A Protestant Apologist discovers the Apocrypha!

A Protestant Apologist discovers the Apocrypha!

[@socalpreston]

Thank you gentlemen for having me on! It was nothing but an honor. Very blessed!

[@GodsPlan2911]

The apocrypha is a necessity. It took me a long time to realize and I’m still just learning.

[@ericgatera7149]

I am surprised that a protestant would be this open to the Deteurocanonical books of the Bible. This is real progress. Praise God.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

I started protestant and had an aunt and uncle that are Catholic. In 2008 I bought a NRSV Catholic Bible because I wanted to know what was so heretical that those books were removed from the bible. Finally read 1 & 2 Maccabees in 2012 and I instantly knew those books should have never been removed from the Bible. Fast forward 2024 and I am now joining the Catholic Church.

[@TryingToFollowChrist37]

@@HollywoodBigBoss There is much history in church. I was born Catholic I keep discovering new bits of Church history it overwhelming in a good way.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

He includes 1 and 2 Esdras.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

​@@isaakleillhikar8311 For me 1 Esdras is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church and I see no issue with this book. It's just the Greek version of Ezra. 2 Esdras is been shown that it is not scripture but can be useful learning about Jewish writing after 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. That being said The first 2 and last 2 chapters of 2 Esdras were later added by Christians hundreds of years later.

[@TheShard1771]

Fantastic discussion! Thank you SoCal!

[@michaeloakland4665]

It's nice to see a guy engaging the historical record with this level of honesty rather than cherry picking for support of Protestant pseudo-history.

[@The_AgentSmith]

thank you and keep up dr michuta.. Ethiopian Orthodox here. your materials are very helpful to us

[@socalpreston]

"Strive for the truth unto death, and the Lord shall fight for thee." Sirach 4:28 (Ecclesiasticus)

[@endrickdonitz6669]

This is a good show, just great!

[@SibleySteve]

I’m all in on the LXX and apocrypha, Protestant for 56 years.

[@socalpreston]

Check out the KJV with Apocrypha printed by the Anglican Parishes Association. They sell two types. Both include the book of Common Prayer.

[@hunterjones8962]

@@socalpreston Many thanks to Gary et al. for having You on. You are a Revelation! As a former Episcopalian lector at my church, I several times read from Wisdom and Sirach as the "Word of the Lord" (maybe one 'objection' - ever). For a about a year, I have been researching some of the most anti-Apocrypha (and anti-Catholic) webpages online, the ugly 'Jack Chick' and David Daniels type of sites on KZbin. Over and over a few 'brave' Baptists have likewise written in support of at least Sirach and 1-2 Maccabees as somehow 'quasi-canonical' (there have been a few Wisdom 'fans' as well). So amazingly in 2024 many Protestants are about 'half-way-there' towards embracing the Tridentine canon (at least in secret). On the other hand, poor Tobit remains majorly disliked. Give the Spirit time to change long held and poorly reasoned-out beliefs. Now I need to familiarize myself with your own sites (new worlds to discover)! Thanks, H

[@socalpreston]

@@hunterjones8962 Thank you and great to hear. Jack Chick will go down as a promoter of lies and falsehoods. I wish he stuck to just telling people about Jesus. Sadly, he spent most of his time attacking others with lies and falsehoods. David Daniels I wish would stop carrying Chick's torch. David Bercot who is an Anabaptist is very good too when it comes to some background on the Apocrypha and its relation to Proto-Baptist. Tobit I believe is hated mainly in my opinion because of Tobit 4:10; 12:9. Raphael, Fish guts, and a few other poor reasons are just desperate attempts to deny the truth spoken of in Tobit 4 and 12. God bless!

[@o.o.2255]

Or just use Douay Rheims American

[@o.o.2255]

Douay Rheims OR if you are Protestant use the KJV and want the deuterocanon, use the King James version of 1611 - nearly ALL Protestant bibles had the deuterocanon (7 books) until 1880’s - 1904 when British and Foreign Bible Society and Gideons removed them because it was cheaper to print and it was converting prots to Catholicism. You cannot and should not remove God’s word from the canon of scripture

[@tonyl3762]

I like this guy! Open-minded, making simple persuasive arguments against Christie that even Gary didn't catch and is impressed by. Have him on again to talk about his own arguments that go beyond what can be found in Gary's books and videos. He's bringing value to the debate.

[@johnmb69]

Enjoyable discussion, guys! Thanks. 👍

[@socalpreston]

Wonderful! God bless!

[@BrandonG667]

This is a great pow wow, very interesting discussion 😅

[@Proclivitytolife]

Great video.

[@etheretherether]

Extremely interesting that his argument for the word "Aprocrypha" not having a negative meaning (spurious) is the same argument Fr. Stephen De Young makes (Eastern Orthodox).

[@socalpreston]

There is overwhelming evidence that the word "Apocrypha" was used in a positive sense amongst most learned Protestants. It is true that "spurious" is a definition of Apocrypha, but it is not the primary. I am working on a detailed video documenting the use of the word Apocrypha 1500-1700. I hope to have it posted this weekend.

[@Crystalupnorth]

Praise God. Wonderful info

[@socalpreston]

God bless!

[@suburbanbanshee]

Re: medicinal bile, the Saxon English recipe for Bald's Eyesalve, which was lab tested and proved to kill MRSA and various bad drug-resistant infectiins, included bovine gall as an important chemically active ingredient.

[@davidszaraz4605]

Awsome!

[@Basaljet]

Great stuff

[@MegaTechno2000]

“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” 2 Machabees 12: 46

[@socalpreston]

Deu. 33:6 “Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few.” I take this to be a prayer for the Reuben. To live was to enter the world to come.

[@victorontheweb]

1 Corinthians 15:29b what will those do who are baptized for the dead…. Doesn’t disqualify 1 Corinthians from the cannon?

[@davidszaraz4605]

Here is what I was refering to regarding the Abel-Zechariah argument: A protestant academic NT theologian Eric Peels, went really in depth with the greek text and came to this conclusion: "It is not strange, therefore that in the exegetical literature these words in Mt 23 and Lk 11 are virtually unanimously interpreted as an all-embracing designation intended to mark the time-span between Genesis and Chronicles, hence from the first through the last book of the Bible. The question is warranted whether this interpretation really covers the intent of Jesus’ words in Mt 23,35 and Lk 11,51. If the phrase »from Abel to Zechariah« refers to a limited (canonical) time period in the past, hence a period in an exclusively historical and chronological sense, it does not very well fit in its immediate context. For this interpretation implies that in that case only the blood of the Old Testament prophets will be avenged upon this present generation (ή γενεά ταυτη). But that is not the case. The quintessence of the entire passage of Mt 23,29-36 and Lk 11,45-52 is precisely that the history of murdering prophets is still continuing and is now even coming to its culmination. The measure of the iniquity of the fathers is being filled up by the sons. The sons no less than the fathers are murderers of prophets (Mt 23,32). In the present, as an extension of the past, God or Jesus will send even more »prophets and wise men and scribes« (Mt 23,34), »prophets and apostles« (Lk 11,4). Their future lot is indicated by the future tense: the sons of the old prophet-murderers will persecute, kill, and crucify these new prophets (διωξουσιν - άττοκτενουσιν - σταυρώσετε). All this culminates in the fact that »all the righteous blood« (παν αιμα δίκαιον) shed on earth comes upon the guilty (Mt 23,35), or »the blood of all the prophets (το αιμα πάντω ν των προφυτών) shed from the foundation of the world« will be required of the guilty (Lk 11,50). It is not insignificant that Matthew here employs the present participle with imperative effect εκχυννομενον, just as this is the case with a substantial number of important textual witnesses for the parallel in Luke. Also the prophets’ blood that was or will be shed after the Old Testament figure Zechariah and after the canonical period of the Old Testament will be charged to the account of Pharisees and scribes. In view here is a totality of blood guilt and vengeance which encompasses both past and present. In light of the exegesis presented here, it is clear that we need not read a reference to a specific structuration of the canon in the gospel texts cited, Jesus’ words in Mt 23,35 and Lk would have sounded exactly the same if the narrative of Zechariah’s death had occurred in the book of Kings or in the Psalms. Our conclusion from the preceding discussion, therefore, is that Mt 23,35 and Lk 11,50 cannot figure as crown witnesses for the view that the Old Testament canon in Jesus’ days was »fixed and closed« and had the same scope and structure as the canon described in the Talmudic tractate BB 14b-15a. The prevailing interpretation of these texts, in our opinion, takes too little account of the intent of the phrase »from Abel to Zechariah«. These words do not so much have a temporally delimiting as an explicative and descriptive function." (ZAW 113 (2001) 583-601) Even E.D. Gallagher another protestant theologian conceded this. Moreover, he is the one who in depth examined both the internal and external evidence for Chronicles ending the Hebrew canon, which according to him is not justified: ,,According to Peels, Zechariah was not chosen as the counterpart to Abel because he was in the last book of the Bible but because both were martyrs in God’s cause and their deaths were seen as worthy of divine vengeance (Gen. 4:10; 2 Chr. 24:22). Moreover, Zechariah’s death was remembered in rabbinic literature as a cause for the destruction of the First Temple, so that reference to it in Jesus’ speech would sound an especially provocative note. In fact, Beckwith had already acknowledged that the meaning he draws from Matt. 23:35 would be impossible except in reliance on later sources (i.e. the rabbinic evidence). If the ‘canonical’ interpretation of the saying by Jesus is considered dubious, the order attested in b. BB 14b cannot alone bear the weight of establishing a concluding position of Chronicles in the pre-rabbinic period. Even if this baraita can be taken back to the second or third century CE, there is no evidence that we should date it any earlier than this, despite Beckwith’s ingenious argument. This paper has argued that internal evidence cannot establish when Chronicles took up its concluding place in the biblical canon. Arguments for this must instead be based on external evidence. I have further argued that the external arguments cannot show that it happened before the rabbinic period, and the evidence to hand suggests that no particular sequence of books enjoyed a position of dominance before the invention of printing. In light of this, interpretations or theologies based on a particular order of books should avoid attributing to the preferred order the status of ‘original’ or ‘best’." (Tyndale Bulletin, 2014) The finding of these protestant scholars is not surprising at all, since the very first who used and came up with this bookend argument was Johann Eichhorn as late as the 18th century, and only thanks to the invention of the printing press. No serious scholar accepts this argument any more. So I think the reason why Zechariah is mentioned, is because that particular person was murdered by the Pharisees, and Jesus is talking to them. That is what upset the Pharisees the most.

[@manuelpompa-u5e]

the 7 books of apocrypha were correctly diagnosed by luther, since none of the works were written by prophets, which was the standard for the o.t. the jews themselves rejected the critical 2nd macabees, which is critical to the support of purgatory and praying to the saints.

[@goldie862]

I feel tortured. I listen to many Christian apologists and so many of them are SUPER anti-Catholic (I am Catholic). Were we really meant to have to be scholars to be saved?? I don't even know what to think anymore and I'm really struggling right now. I'll continue to pray on it

[@tonycostaification]

The Roman Catholic Church does not accept 3 & 4 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh as Scripture but David believes it is. Can you guys comment? Thanks.

[@GarthDomokos]

You should ask a catholic apologist. A lot of them have lots of knowledge.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 as sacred scripture. The Catholic Church does not recognize these books.

[@essafats5728]

@@HollywoodBigBoss didn't the EO add these books after the 1054 schism?

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

​@@essafats5728 The Synod of Jerusalem was 1672 but the Eastern Orthodox Church has always used the Greek Septuagint and never used the Hebrew Masorectic or Latin Vulgate. Nothing was added to their Bible. It was just a rejection of protestant theology.

[@essafats5728]

@@HollywoodBigBoss so why were those books not included in the Bible when it was being compiled? Can u plz provide the source(s) that the EO "...has always used the Greek Septuagint..." so I can read up it. Sorry, forgive me - was a lukewarm cradle Catholic here, recent revert so got a ton of learning/re-learning to catch up.

[@jtchristo]

Loved SoCalPreston’s question in Sungenis’s debate about the James -> Maccabees connection. Sungenis seemed to appreciate that! Rock on, fellow Southern Californian. 💪🏻

[@socalpreston]

God bless, brother! Thank you.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

It does seem like Paul is saying its advantagous that the Jews had the canon of scripture. Hes saying they have the means of salvation, because it is the Oracles of God if we are faithful to them, that show them the way for salvation. And then it says what if theyre not folloging the instructions, doesnt that prove that it wasnt so ? No, because the instructions say you ought t have followed them for it to work, like other appliance. "1What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar." And oracles of God Logia Theou comes from Numbers the oracles of Balaam, then Deuteronomy when the Levites have kept the oracles, kept the coveant, then Psalms, and most communly psalm 119, including "I have kept the oracles of God in my heart so as not to sin against you" Then you see it in the Letter of Aristheas, in Philo of Alexandria, and then in Paul, and then you see Papia says that he composed the Oracles of our Lord in Hebrew and were translated as best we could, so hes talking about how he wrote the gospel of Matthew, meaning the same thing calling it the Oracles of our Lord. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJ-VYX6Xi6x_n6c

[@davidszaraz4605]

The church fathers did not interpret the "oracles of God" as protestants do. And even if I would grant that, this verse doesn't describe the canon, or canons.

[@Aethelhart]

1:34:00ish Where does David address the issue of Nebuchadnezzar in Judith?

[@socalpreston]

What issue in Judith? When was this issue you speak of identified?

[@davidszaraz4605]

kzbin.infoygs_j6kThMI?si=1RImK3Pu3S5BRybE Timestamp 32:45

[@socalpreston]

@@davidszaraz4605 Thank you for sharing, David! TFan like so many other people look for "mistakes." The KJB 1769 edition in the very back identifies Judith as historical. It appears that based on the time given in the chart the editors leaned towards Ashurbanipal being Nebuchadnezzar. Coverdale in his first edition Bible points the reader to 1 Maccabees 1. All in all, Judith should be treated as history. I wish my fellow Protestants would spend as much energy on solving "problems" found in Judith as they do in "problems" found in their accepted canonical books.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@@socalpreston oh wow, I didn't know that the KJB 1769 identifies Judith as a historical figure. Thanks for the info, that is very interesting!

[@socalpreston]

@@davidszaraz4605 My pleasure!

[@BramptonAnglican]

In the Anglican Church some of us use the apocrypha

[@socalpreston]

Check out the KJV with Apocrypha printed by the Anglican Parishes Association. They sell two types. Both include the book of Common Prayer.

[@i-have-a-dream-without-media]

The Apocrypha certainly is important. Originally the KJV had it.

[@salvadoralmeida7294]

You could've done without the long introductory music, no matter how good it was. People are busy with too many things and presenters should get to the messsage with the least delay. Some viewers may not have the patience.

[@heterodoxx5300]

I loved it and put it on loud! Go somewhere else with your complaints, we have better things to do. Patience is a virtue.

[@John_Six]

Some streamers do it so that the viewers come in and they have a good amount of people in the chat before they start.

[@animallover7072]

46:16 ; 50:03 ; 53:10 ; 58:58 ; 1:03:42 ; 1:13:57 ; 1:34:37 ; 1:35:47 ; 1:37:49

[@socalpreston]

Thank you for watching!

[@animallover7072]

@@socalpreston I’m glad you had this discussion. I used to accept Steve’s argument that Baruch wasn’t Scripture because it was excluded from one of the earliest bibles, then it was brought up by David Szaraz that most of the Old Testament was excluded from that Bible as well. This shows the dishonesty of Steve Christie and it makes me wonder what else has he been dishonest about.

[@animallover7072]

@@socalpreston are you a moderator on here now ? You found my comment pretty fast. Lol

[@socalpreston]

@@animallover7072 Glad Mr. Szaraz pointed that out! Great to hear! Steve is dishonest about much indeed!

[@socalpreston]

@@animallover7072 Yes, but I just visited video to check on new comments. That was how I saw your comment.

[@tonyl3762]

Y'all see Christie's appearance on Gospel Simplicity? I and others gave him much deserved grief in comments section, lol. The guy does not have very tight logic or arguments. Please do more direct confrontation and dissection of his claims/sleight of hand.

[@dandeliontea7]

Damn now I have to scope out those comments 😂

[@salvadaXgracia]

Where can we find SoCal Preston's debate? That and his channel should be shared in the description. Edit: Found it! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKumh6J5ZbCia7ssi=DS24YL0mXhiCE9_g

[@socalpreston]

Thank you for watching. If you get a chance I recommend you check out the comment section both on my channel and on the host channel, Standing For Truth. Most if not all my comments on SFT I think were deleted. Also, I highly recommend you watch my response video on my channel. God bless!

[@salvadaXgracia]

@@socalpreston thanks for your response and all your hard work studying this stuff for yourself! I am another "protestant" (non-Catholic) who believes the apocrypha belongs in the Bible. I do think even Catholic Bibles are missing some books though including 2 / 4 Esdras, Psalms of Solomon, and a few others most significantly Enoch (also called 1 Enoch). Have you gotten a chance to look into that one yet? It seems many early church fathers affirmed it and it was found among the dead sea scrolls and in the Ethiopian canon. This is an excellent series on it, I thought. I would love to hear your thoughts. kzbin.info/aero/PLunxbBMRa7R9s2YizY3b6GnWwo3ORTqG1&si=enDf1Yu9GuV4EekK Thanks for this video- I didn't always agree with everything but I thoroughly enjoyed it, and thank you for your debate and debate review- I will definitely watch those as well. God bless!

[@socalpreston]

@@salvadaXgracia My pleasure! Great to know. Yes, I've looked into Enoch. I don't hold the book in the same regard as books like Tobit, but I find it to be of great value. I will take a look at the series. Thank you!

[@salvadaXgracia]

​@@socalpreston regarding Tobit, the main objections by others that you mentioned are not my struggle, but the fact that an angel from God lies to a faithful follower of God. I understand God sometimes allowing a deceiving spirit to trick someone who is already rebelling against God as a punishment, but I struggle to justify a good angel from God being deceptive and lying to a faithful believer. Also why were all his future wife's other late husbands dying? Maybe you can help me out. Thanks in advance.

[@socalpreston]

@@salvadaXgracia Do you struggle with other books in the Bible? I think we all have passages that are hard to understand and accept, but that doesn't make them not true or wrong. In the video, I recommended The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church. I highly recommend it. The has a very great response to your question. "Lastly, to revert for a moment to Tobit, the archangel Raphael has been accused of duplicity and dishonourable conduct; and, of course, the author and users of the book for pious purposes, of condoning his double-dealing. And all this because he appears to Tobias as a young man, and accompanies him as such on his journey to Ecbatane and back (v. 4, 5), and does not make his angelic nature known until they were well returned to Nineve (xii. 15 ) (1). But surely those who speak in this way of Raphael's action have forgotten the walk to Emmaus, and how Christ (with all reverence be it said) concealed His identity from the two disciples, when "their eyes were holden that they should not know him" (Luke xxiv. 16). In extenuation too of Raphael's conduct it may be noted that the title he assumed is not without significance as an indication of his real position. "Azarias, the son of Ananias," means the Lord's help springing from the Lord's mercy (2). The fact is that in some quarters the Apocrypha has not met with fair treatment, or anything approaching to it. Like the canonical books it has its serious difficulties, and, from the lower position which it holds, we might, I think, have expected a larger crop of them than it actually yields. But the more it is used with devoutness and candour, in the spirit which our Church points out and in her formularies exemplifies, the more, I think, shall we be disposed (even if we do not go so far as Whitgift) to agree with those words of Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter, which I have already cited, "that patience and study will show that the Apocrypha and the Canon are agreed." (1) Yet in v. 21 he is called " the good angel" by Tobit : see also vv. 4 and 6. (2) The Aramaic has חננאל בר עזריה אנא From the Greek one would have expected the latter name to have been &^&&^ See Pages 109-110 (Footnotes) Also, I started watching the Enoch videos. Nothing new so far. I personally don't think Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch or at least all of it. That would be my first thought on the book. A portion of the book of Enoch is at odds with Sirach when it comes to the calendar. Enoch teaches the sun, but Sirach teaches the moon. It is clear in my opinion that the author of Enoch or at least a certain fragment is at odds with Sirach. Also, what Jude says about Enoch could have easily been accepted tradition handed down from another source. BTW my youngest son is named, "Enoch"

[@thomaslehner5605]

If I were a god and I would write a book, I would make it very clear what is part of my book and what is not.

[@AdVeritatemEamus]

You are a creature of God and you have no authority to make that false comparison between you and the Maker. He did make it clear by means of His Church. Thanks to the strife, division, and pride of some who would overthrow the Church, many people are sadly raised outside that, and thus the only Bible they know is the 66 book canon. It's not God that's the problem. The problem is rebel sinners who think they know better than God, like you! Repent, trust Christ, and join His Church!

[@thomaslehner5605]

@@AdVeritatemEamus You say he makes it clear by his church. That sounds good, but is it true? Is there one church or are there several? How many versions of the canon are are there? I know at least 4: The Orthodox have got a different canon and the Coptic Christians as well. Do you still think your argument is valid?

[@davidszaraz4605]

@@thomaslehner5605 "If one takes into account the clear-cut definition of biblical canon proposed by Ulrich, that the biblical canon is a “closed list” of books tied to the notion of institutional “authority,” then strictly speaking only the Roman Catholic Church can claim for herself a biblical canon: a closed list of forty-six books of the Old Testament. Source: Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, page. 129 Pentiuc is an eastern orthodox scholar on the OT canon and editor of the Orthodox Study Bible. Interestingly he himself (and by the way many eastern orthodox) concede, that the eastern orthodox don´t have a defined canon, and that in fact only the Roman Catholic Church has a closed canon. Of course feel free to disagree, and anyone can claim to herself a canon, but there is A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANON, unlike the other eastern churches. There is no such thing as eastern orthodox canon. Btw the Copts have the same books as the Roman Catholics. For us Catholics what is important: does the canon have a precedent in the early church, and Roman Catholic canon does have.

[@AdVeritatemEamus]

@@thomaslehner5605 Was I making an argument or was I making a statement? Does the fact that many claim to be a church mean there's more than one? Do different alleged canons make different actual canons? You say you know at least four, and that sounds nice, but you can't even account for what makes anyone a church anywhere. Do you still think your subjective sense of what's clear means anything? Do you still think your failed attempt to discredit the Church by bad reasoning means anything? Repent, and turn to Christ. As I said, you have zero authority to say what God has or has not done. Your subjective perception of what is clear is absolutely meaningless. God acts by his one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As for the rest, they can't help you. It's best if you ignore them.

[@Ancient_Man_In_Modern_World]

The Protestants need to at least start by turning back to the fact that their Lutheran “sola scriptura” was referencing the 73 book Bible.. So, automatically they cannot go by “sola scriptura” because they have mutilated Bible to begin with. Second, this is for the Eastern Orthodox, who need to realize their own theologians and synods regarding the inspired Catholic books: 1) Canonist, John Zonaras (A.D. 1118) in Patrologia Graeca, 137:158, 214 2) Meletios Syrigos (1585-1664) 3) The Constantinopolitan Synod (1642) 4) Many declarations of Greek bishops (1671) handed on when Marchion de Nointel while legate of Louis XIV in the Orient 5) The Constantinopolitan Synod under Patriarch Dionysios IV (1672) 6) ‘The Confession of Faith’ Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (question 6)