There are over 30 books that are considered apocryphal, I couldn't cover them all here, but hopefully you found this brief overview interesting!

@werebitch1313

11 ай бұрын

Is that including the Gnostic texts, or are they classified separately, here?

@IAYTD

11 ай бұрын

@@werebitch1313 I believe they're different, since the churches that do include apocryphal texts likely don't include Gnostic texts. Again, could be different based on the belief set, but I think that's the case.

@werebitch1313

11 ай бұрын

@@IAYTD You're probably right. (Though it should be pointed out that SOME scholars believe the books of John to be early Gnostic texts.)

I remember attending a religious lecture once, & when the speaker announced they'd be going over the Apocrypha (among other things,) I squeeled out "OOOOOOOH! I LOVE the Apocrypha!" instantly drawing EVERY eye in the room!

Hi all! I'm open to revisions on videos, so if you do believe I got something wrong, give me specifics. This was a tough issue to both research and summarize, since it varies wildly across religions, so it'd also be useful if you reference what Bible or religion you're referring to when you give feedback!

How about a video about what Heathenry/Asatru is? Or any neopagan movement, for that matter?

Can I get more information about apocryphal writings?

Apocrypha is Hermaus Mora's realm of Oblivion. Bam, there, done.

I do not know enough about this so hopefully you can teach me and aren't doing stack gaming

Some factual errors in this video

@IAYTD

11 ай бұрын

Hi there! I’m open to revising videos if they’re incorrect, so can you be more specific?

@programmingwithbaker-codin953

11 ай бұрын

@@IAYTD the idea that the Protestant canon never references the broader cannon is incorrect for one thing There are errors and theological problems through all of scripture so that’s not really as cut and dry as the video seems to indicate. That’s why we have denominations. The idea that there are doctrinal issues is a very Protestant perspective. What the issues are or existence of issues certainly isn’t universally agreed across Christendom. There are plenty of doctrinal issues within the Protestant canon, many Protestants refuse to admit this but it’s pretty obvious to an outside observer. Furthermore, books weren’t just “removed”… books were put into groups and the duetero-canon group was “removed” through a centuries long multi-stage process: segregation, de-emphasis, partial removal, slander, full removal

I do good because planet dies if you don't. Demons are just old deities from ancient cultures.

Can you do a video about Hinduism? I love to know more about Hinduism

The book of Tobit is literally present in all Christian Bibles including Orthodox Bibles, most Bibles have Tobit, only Protestants removed it. How can you say it contradicts and is irreconcilable if you're supposed to be neutral? Man what ridiculousness.

@IAYTD

11 ай бұрын

You're right, I missed that Catholic also includes Tobit in the Old Testament. Thanks for your feedback! And I wasn't making commentary by saying it actually contradicts, that's the reason given for its removal. I have no dog in this fight, I was just giving a reason for why Protestants did remove it.

@workinpromo

11 ай бұрын

@@IAYTD Okay

Did Jesus promise a book? Absolutely not. He promised one Church. At the time of Jesus, there were Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes among others. The Sadducees only acknowledged the five books of Moses as canon. Whereas the Pharisees and others had a larger canon. The Essenes had even more scrolls. For instance, the scroll of Tobit discovered in the Dead Sea caves was one of the scrolls written in original Hebrew. What about when we see New Testament citations of the Deuterocanon (or Apocrypha as protestants choose to call it)? So we can see that at the time of Jesus there was no established Canon. It took the church that Christ founded to establish a canon of the Bible totaling 73 books. If protestants accept the New Testament canon established by the Catholic Church, why would they not accept the Old Testament canon establish by the Catholic Church? Why would protestants accept a canon of the Old Testament established by the Jewish people post Jesus who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah? BTW here's a very good explanation about the Myth of Jamnia. kzread.info/dash/bejne/m22aqsZxZpDQibg.html

#suchgnosticsuchwow

This is actually the middle of the Bible. When the scriptures were first translated in Old English, the 1611 KJV Bible had the apocrypha in it.

@IAYTD

11 ай бұрын

What do you mean the middle? Like the apocrypha section appears between the old and new testament, or that the events of the apocryphal books tend to take place between the events of the old and new testament?

@swoopnscore3056

11 ай бұрын

@@IAYTD yes. It bridges the gap between the Old & New Testament.

@IAYTD

11 ай бұрын

@@swoopnscore3056 Right. I don't think that's ALWAYS the case. Many of the books, such as the life of Adam and Eve and the books that were cut shorter, like Daniel, take place during the events of the old testament. And some belief sets, it seems like some Orthodox churches, include the apocrypha into the old testament. So I think, like most of this, it varies widely based on your religion.

@dbach1025

11 ай бұрын

Um, no.

@swoopnscore3056

11 ай бұрын

@@dbach1025 Um, yeah.

In other words they threaten you??

Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on KZread. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).

This all sounds like trssh