The Apocrypha: The Missing Books of the Protestant Bible

[@PulsechainX]

I prefer these world class experienced scholars over younger phd students in a few recent videos. Knowledge, wisdom and experience.

[@anthonytan7134]

Mr Mcdonald is a very knowledgeable and honest gentleman, God bless

[@thirdparsonage]

I used to be an evangelical Protestant and I'm now a Catholic. Too often both sides attack each other as though they're hopelessly lost, which I hate. I love Dr. McDonald's irenic approach to this issue. Catholics draw the majority of even their disputed doctrines from books that the Protestants view as canonical. They just interpret them differently.

[@augustinian2018]

Some of us Protestants have the apocrypha in the middle of our bibles as well; it’s true of my great-grandmother’s German Lutheran Bible (published by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s publishing house in 1903), as well as my Anglican edition of the ESV. The daily lectionary for evening prayer in my Book of Common Prayer is set to begin 1 Maccabees on Monday.

[@augustinian2018]

I commented too soon-the Anglican tradition did get its shout around 11:00.

[@AnHebrewChild]

My KJV has the apocrypha. Wisdom of Solomon chapter 2 is clearly cited in Matt27, Mark 15 and elsewhere. "The full armor of God" is derived from Wisdom of Solomon 5:16-20 Enoch's translation (Heb 11) comes straight out of Ecclesiasticus 44:16 In their zeal to weed out tares from the garden of scripture, the reformers uprooted with them also the good wheat: just as the Master of the house warned. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. MAT13:29 > Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. JOHN6:12

[@Maranatha99]

​@@AnHebrewChildEnoch's translation comes from Genesis.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@Maranatha99 Perhaps from the LXX rendering of Genesis 5:24, true. But certainly not the Masoretic. Ecclesiasticus 44:16 Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations. 44: 16 ᾿Ενὼχ εὐηρέστησε Κυρίῳ καὶ μετετέθη, ὑπόδειγμα μετανοίας ταῖς γενεαῖς. Genesis 5:24 (LXX) καὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός There are other indicators tho, that Hebrews is drawing from Apocryphal material tho. Have a good one.

[@Maranatha99]

@AnHebrewChild prove to me that the masoretic text did not have Enoch & his translation.

[@jesusofafrica7284]

This is really good. I enjoy listening to Lee, he is clear and articulate.

[@johnyoung9976]

Wheres part 3 because i cant find it on the channel was excited for it

[@richardsorel4647]

Great information explained very well. Thanks for sharing!

[@ggarza]

Excellent discussion in these series of videos! Thank you Prof. Licona for these engaging discussions! I would add my observation on the hermeneutic of interpretation of the Bible canon. If one’s method of interpretation is Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, then one must accept the doctrine contained in the wider canon. Once one shifts to using one’s doctrine as the rule of canonicity and rejecting books from the canon because they don’t conform to the doctrinal standards that one professes, one ceases to be Sola Scriptura and becomes Sola Doctrina. This is the danger of using the Inner Canon and Outer Canonical standards that Luther advocates when choosing which books to include in one’s Bible. One must have an outside authority to judge the worthiness of the canon rather than using an arbitrary doctrinal rule that violates Sola Scriptura. Just a thought.

[@MurraySwe]

Very good video. Thanks to the both of you!

[@brandontymkow1182]

This scholar makes a pretty good case for Catholicism.

[@msmutola682]

Especially when at 19:20 he said "we don't know" 😂

[@MrSmith-yu7qt]

I know right? I was shocked when he said that, I never thought a Protestant would admit to that

[@mynameis......23]

Protestant rejects those books because jews reject those books the 39 books in OT were considered as Holy Books by Jews about 100-200 bc. Yup you heard that right 100-200 BC. Those rest of the books are not considered because the Jews in 100-200 BC rejected it. Is the answer is simple. No we should not considered adding any book to the Holy Bible.

[@mynameis......23]

@@MrSmith-yu7qt Protestant rejects those books because jews reject those books the 39 books in OT were considered as Holy Books by Jews about 100-200 bc. Yup you heard that right 100-200 BC. Those rest of the books are not considered because the Jews in 100-200 BC rejected it. Is the answer is simple. No we should not considered adding any book to the Holy Bible.

[@mynameis......23]

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.

[@kkvearkeoloji]

I recently found out that Paul cites and alludes to Sirach and Wisdom quite extensively and in authoritative fashion. Do you think this should lead us Protestant to at least reconsider their canonicity?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Marc: In the 3 final videos of this series, we will observe that McDonald does not have as firm a view of canonicity as some others have. He has challenged my thinking on the matter and I'm still pondering over some of the things he said and will for some time! As I say at the end of this video, I've thought for some time now that the matter of canonicity is not nearly as clear as I once thought. McDonald's vast knowledge on the subject has given me much to think about.

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

Paul also quotes Greek poetry as correct regarding how it describes God. I am a protestant but I lean read all the extra-Biblical writings because they are helpful, and Baruch, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon are great. Tobit, an interesting thing there is a story of a girl who is married to seven different brothers. Remind you of a question that was presented to Jesus? Also, Sirach is wisdom literature like Proverbs, but you’ll find that certain ideas presented as good in it are directly challenged by Jesus. So, gives some great helpful context for reading the New Testament.

[@kkvearkeoloji]

@@AnUnhappyBusiness Good Point!

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@AnUnhappyBusiness I don't know if that can be a litmus test, though, since that might very well exclude works like Ecclesiastes because of it's statements about the vanity of wisdom and other such things (even though I think Ecclesiastes is often misunderstood by divorcing individual statements from their context).

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

@@Real_LiamOBryan litmus test? Feel free to explain how my first comment creates presents or describes a “litmus test” for what is and isn’t Scripture.

[@MichaelM1800]

Enjoying this series...thanks!

[@stevehall1218]

Martin Luther was ambivalent about including Revelations. He said it did not seem inspired by the Holy Spirit and it did not teach him anything about Jesus. The language level was lower than John's writings and he questioned who the author really was. At the end of the day, he said to include it so he can brand the Pope as the Anti-Christ. Look it up.

[@AllOfGrace8265]

oh really

[@jenex5608]

So with Orthodox. Orthodox were skeptic of Revelation for some time. They don't read it in liturgy

[@mj6493]

Colorful figure Luther was. In the end he did include Revelation. In Luther's introduction to the book he alludes to Jerome's praise of the book which he feels is excessive. But mentioning Jerome suggests that he was aware that there were respected fathers of the Church that saw benefit in Revelation. So, I don't think the issue of the Anti-Christ, whom he does not mention in his introduction to Revelation, was a primary consideration.

[@max_power658]

hola puede subir esta video en español??, un catolico llamado jose plasciecia lo corto y lo subio fuera de contexto

[@storyofscripture]

What was the name of the book you pointed to when Lee Martin McDonald was in the screen?

[@seekingagnostic3962]

Very interesting and informative interview again. Thanks!

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@juliescheving7951]

Fascinating! Thank you for sharing!

[@MutsPub]

Great information. Thanks for posting.

[@johnsteila6049]

Just because these “Apocryphal” books didn’t make it into The Canon, doesn’t mean they they were esoteric.

[@revisitingchristianity7138]

Lee is broad in this thinking. He's open minded. Great scholar.

[@Giant_Meteor]

The Council at Carthage in 397, which was affirmed by the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, declared _all_ the books of the Septuagint, by name, to be the canon of the Old Testament (this includes the books of the Maccabees, Tobit, etc). For Orthodox, the authority of the Ecumenical Councils is unquestioned, because it is what the entire church throughout the world at one time agreed to. This leaves no room for doubt for Orthodox on the canonicity of these books. This "foremost authority in the world on canonicity" is wildly incorrect in his understanding of Orthodoxy. When he says that the Orthodox Church regards certain Old Testament Scriptures as being "non-canonical" scriptures, I can't imagine with whom he was speaking. These books have always been part of the Bible in the east, since the fourth century. We don't call them deuterocanon, or apocrypha, or any such thing. They are simply the Bible. We cannot simply remove those "first Christian Scriptures" (as he called them [3:40]) from the Bible as Protestants gradually did in the 1800s.

[@BornAgainRN]

@Todd K, do you know which session at the ecumenical council of Chalcedon where it states in affirmed the local canon list at Carthage from 397? I tried looking that up and skimmed through the sessions at the council, and I couldn’t find it. I know that the Ecumenical Council of 2 Nicaea affirmed this and the previous canon list from the Council of Hippo. Perhaps I missed it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, and God bless!

[@Giant_Meteor]

@@BornAgainRN You are right, and I am sorry for what I wrote in my earlier post here. I was wrong when I wrote that the Ecumenical Council which affirmed the Carthaginean list of divine scripture was that of Chalcedon. I don't know what I was thinking (...except that at that time, I was having a separate discussion with a Copt, and maybe I had Chalcedon on the brain. My bad.). Still, there are several takeaways from all this discussion over what is, and is not divine scripture. First, God sent his Son, not a book. And his Son established a church. It was hundreds of years before that historical church which he founded settled upon set of scriptures that we might finally and unanimously call 'the Holy Bible". Strange that some would subtract from what the earlier generations of Christendom had roundly affirmed. But I really don't wish to be too argumentative at this point. It is Christ who is to be glorified in his church and through the scriptures. Even if disagreement among Christians persists over what is, and is not, divine scripture, let us love one another.

[@BornAgainRN]

@@Giant_Meteor No worries. Thanks for the clarification

[@flamingswordapologetics]

These are very good. We recently interviewed a guy for our Podcast on another subject, but found out he uses the Apocrypha and other writings a lot to help him formulate a better position in areas where there is a lot of dispute. I'm not sure my position as I've always understood them as non inspired and we shouldn't use them outside of just their historical context.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Using them as non-scriptural, historical texts only, can one not gain information about what the Jews, and sometimes even early Christians, thought about issues, even doctrinal ones? It's very similar to the question about whether early Church writings, non-scriptural writings, can help us determine correct doctrine. If they couldn't, then we might all be Arians (i.e., non-trinitarians) today. We stand on the shoulders of the early Church when it comes to our doctrine, such as our adherence to Athanasian work, the Nicene creed, etc. Furthermore, scriptural authors quote these extra-canonical works (such as The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch). Since we are free to formulate doctrine based on the scriptural works, and the scriptural works include material from these extra-canonical works, it follows logically (by deductive inference via Modus Ponens), that we can use material from these extra-canonical works in our formulation of doctrine. We need to be careful here, however, because it doesn't follow logically that we can use *ALL* the material in these extra-canonical works in this way; still, I think that the first point I made does allow us to use all of the material to inform doctrine. For reasons such as those, I would say that we can use these works for doctrine, even as non-scriptural works. P.S. I'm a Protestant.

[@RamblinPhoenix]

Catholic here. When I was younger I did a random split of my Bible and opened up on Sirach. It was page after page of good advice and really spoke to me. For what it's worth, I am still glad I read that text and had a chance to dive into it as it was included in my Bible.

[@ThoughtDecoder]

Dr. Licona, you really hammered Dr. McDonald.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

He didn't mind. We have a good friendship. His knowledge on the topic is so vast that it's easy to get caught up sharing details and forgetting what the question was. I've done that. Being succinct and getting right to the point is something I'm working on for myself. It's much harder than it looks! :-)

[@ThoughtDecoder]

@@MikeLiconaOfficialI enjoyed it. What is it like to be scholars and friends? You can do an entire video about that, the fine line between not cowering in your scholarly critique while simultaneously showing warmth and goodwill toward the object of that criticism. I think the notion of scholars who are friends is unfamiliar to popular sentiment.

[@AnonNorwegianPartiot]

Isn't The Son of Man what Daniel is talking about?

[@shadowdancer3531]

Hi Mike, I would like to use one of your videos on my channel. I do not monetize and I can buy a license for the video if need be. Do I contact you through your website?

[@keithwilson9172]

Many major doctrines depend on the extra book, purgatory, praying to those in heaven, works being apart of sanctification.

[@brandontymkow1182]

Hebrews was read in liturgy, that is why they kept it.

[@ulrichhartmann5488]

Martin Luther did not hate the apocrypha in general, otherwise he would not have called them "useful and good to read". (He hated a few of the canonical books in the New Testament as well.) They are still included in most of the Lutheran bibles, and they are quoted in quite a number of hymns, inscriptions and church music.

[@swim96ful]

I mean that is actually quite bad, if we reflect on it- "He hated a few canonical books in the New Testament". We don't talk about some random books, we dont take "canon" just as a philosophical term to have debates on. Canon for us means "inspired by God". Canon is the Word of God, not a list of contents. If Luther really hated some of the canonical books, I would really question his attitude towards what the Word of God is. Sorry, but if he says "I don't find Holy Spirit in this book", when talking about the Book of Revelation, at that time, he denied, or not recognised, or didn't want to recognise the Word of God. If something fitted his theological point of view, he gave it a higher "rank of inspiration". I love Luther for what he did for Christians in some aspects, but in others it really is difficult not see his pride. I not only want to translate the Bible into German, but also I'm going to point out which books I like and which I don't because my humble opinion is so important for others to know. I dont like the Book of Revelation. Instead of trying to see how Jesus is presented to me there, I'll just rely on my own feelings of not finding that book as inspired

[@nametheunknown_]

Wow, great stuff, thanks!

[@rocketman2628]

Forgive me if I missed something in the video but will you ever do a video on the supposed contradicts between Acts and Paul's letters? An excerpt from Wikipedia shows this view of Acts is apparently the consensus among scholars: _"The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians __1:17__-24). Luke admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience."_ _"The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80-90 AD, although some others suggest 90-110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."_

[@juanventer5145]

Careful to give too much credit to wikipedia. Furthermore, careful to follow the consensus blindly. Find a commentary which say that the contridictions is problimatic and find one that says that it is not problematic. Obviously this is not an exhaustive Amount of research. However, base your conclusion on the evidence provided by these commentaries. If it happens that you disagree with the consensus that does not matter since you still made a fair analysis of both positions.

[@veritas399]

At 6:51 the interviewer says "To this day experts have trouble distinguishing between the books of the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha" ?? The deuterocanonical aka apocrypha books have been included in the greek translation of the Old Testament that was compiled more than 2,000 years ago. How could any knowledgeable scholar be confused about the contents of the deuterocanonical books compared to anything else? Maybe the scholars need to pick up a copy of a 19th century KJV bible to discover what is in the apocrypha. . . .

[@ThoughtDecoder]

Could you get James H Charlesworth? He is really good as well.

[@mariembuenaventura1278]

Solid series

[@Maranatha99]

THE CANON IN SCRIPTURE: In Luke 24, 44 Jesus endorses by name 3 groups of books from the OT. In Mathew 12, 3 he endorses the 4th group: historical books. That is the closest thing we have to a sanction of books by Jesus.

[@heyitsglo]

Hey Mike, can you put this on Spotify podcasts?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

I'll check with my social media contractor. Thanks for raising that matter.

[@Glypt0d0n]

There seem to be no good reason to take the deutorocanonical books out of the canon. I would also add that, we Orthodox also do not believe in purgatory. However, praying for dead is not wrong. God is outside time - it doesn't matter for Him when do you pray. In His foreknowledge, He knew from the eternity you would pray for someone.

[@Entropy3ko]

Orthodox still believe in some sort of post-mortem purification however. it might not be called purgatory but the concept is very similar

[@Glypt0d0n]

@@Entropy3ko There is no such doctrine similar to purgatory. We believe sins are taken away by God's grace and Jesus' death on the cross. We believe what Scriptures say and that's that. However, you are right that there are some different views that need to be mentioned. Some individuals who were important figures in the church, described what might be happening after we die. And yes, those stories might sound odd. But that's not a dogma we all accept, it's just individual cases that might apply to other individuals too.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

I'm a Protestant and I agree wholeheartedly, both about the Deuterocanon and about prayer. On the subject of prayer, that's a very Molinist position (of which I am one). Thumbs up!

[@jenex5608]

Historic Protestants like Lutherans would argue that it was never part of the Canon. Church Fathers varied o the. John Of Damascus, Athanasius And Jerome didn't consider this book as "Holy Scriptures" but Useful to read. The Orthodox Canon evidently was settled in Council of Jerusalem. So there wasn't a fixed Canon. Nonetheless as a Protestant i would say no problem with Deuterocanonical

[@fabriziom9]

So what shall we believe about God´s word and his autorithy? It´s confusing for me

[@youtoo2233]

Apocrypha has some good reading! Yeah definitely keep it in all Bibles!!

[@gpie_7777]

What a gem

[@julioc5227]

The core of Christianity was always apostolic Tradition. The proof of this is that the bible was formed afterward: first came the church, then came the Bible. The Church is the mother of the Bible.

[@Maranatha99]

The Bible came from God, not from the church

[@tookie36]

@@Maranatha99the church still came first

[@Maranatha99]

@tookie36 the OT was there before the church. The NT was finished in the 1st century. Scripture comes from God.

[@mcmemmo]

Bottom line = MARTIN LUTHER took these books OUT of the Old Testament canon, because they conflicted with his doctrines. Then Protestants, needing to justify the move, started using the same excuses the Jews used in the 3rd century to reject the Septuagint, because that is what Christians were using. The Catholic canon is canon given to the Church by the Apostles.

[@jenex5608]

Lol cute

[@thisisJim85]

Luther also said the book of James was a gospel of straw.

[@mj6493]

Except that Luther didn't take anything out. He included every single OT, NT and Deuterocanonical book in his German translation of the bible. He had his favorites, and there were books he didn't like, but he included all of them and so did subsequent Protestants until the 19th century when publishers decided to leave them out. Dr. MacDonald makes this clear in the video.

[@AnHebrewChild]

If Luther was taking books out that contradicted his doctrines, (and he was) he should have pulled out Matthew. Of course, he couldn't have gotten away with that one...

[@AnHebrewChild]

but btw, mcmemmo, the Roman Catholic Bible is itself a bit thin.

[@mynameis......23]

19:00 22:54 23:53

[@yvonnegordon1952]

the writings of scripture are all there to keep the mind busy till the heart is able to receive the 'seed of the woman' (Gods light through the heart Mark 4, John 16): Once we become his mother, brother, sister, we understand all writings from a spiritual point of view; I made a 3 minute video of Jesus that explains what the carnal mind can not grasp but the spiritual mind will fully comprehend: link below because the first posts often don't allow for links:

[@yvonnegordon1952]

if you understand Jesus in the right way, you understand the atonement in the right way, because then you understand how the anointing, the Christos in us is the blood of God that must RISE in us to not only atone for our sin nature (missing the mark of truth) BUT FIXES IT at the same time in us: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGjPk2toeM6mm6M

[@danviccaro3920]

Jesus Christ quoted more than 15 times from the Apocrypha that should be good enough for anyone let me know if you need those quotes from the New Testament to the Apocrypha..

[@adanherrera5515]

Jerome didnt get rid of them didn't accept and get rid very different

[@revisitingchristianity7138]

Mike: Are you a protestant? Lee: I am. Is epic. Mike is straight when he asks questions. World class interviewer.

[@malcolmdavid722]

The whole canon of 66 is effectively 'Pseudepigraphic' as even when an author is cited, there is no guarantee they really did write it. Personally I have found all the books very valuable to overall understanding and immediately question why someone doesn't want me to read something, particularly when the Roman church was/is so corrupt and focussed on Paul. There is also no guarantee the books themselves, or words within, haven't been corrupted. If you deny the extra-biblical writings, or the writings of the church fathers then you have immediately subjugated yourself to the authority of Rome. Far better to read them yourself including the contrary narrative, and then decide, as you are the best judge of truth !

[@Brett.Crealy-kh1sk]

Every time I try to read the apocryphal books, I get the same feeling as when I try to read the Qur'an, and the book of Mormon.. there is something that is in the 66 books that is not in those other books.. They don't read the same.. It's like how a banker gets used to handling genuine dollar bills and when a counterfeit his the hands, they are easily distinguishable! So I have already tried to visit the apocryphal books but they left me with cold.. there just don't cut it.. The fact that the disciples or Jesus didn't refer to any of those books says enough to me also.. I don't miss them at all.. Bel and the dragon.. cost birds etc etc.. sorry, it's just not in keeping with Biblical canon.. But if folks want to read them, that's there business.. I would never use them for devotions.. I actually don't want them on my book shelf.. they will never be part of the scriptures for me..

[@amsterdamG2G]

@@Brett.Crealy-kh1sk I know that feeling. One time i tried to read the Quran in Dutch and had to close it after just reading the 1st two sentences. It felt dark

[@mynameis......23]

@@amsterdamG2G Protestant rejects those books because jews reject those books the 39 books in OT were considered as Holy Books by Jews about 100-200 bc. Yup you heard that right 100-200 BC. Those rest of the books are not considered because the Jews in 100-200 BC rejected it. Is the answer is simple. No we should not considered adding any book to the Holy Bible.

[@mynameis......23]

Protestant rejects those books because jews reject those books the 39 books in OT were considered as Holy Books by Jews about 100-200 bc. Yup you heard that right 100-200 BC. Those rest of the books are not considered because the Jews in 100-200 BC rejected it. Is the answer is simple. No we should not considered adding any book to the Holy Bible.

[@houseofsaudisthebeast]

the apoc is legit, read 2 esdras its lit

[@juanmilian4207]

The past can only be recorded, it cannot be replicated. Consequently, no one, scholar or layman, can know anything of the past except what has been recorded in some manner. The rest is speculation or opinion.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

I hope that you don't mean that they can't know the past by experiencing it (as do we all) or by oral transmission (as we, also, all do)!

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

The Apocrypha should not be referred to as such. it is more appropriate to refer to these books as deuterocanonical. but even I find that contentious as a protestant

[@Danerrey]

Translate to Spanish please!

[@danieljoldenkamp2170]

Biased

[@TheJimtanker]

The apocrypha are just the books that weren't useful to include in the bible. The entire process was political. No different than the prequel trilogy for Star Wars, just as fictitious too.

[@jenniferw8963]

ALERT! Trump bragged TODAY about DOW record today of 30,000 points. He said 30,000 was a SACRED NUMBER. So, immediately I had to calculate: 30,000 / 666 = 45.045045 (repeats forever) he's 45th president.

[@AllOfGrace8265]

just a coincidence

[@tigistyiheyis5737]

Jesus is lord of lord !!!

[@nogodexceptallah2381]

Jesus is a messenger like Muhammad is a messenger not a lord How is Jesus your Lord who was circumcised and used to cry and he was breastfed by Mary, peace be upon him ???

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Acts17apologetics DCCI ministries

[@nogodexceptallah2381]

@cute cookie kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2fYh4yagahnl6s😘😘😘💖

[@nogodexceptallah2381]

@Michael H. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2fYh4yagahnl6s😘😘😘💖💖💖

[@nogodexceptallah2381]

@cute cookie kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6iVlJhpqtR8rtE

[@WHU63]

How was Mohammed a prophet/ messenger? He is never prophesied in any previous scripture, was unable to perform miracles, and died before the Koran was complete. The Koran is written by the hand of man and Mohammed never saw the final draft.