlack , wrong history and perspective, the deuterocanonicals has been scripture since the 4th century councils, not during Trent. Trent just definitively reaffirmed what has been been decided since the 4th century councils, in light of the reformers' rejection of the deuterocanonicals. Who taught you this wrong and distorted Christian history?

@HillbillyBlack

6 ай бұрын

@@voxangeli9205 i didn’t say they weren’t in scripture. Reread what I wrote so I don’t have to repeat myself.

@HillbillyBlack

6 ай бұрын

@@voxangeli9205 several issues. 1. They were not “cannon” declared until Trent. They were read from but had mixed reception all throughout church history. 2. The cannon supports use of magic Tobit 6:5-7 3. Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. Tobit 4:11, Tobit 4:12:9 4. Money as an offering for the sins of the dead. 2 Maccabbees 12:43 5. Historical errors: The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians. Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. the Apocrypha has serious problems. From magic to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts - it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn’t inspired by God. Such teaching does away with complete atonement of Christ. If sin can be burned out, then we have no need for our Saviour. Tobias 5 :15-19. "The angel said to him [Tobias]: I will conduct him [son of To­bias] thither, and bring him back to thee. And Tobias said to him [the angel]: I pray thee, Tell me, of what family, or what tribe art thou? And Raphael the angel an­swered: . . . I am Azarias, the son of the great Ananias. And Tobias answered: Thou art of a great family." Should an angel of God lie about his identity, he would be guilty of violating the ninth commandment. Luke I :19. Contrasting this statement with what is recorded in the book of To­bias, we can readily understand why 'Christ never quoted from the apocryphal books. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. Wisdom 8:19, 20. "And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled." Catholics use this text to sup­port their doctrine that Mary was born sin­less. Luke I :30-35. There was only one whom the Holy Word states was immaculately conceived, and that one was our Saviour. Ps. 51 :5; Rom. 3:23. Here again is a doctrine that other books of Bible do not support.

Clearly Revelations has not been considered in this responce; where those who loose their lives, are specifically mentioned. And appear to be getting different outcomes than the wicked. So not only in the apocrypha , but other scriptures also.

The Catholic Church under Pope Damasus, (Protestants Don't believe in Popes) in 382A.D. ordered that the Bible be produced. He commissioned St. Jerome to gather all the writings, Epistles, Gospels and translate them from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into the language of the day; LATIN. It WAS, the Catholic Church that DETERMINED which writings, Epistles and Gospels were the TRUE AND INSPIRED WORD OF GOD! It was the Catholic Church that DETERMINED in what order the 73 Books would be along with the table of Contents. This wad reviewed and approved during the Councils of Hippo 383A.D. and Carthage 393A.D...NOT, Martin Luther or any of the over 70,000 False, Man Made, Reformed, Heretical, Protestant, Religions and Churches who use Martin Luther's Adulterated Bible and NONE of them agree with each other! Lying Protestants lie about their Churches/Religions being the true Church and about the Catholic Church adding these books when in reality it was Martin Luther; (Their founder of Protestantism) who actually removed them, added Faith Alone & Scripture Only; which DO NOT exist anywhere in the Bible. This, IN SPITE of what it says in Rev.22-18-19...Question, Where is the One and ONLY Reformed Protestant Church? Why 70,000? BTW, Luther also wanted to remove the books of Jude, Hebrews, Revelation and James, 2:14-26 which directly contradicts Luther's FALSE Teaching of Faith Alone. He wasn't satisfied even after removing parts of Esther; Chapters 11-16 and parts of Daniel. BTW, The Bible contains TWO Epistles from the First Pope; Peter.

Claiming that the "Apocrypha" was not necessarily inspired doesn't make them false or diabolic. There are plenty of true books which aren't scripture.

Saying "these books weren't accepted by the jews" is such a weird metric to base the canon on. The Jews (largely) didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah, and some only held the 5 books of Moses as their canon. What are we to do about that? throw out Jesus and the prophets?

Why not? He wrote them.

Why aren't single people praying alone having Jesus with them, too? He says, "Whenever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I also," which sounds like a single person praying doesn't have Jesus with them. It's bad enough to be alone, but Jesus doesn't even 'show up' if we pray alone? That just doesn't sound right at all...

Notice how he didnt give exact chapter and verses, because its trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you compare the alleged verses from each book, you will quickly see that the NT doesn't quote the apocrypha at all.

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

Here's a chapter and verse for you, but its not the chapter and verse they'd like LOL Cyril of Jerusalem to catechumens, 350 A.D. Catechetical Lecture 4 
“And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.” Cyril recognizes the apocrypha is part of the septuagint, but rejects the apocryphal books as Divine Scriptures.

@palermotrapani9067

2 ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter No if you read Saint Cyril of Jerusalem's Letter on the canon, he does not include Esther but includes Jeremiah as 1 book, that includes Lamentations , Baruch plus the Letter as 3 separate books joined to Jeremiah. Today in the Catholic Canon, those 4 are 3 books, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Baruch (Chapter 6 is the Letter). So Saint Cyril's Letter is not the 39 book Protestant Canon. it is in reality a 40 book Canon that does not include Esther and includes Baruch + The Letter.

Dear my Protestant brethren in the comments, stop making excuses as to why you remove books from the Holy Scriptures. Your denial of Christ and his Holy Church causes you to speak rashly and think uncritically.

Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. You claimed, "That's something that is expressed exactly once in the Old Testament, and it's in Sirach 28." Truth: the concept is expressed, but not exactly. It isn't as though Jesus were quoting from Sirach. He was not. Sirach contained the rough idea, but this doesn't prove that Jesus was utilizing Sirach as an authoritative source. (Even a broken clock will be right twice a day.) Sir 28:2 Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done unto thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest. Sir 28:3 One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek pardon from the Lord? Sir 28:4 He sheweth no mercy to a man, which is like himself: and doth he ask forgiveness of his own sins? Sir 28:5 If he that is but flesh nourish hatred, who will intreat for pardon of his sins?

@nothingnothing7958

6 ай бұрын

He also lied about Hebrews 11, all of the people mentioned in the chapter are from the Old Testament none are from the Apocrypha.

@MAP2023

6 ай бұрын

Deuterocanon. not Apocrypha.@@nothingnothing7958

@AnHebrewChild

6 ай бұрын

@@nothingnothing7958he was specifically speaking of verses 35-37 which doesn't name people but alludes to apocryphal stories. The guy did a terrible job of explaining what he meant.

What about the 'Gospel' of Thomas Didymus Judas?

🔥 FIIAT VOLUNTA TUA SICUT IN CAELO ET IN TERRA FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD A. M. D. G.

It does not say in the book of Hebrews to avoid martyred they have a better resurrection. Remember the devil missed quotes the Bible, right

Thank you.

so maybe find some verses of scripture in the book of Mormon and then you can tell us Jesus quoted from the book of Mormon ? St Jerome in the fifth century also took the 7 books out stating they were not doctrinally sound . He was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books went back into the canon. So from 2 Maccabee's 12: we get praying for the dead ? not found in any other book of the bible we also find that unrepentant sinners can be prayed for to attain godliness? Not found in any other book of the bible? Tobit tells us 6: that you can remove a demon from a person by having them walk through the smoke of burning fish entrails? You do not find that anywhere else in scripture of the remaining 72 books?

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

It is clear that they canonized them as ammunition against the protestants, even tho if you read those passages they have little to do with the actual doctrines the Roman Catholics claim it supports.

Jesus quoted the Law, the prophets and the Writings/Psalms. He did not quote directly from the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The Apocrypha has chronological, doctrinal, historical and geographical errors. Therefore it is NOT Scripture.

Just another way for Protestants and Martin Luther to distance themselves from Judaism.

Why wouldn't Jesus quote the so-called apocryphal books? Not sure whose idea it is that He wouldn't or that the apostles wouldn't. Is this another of those sola scriptura rules not found in scriptura?

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

Paul quotes Greek poets. Does that make them Scripture?

This is what I have learned so far... Not all deuterocanonical were accepted by even some of the Jewish Christian community. They may have been referred to from a literary point of view, but never with authority. When Jesus cites canonical tanakh, the original 24, he would use "It is written," or "Thus saith the Lord." Deutero do not carry the same weight authoritatively as the original 24 (Christian 39) books. Earliest church fathers ignored them, too. Athanasius, for example, even reduced the protocanonical books in the Tanakh from 24 to 22, showing an even stricter view of scriptural authority. Back to Jesus. In Matthew 23:34-36, Jesus says, "Therefore I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation." Jesus, by implication, apparently doesn't believe in the authenticity of the deutero books, or he would have ended his example with a martyr from those generations rather than stop at Zechariah. It's not an A to Z thing like Jesus was thinking in English. It was a chronological listing which ignored the deutero books. I won't even get into the contradictions found between the authoritative 24 and the added 7. This comment is long enough. If the above is demonstrably wrong in some way, please show me.

@dumbidols

6 ай бұрын

A couple of things I would point out. First is that over 80% of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are from the Greek Septuigint. This demonstrates that the Septuagint was the "Bible" of the New Testament authors. The Septuagint includes the deuterocanon, therefore the deuterocanon was part of the "Bible" of the New Testament authors. Second, after the destruction of the temple, the Jews called a council in Jamnia, approximately 90-100AD to reform Judaism in the absence of the Temple and response to Christianity. It's at this point they officially approved the shorter Canon. The early church fathers from the second and third centuries repeatedly lament on how the Jews removed these books because they speak of Christ. From then on they are "ignored" in apologetic writings because they are not accepted by the Jews as authoritative anymore, so they are no longer used in argumentation with them.

@nothingnothing7958

6 ай бұрын

​@@dumbidolsThe Dead Sea Scrolls ( which are just as old as the septuigent) have Jubilees and Enoch so by your logic Jews and Christians should accept them as canonical so why dont you? Also the DSS dont have Maccabees or Sirach.

@ToeTag1968

6 ай бұрын

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Whoa! Don't forget that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. He most assuredly and absolutely did not generally quote from the Greek Septuagint! Perhaps the non-rabbinical authors of the gospels used that version. Why would a Jewish rabbi preach to 5000 Jews in Hebrew, then pull out phrases in Greek and retranslate them back to Hebrew for his audience? Makes zero sense! According to the unanimous testimony of the Jewish Mishna and the Jewish Targums, the language of the synagogues and the rabbis of Palestine was Aramaic. No Greek Old Testament could ever have gained any acceptance among the Jews of Palestine. William Whitaker in his "Disputations on Holy Scripture, 1588" writes, "From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may concede either this Greek version which has come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it has suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity; since he often complains in his commentary that what he had was faulty and corrupt." Jesus Christ, several times, refers to the Hebrew division of the Old Testament - The Law, Prophets and Psalms (see Matt. 7:12, 11:13, 22:40; and Luke 24:27, 44 for example). No known version of the Septuagint has any such division. Origen's Septuagint has the Old Testament in an entirely different order with the books of the Apocrypha interspersed among them. Christ took it for granted that His hearers used an Old Testament with the historic 3 - fold division found in the Hebrew Bible. Some food for thought. Just because a phrase made its way into the deutero books and an apostle used them, it doesn't necessarily mean they are quoting from a book originally. There were many rabbis and many centuries of wisdom possibly handed down through oral tradition that made their way to those books after years and years of them being bandied about. God bless. Thanks for the discussion!

@nothingnothing7958

6 ай бұрын

@@ToeTag1968 the apostles made quotes from the septuigent that differ from the Hebrew.

@ToeTag1968

6 ай бұрын

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my I will admit to that if you will admit that you learned from someone who could be wrong, too.

But would you say he is entertaining the angel here?

SEPTUAGINT SIRACH 28 TEXT / AUDIO 🔥 JESUS, I. TRUST YOU 🔥

Jesus also quoted the Jewish myth of the rich man and Lazarus and Paul quoted sayings about Zeus in Acts. Doesn't mean they were endorsing those views or accepting them as based in reality

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

Exactly. The lack of logic here is astounding.

Typical Catholic W

Perhaps he didn't know they were apocryphal?

Like your enlightenment. am a late learner but if the bible has only 63 cannons I feel almost Robbed as the word is GOD. John 1:1 Emunah.

Not only did Jesus and the New Testament writers quote from the deuterocanonical books but there are some other Old Testament books Jesus and the New Testament writers did NOT quote. Also, we cannot assume every word Jesus spoke is recorded in the Bible.

@drstewart

6 ай бұрын

Actually we can take it further and be assured that not every word spoken, or every action performed by Jesus is in the Bible. John 21:25 says it clearly. It partially answers Sola Scriptura in advance.

@keatsiannightingale2025

6 ай бұрын

@@drstewartSo some church prelate coming hundreds of years later can pull a conjecture/embellishment out of his behind and label it “tradition” and it just becomes truth? How uncritical are we supposed to be?

@drstewart

6 ай бұрын

@@keatsiannightingale2025 Knowing how it actually works would make it much clearer for you. Tradition is never a single person's invention, rather something that can be shown to have Apostolic roots or practice, something that had been long held as having occurred or believed but was not yet formally defined, or is supported by established doctrine which itself is supported by Biblical practice or doctrine. Remember that the Church refines the faith (Acts 15) and as such the faith isn't meant to stay in an embryonic state. Criticality is welcomed but that presupposes having taken the time to learn the foundations of the thing being criticized. Outside of that, it's just opinion/conjecture.

there are much better, clearer examples that could have been given. I'm really surprised at the ones this guy referenced to make the point.

The Jews don't accepted Apocrypha don't lie. Canon of OT are set, way before Yeshua was born. Yeshua didn't quote even 1 verse from your Apocrypha. Stop the lies "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books" -Josephus

The church teaches dan9:27 is about the antichrist and not the Messiah. It is about the Messiah and it confirms he was killed on Wednesday. 3days and 3 nights later is Saturday. Constantine added the venerable day of the sun and the winter solstice festival of Saturnalia to the doctrine. Read Ezekiel8:14-16 and jer10:2-5 and tell me the whole world didn't get tricked into worshipping Tammuz. Dan11:30 the antichrist will come to power via those that forsake the 10 commandments

The mistake the RCC apologists make with this argument lies in assuming the Apocrypha books have monopoly on language. The NT references to the history of the Jews does not limit the source of this history. This RCC argument tries to counter the point of those books not being referenced in the NT, while ignoring the fact the Jews themselves rejected those same books form the OT. Jesus may have referenced Jewish history in general, but he did not directly reference the Apocrypha. The stretch does not cover the RCC.

@NevetsWC1134

3 ай бұрын

The Jewish holiday of Hanukkah comes from Maccabee’s which Jesus celebrates in the New Testament. You also have to ask yourself, when did the Jews finally come to an agreement on what is the canon of the old testament. As jimmy said. Different Jews had different opinions on what was scripture. And this is shown in the New Testament. So when did the Jews finally set a canon for all to follow?

@KMisty1

3 ай бұрын

@@NevetsWC1134 Read my comment again, slowly taking time to comprehend it. The point of rejection of the Apocrypha is not because they aren't historical, it is because they aren't considered INSPIRED SCRIPTURE. Explain why the date of Hebrew canon being established is relevant to the Apocrypha being uninspired.

The Apocrypha says in Tobit 6:4-9: “But the angel said to the young man, “Grab the fish and hold on to it!” He seized the fish and hauled it up on dry land. 5 The angel then told him: “Slit the fish open and take out its gall, heart, and liver, and keep them with you; but throw away the other entrails. Its gall, heart, and liver are useful for medicine.”[b] 6 After Tobiah had slit the fish open, he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he roasted and ate part of the fish; the rest he salted and kept for the journey. Afterward the two of them traveled on together till they drew near to Media. 7 Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?” 8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return. 9 As for the gall, if you apply it to the eyes of one who has white scales, blowing right into them, sight will be restored.” That’s witchcraft at its finest. Putting fish entrails in your eyes and using burned up fish intestines to drive demons away. You really thing God will tell u to do that? Another one is Tobit 12:9: “for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin.” 1 John 1:7 says, “the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.” Y would scripture contradict scripture?

@joeschmoe709

6 ай бұрын

Christ spat on mud and rubbed it in a blind man’s eyes. Sometimes why people are required to do things doesn’t make sense to us. As for almsgiving saving people, it does. Christ said to enter the kingdom of Heaven go and sell everything you own and give it to the poor.

@Alexander07865

6 ай бұрын

@@joeschmoe709 Are you comparing Jesus healing a blind man to what people who practice witchcraft today do like use fish entrails and fish intestines to “scare the bad spirits away” And use fish entrails for “healing”? God never told people use fish to use against “bad spirits” Jesus cast those demonic and unclean Spirits out of people, Jesus didn’t use fish. Nor did he tell anyone to. Jesus didn’t say that will make you go to Heaven or make you earn eternal life. Jesus is saying you better count your cost and if you are not willing to lose everything for my sake you can’t get to the Heaven. Like repentance, repentance doesn’t get us to Heaven but it is commanded by Jesus. Acts 17:30. Galatians 2:16: “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 4:5: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” Romans 3:20: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Romans 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Romans 4:1-25: “What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” “Not before God” God is clear about this. The Apocrypha is not Biblical and is contrary to the word of God.

@Alexander07865

6 ай бұрын

@@joeschmoe709 As a matter of fact, Catholicism preaches a false Gospel. And Paul says anyone who preaches a false Gospel, let that person be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9. The Council of Trent Canon 32 States "If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, ...and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema." We do not earn grace, we do not earn salvation, we do not merit salvation or grace, we do not deserve grace thus it being grace, and we do not deserve salvation or eternal life. It is a gift. Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." We can not boast because we do not earn nor deserve eternal life. We can do anything to bribe God by our works. God takes no bribes. Deuteronomy 10:17. Our righteous deeds are like filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6. We are justified by faith not works. Abraham was justified by faith. Galatians 2:16: “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 4:5: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” Romans 3:20: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Romans 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Romans 4:1-25: “What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” “Not before God” We can’t boast our works to go to Heaven. God will not let us go to Heaven based on our works. But only by faith in Christ and what Christ did for us. No amount of good works will get us into Heaven. It’s about what Jesus has done not we do. Catholics can never know if they will go to Heaven because they think they have to do good works to go to Heaven and they think they merit grace and eternal life. But it is a gift of God as Ephesians 2:8-9. We can know we have eternal life. 1 John 5:13. This is the Gospel: The Gospel means the Good news. But before I give the good news I have to tell you the bad news so you appreciate the good news. The bad news is all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23. We know we all sinned and we know what sin is. And the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23. It’s like a judge paying a criminal that killed people, death for their crime. God is doing the same thing. We deserve death because of our sins. If you ever lied, stolen, hated, committed blasphemy (used God’s name in vain), killed, lusted, had pride in your heart or any other sin in your life you sinned against God and deserve death. But the good news is you can be forgiven by the grace of God. Most people know Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins but they do not know this, and if you can get a grip of this it will change your life forever. The 10 Commandments are called the moral law, you and I broke the law, but Jesus paid the fine. That is why Jesus said “it is finished” (John 19:30) right before he died, he was saying paid in full. In court, if someone pays your fine you can leave and it is legal. God can legally take the death sentence off of you all because of what Jesus did on the cross. Then he rose on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4) and defeated death itself, and if you simply repent and put your trust in Jesus, you have God’s promise and he can not lie, that he will grant you everlasting life. Ask God to change your heart and your desires to love what is right not what is wrong. Psalm 51:10 That’s what it means to be born again. Jesus said unless you are born again you will not see the kingdom of God. John 3:3. When you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior and pass from death to life all because of God’s mercy, it’s a personal miracle that you can be radically changed from loving sin to loving God. God is gracious and he will provide. 2 Chronicles 30:9. Philippians 4:19. Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Matthew 7:7. Jesus is calling all to repent. Acts 17:30. Jesus said repent or likewise perish. But God is not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9. Jesus wants to have a relationship with you. It’s not about religion. All these other gods are fake and It’s Satan distracting you from Jesus. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:6. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. God bless. Repent and put your truth and faith in Jesus Christ. That is the Gospel. Catholics do not believe in being Spiritually born again and God changing your desires renewing your heart to love what is right vs what is wrong. But Jesus said unless a man is born again, he will not see the kingdom of God. John 3:3. So ask God to change you and to convert you to love what is right not wrong. Ask God for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will convict you of your sins and guide you to all truth. John 16:8, John 16:13. God bless. Repent and trust in Jesus

@Alexander07865

6 ай бұрын

@@joeschmoe709 Are you comparing Jesus healing a blind man to what people who practice witchcraft today do like use fish entrails and fish intestines to “scare the bad spirits away” And use fish entrails for “healing”? God never told people use fish to use against “bad spirits” Jesus cast those demonic and unclean Spirits out of people, Jesus didn’t use fish. Nor did he tell anyone to. Jesus didn’t say that will make you go to Heaven or make you earn eternal life. Jesus is saying you better count your cost and if you are not willing to lose everything for my sake you can’t get to the Heaven. Mark 8:35: “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.” Like repentance, repentance doesn’t get us to Heaven but it is commanded by Jesus. Acts 17:30. We aren’t saved by almsgiving or by works. By works of the law no man will be justified. Galatians 2:16. We are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.

@joeschmoe709

6 ай бұрын

Dude. Thats too long.

So unfortunate they use the word apocryphal this way

@revelation1215

6 ай бұрын

That is why we call them Protestant- protesters

Mic. Drop.

The challenge is that can you say that the faith as practiced by non catholics is lacking and catholics got it right every time.because they include those books. NO. Yo simply teach catholicism But its not in the gospel Jezus never taught that Apostles never It was the gospel Its gods kingdom not Catholicism So give us a break GOD is one and our father Jesus is meszia suffered and died then rose again Sitted at Gods right hand as advicate Shall come on great power and glory eitj hus angels to receive an everlastong kingdom The spirit procrmeeds from god Heaven Hell Judgement day Resurection New life. All is avaolable eirhout those boojs you only try ti clsim catholicusm is the truth. No give peopke teaching of gospel.

Whose to say that the words Jesus and Paul quoted” were not written before they were “quoted”

😂

Catholic brain: mmm Jews were looking forward to a resurrection, that’s only in the apocrypha OT. (Bro what lol)

No one is saying those events didn’t happened we’re just saying those events were not written by men of God and they were not recorded like the other Scriptures that were inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16. So the Apocrypha is not inspired by God but they could have some truth in there. Satan tells 9 truths and a lie.

@TruthHasSpoken

6 ай бұрын

"we’re just saying those events were not written by men of God" Who is WE? Whoever WE is, please provide the criteria for canoncity of scripture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

@Alexander07865

6 ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken Bible believing born again Christians. If Jesus quoted from it. If another person quoted from it like an Apostle. If the Jews actually accepted it as inspired words of God not just words that may or may not be true. If it contradicts Scripture. If it is a contradiction to God’s word how can that be God’s word? Unless you believe God’s word is not perfect and has contradictions

@Alexander07865

6 ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken The Apocrypha says in Tobit 6:4-9: “But the angel said to the young man, “Grab the fish and hold on to it!” He seized the fish and hauled it up on dry land. 5 The angel then told him: “Slit the fish open and take out its gall, heart, and liver, and keep them with you; but throw away the other entrails. Its gall, heart, and liver are useful for medicine.”[b] 6 After Tobiah had slit the fish open, he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he roasted and ate part of the fish; the rest he salted and kept for the journey. Afterward the two of them traveled on together till they drew near to Media. 7 Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?” 8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return. 9 As for the gall, if you apply it to the eyes of one who has white scales, blowing right into them, sight will be restored.” That’s witchcraft at its finest. Putting fish entrails in your eyes and using burned up fish intestines to drive demons away. You really thing God will tell u to do that? Another one is Tobit 12:9: “for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin.” 1 John 1:7 says, “the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.” Y would scripture contradict scripture?

@TruthHasSpoken

6 ай бұрын

@@Alexander07865 So this is the criteria for what is inspired (??) : 1. If Jesus quoted from it. 2. If another person quoted from it like an Apostle. 3. If the Jews actually accepted it as inspired words of God not just words that may or may not be true. So have you applied the criteria above to all 27 books of the New Testament? So have you applied the criteria above to all 46 books (or 39 in your case) of the Old Testament? Where does scripture state 1, 2, and 3 are criteria for canonicity? Note, regarding #3, outside of the Books of Moses, there was no consensus as to what was inspired by the Jews. The Sadducees for example, only accepted the Books of Moses as inspired. The diaspora Jews used the Septuagint, which includes all of the Catholic Old Testament books plus some of that the Orthodox include. "born again Christians." One is Born Again, scripturally through baptism. My write-up is below. *The Old Testament Prefigures a greater New Testament reality: The Waters of Baptism are Salvific.* - Noah and his family were saved by the water and cleansed humanity of sin, the Ark representing the Church. - The Israelites were saved by water from Pharaoh’s army crossing the sea - The Israelites were again saved by water when Moses struck the Rock *God foretells his Spirit would someday reside not in Jerusalem’s temple built by man but within mankind himself:* _25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ez 36)._ *St John the Baptist says that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit:* _“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire_ (Mat 3:11). _I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’_ (Jn 1:33). *St Paul speaks to the New Testament fulfillment, through Baptism, our body being the temple of God’s Spirit.* _Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God (1 Cor 6:19)?_ *We receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, the external washing by water signifying (a sign, a symbol, but not a sign or symbol only) of an interior spiritual change within us.* *Born Anew (Again) - through baptism, we are “born again” scripturally* _3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 3,5)._ *Regenerated and Justified - All Sacraments are means of receiving his Grace (we are saved by Grace)* _when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3: 4-7)._ *Sanctified - the exterior sign of water signifies the interior spiritual change through baptism.* _11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6: 11)._ *Baptism Restores Sanctifying Grace and Cleanses Us of ALL Personal Sins* _And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16).”_ *Baptism Saves Us - by having the Spirit of God in us; God can’t be any more explicit* - _“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 5).”_ - _Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 21)._ - _He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned_ (Mk 16: 16; believing / having faith means to follow all that Christ commanded. He commanded that Christians be baptized as a means of receiving his grace) *Note, I can cite Christian men for this whole time period who taught exactly what scripture teaches. Examples below.* “Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,-as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2: 16 (A.D. 181). *Worth repeating: How is does one receive repentance and remission of sins .... through the water and spirit (the laver or regeneration). BAPTISM.* “[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253). “We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9:9 (A.D. 359). “This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” Basil, On the Spirit, 15: 35 (A.D. 375).

@jamespasco132

6 ай бұрын

@@Alexander07865 Agree!

I wonder if this guy knows that "apocrypha" is what the Church Fathers referred to these books as? "Deuterocanon" is an invention of Sixtus of Siena in 1566. And just because writers quote other books doesn't make it Scripture. Paul quotes Epimenides the Cretan and Aratus. Does that make the writings of those Greeks Scripture? The Roman apologists have nothing to stand on in their arguments.

The 'apocrypha' and the Deuterocanon are made of of different books. They have books in common but they are different lists...do better.

Before the Greek Septuagint was begun, the Jerusalem canon was established. It contained just the 39 inspired Hebrew-Aramaic books from Genesis to Malachi, and it PROHIBITED the apocryphal books that were added to the Greek Septuagint! Jesus and the eight writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures confirmed this Jerusalem canon of thirty-nine books, for they all quoted from the Jerusalem canon, but NEVER from the apocryphal books added to the Greek Septuagint. When those eight inspired writers in Greek did quote from the Septuagint, they ignored the apocryphal books!

@justin36004

6 ай бұрын

Give a source then.

@TruthHasSpoken

6 ай бұрын

Please provide the criteria for canoncity of scripture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Note, the Sadducees only accept the Books of Moses as inspired.

@gunsgalore7571

6 ай бұрын

Did you watch the video? Mr. Akin actually went and pointed out the exact times the New Testament authors referred to what you call the "apocrypha." They did not ignore these books.

@hexahexametermeter

5 ай бұрын

@@gunsgalore7571 So they quoted them. So what? They also explicitly define the canon of the OT as the Jewish 24 books. We have to regard them as divinely inspired now just because you say so?

@gunsgalore7571

5 ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter When did they explicitly define the canon as 24 books? That's nowhere in the New Testament. In Jesus's time, there were several different Jewish canons (It was an argument not unlike what Catholic, Protestants, and Orthodox face today.), but Jesus never commented on which canon was correct. Also, what Christian group do you belong to? Catholics recognize 46 OT books, Protestants recognize 39, and the Orthodox recognize more than either one. Who recognizes only 24?

The Jewish Tenach does NOT contain the 7 books. So the Protestant bible is closer to the original Old Testament. Being quoted in the Bible does NOT automatically mean it is a good thing. The Bible mentions Satan, but not in a good way !!

I wonder why this Christ is more special than the 16 crucified saviours that came before him ? Oh, and they all had a virgin mother. You think its real ........ but its not ...... its just an astro theological myth being told, over and over again. Just like the Moses story. Ever wonder why all the statues of Moses depict him with horns ?? Think Moses was the only baby in a basket story in ancient history ......... there are 2 stories before he came along.