Protestants Are STILL WRONG About The Canon

In this video, I cover many of the objections left by Protestants in regard to the canon of scripture...
To support this ministry, please consider becoming a patron on Patreon at Patreon.com/voiceofreason188 and receive early access, exclusive content, behind the scenes and MORE.
Social Media:
Tik-Tok: @voiceofreason_clips
Instagram: @voiceofreason_clips
Thank you and God Bless!
#catholic #protestant #christian #protestantism #catholicism #catholicchurch #debate #discussion

[@vaboston]

I don't understand why Protestants keep appealing to Jerome disputing the deuterocanon. He still submitted to the Church and included them!

[@ungas024]

And Jerome is Catholic. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@damiandziedzic23]

You're mistaken. Thou he translated them into Latin, he didn't believe them to be canonical.

[@vaboston]

@@damiandziedzic23 You didn't properly read my comment. EVEN THOUGH he disputed them, he submitted to the Church and included them in his translation as canonical. If Protestants want an example to point to, Jerome isn't a good one, as the Catholic can just say, well, when in doubt, submit to the Church as he did.

[@damiandziedzic23]

@@vaboston You're still wrong. He didn't "include them in his translation as canonical". Translating something and treating it as useful and educational isn't the same as believing it's canonical.

[@vaboston]

@@damiandziedzic23 Do you not understand what it means to have a Church endorsed list of books recognized as Divine Revelation in a Church sponsored Bible that will be promulgated as the canonical Bible to the masses (Vulgate comes from vulger, as in the common speech)? To have that kind of backing isn't just a sticker that can be peeled off so you can rearrange or edit the list, as the Protestants did. That list becomes binding by virtue of the authority God gave the magesterium to bind and loose. You do not understand or know enough to discuss this topic.

[@onlylove556]

Im a protestant and I can confirm this, all u have to do is study historical facts, and find out for yourself to see if this is true r not, dont be lazy, & start parrot arguments, go read history to find out 1st. And fyi my Catholic family yes I'll be starting my RCIA classes to cross the Tiber...

[@J-PLeigh8409]

Good on you, May the Lord bless you on your way into the ancient holy Catholic & Apostolic Church

[@paularnold3745]

My prayers are with you!

[@onlylove556]

@@paularnold3745 thank u we need them 100x over, my whole family still believes in protestantism

[@timetravlin4450]

@@onlylove556lol if you’re Protestant why do you need prayers for your family to convert out of Protestantism if you yourself are a Protestant?

[@CatholicProdigal]

Welcome home and God bless you and your family! Praying for you.

[@KephasIsStPeter]

I was raised protestant (Nazarene) but when I learned that the Deuterocanon was removed from the Bible by a Bible salesman in the 1800s just so he could carry more Bibles to sell it completely disillusioned protestantism for me.

[@marksockgulsas]

@DieBibelistGottesWortit doesn’t lol, if this is what Protestantism is teaching you, to condemn Christs church to hell then you need to leave asap

[@Onlyafool172]

Idk if thats true, but it would make sense, Martin luther decided to take it out, but it does sound like a plausible reason, so i can think that counts too, also Yes Kephas is Peter, our first pope Amen brother amen

[@KephasIsStPeter]

@@Onlyafool172 We are both right luther removed it “canonically” but it was still kept in protestant bibles as the “apocrypha” for centuries until it was removed.

[@Onlyafool172]

@@KephasIsStPeter yeah after i saw the video i figured this out, but thanks, its kinda funny how protestants, have all that and call us pagans, as if all of us never studied our theology and theirs theology, and they are debunked every single time when we start contesting sola scriptura, and by every single church father, i am so surprised when i learned that because of luther basically every possible heresy, was revived, like calvin straight up speedran from iconoclasty to boderline gnosticism, stopping only at the last second in what we call now ocassionalism, he is litterraly in his theology 2 steps away from lavey s satanism, which is so absurd when i realized, more i study more the church makes sense

[@markstein2845]

@@Onlyafool172 Martin Luther didn't take them out, he just downgraded them to in his view as "non inspired" and then the British Bible Foundation who printed bibles decided in the 19th century to remove those books from the bibles to make them cheaper.

[@epicjeffgaming1942]

im a Protestant and ima read the catholic bible ive been questioning prostatism as of lately.

[@pablomedrano2362]

God bless your humility May the peace of our lord be with us forever

[@jamesjacob4002]

I’m glad you are. First you’ll notice that in our Book of Esther, God is actually mentioned. He isn’t absent from it like in the Protestant Bible. Second in the Deuterocanonical there’s a book called Wisdom. In 2:12-25, it contains an exact prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, 150-200 years before Jesus’ incarnation. May God continue to guide you.

[@harleymann2086]

In 1998, I started studying the Catholic Church in a Baptist Bible College trying to show why the Catholic Church was wrong. I graduated that Baptist Bible College a Catholic in the year 2000. Good times but reading catholic sources is essential.

[@LaserFace23]

I was floored at how Wisdom so clearly foretold Christ's suffering the first time I read it; if Scripture is truly as self-attesting as Protestants claim, then Wisdom should definitely be included by their standards. Anyway, good luck to you, friend

[@TheXone7]

God bless you our brother in Christ. Read also some works of Ignatius of Antioch. Especially what he said about the Eucharist. Ignatius was a direct disciple of apostle John and lived approximately 50-108AD. It is so eye opening what the early Church Christians have to say and to compare that with today's protestant teachings.

[@andreibhert752]

"why protestant keep appealing, on the jews, in the first place jews didnt believe to Our LORD Jesus." This is strong a point 😊.

[@roniguyana1293]

Jesus was Israelite. To say you are anti Jewish just shows catholicism are still roman bastards who conspired to kill Jesus. Mystery babylon

[@irishandscottish1829]

@@roniguyana1293 refusing to follow Jewish rules AFTER Christ walked this earth does not mean you hate Jews! Talk about straw manning! Why as a Christian do you follow Jewish decisions and not the Apostles?! Are you a Jew rather than Christian!

[@kevinmbuthia6019]

But that is how we get to know the scriptures are true. We study the old testament which was actually their bible. The apostles and most early Christians were Jews.

[@LilBitDistributist]

@@kevinmbuthia6019yea but the Jewish canon was not standardized or fixed as Judaism at the time itself wasn’t standardized across the board either at the time of Christ and the Apostles so appealing to “but they were Jews” doesn’t make a viable argument for consulting Jews on canonicity of scripture. It wasn’t until centuries later when 2nd temple Judaism funneled into Rabbinic Judaism and Jews got rid of the deuterocanon (because they supported Christian dogmas and beliefs) so by the time you get to Luther and the deformers (as well as them, i.e. Jews, rejecting Christ and the NT entirely) there is literally no reason to appeal to the Jews at all concerning the canon.

[@Post_Tenebras_Lux_1647]

​@@LilBitDistributistlol you plug one hole and open another. If God didn't think it was necessary to have a standard Bible for Isreal, then you would have to provide evidence that he has a standard Bible for today. Or, Romans 3:2 tells us the Jews knew what their canon was.

[@tbojai]

The Canon may be Protestantism’s biggest weakness. The case for the 66 book canon is a hollow shell.

[@joyebinger7869]

66 book. 66 hmmm just seem like devil has written all over it

[@paularnold3745]

An even further weakness is; by what authority are even the 66 books that they do accept to be considered canonical?

[@onlylove556]

@@joyebinger7869 wow I use to think about this to, & you really don't hear this from Catholic apologist but as a former Protestant I couldn't help but to think how there's a reason why its a double sixs=66

[@joyebinger7869]

Protestants have a big problem with the pope because they want to be their own pope@@paularnold3745

[@joyebinger7869]

Sooo sus. Yeah me too always found it soo sus why exactly @@onlylove556

[@takmaps]

It's a tired argument they should be ashamed of themselves for keeping on with that trash.

[@jimklein6958]

You are clearly more learned than the best Protestants!! I pray that Protestants who are opened minded will here your message!!

[@carlosvital1036]

I mean most protestants don't read their scripture. they are mostly born into protestant households 🤷‍♂️

[@absolutepixels3812]

No thanks

[@timboslice980]

I was having a debate with a protestant where they said something like "the catholics wouldnt let anybody read the bible in their own language, they kept it in latin so people couldnt understand it." A quick google search (how many languages was the bible translated into before the reformation?) The answer came back 500 languages! Correction----> After doing some more careful research I found that number was inaccurate. It's a tricky question because the Bible had been partially translated into many languages but not in full. However are quite a few full translations. Here are all the ones I can find Koine Greek, with 3 sub type translations... mostly minor variants in the geographic styles. Alexandria, byzantine, and western style Greek. It was then translated into other languages as the church spread out. Latin, Gothic, Syrian, coptic, etheopian, old nubian, assyrian, ge'ez, and Georgian. In the ancient times. Then in the middle evil period before the reformation; old English, high german,German, old church Slavonic, west Saxon dialect, old French, czech, Hungarian, Catalan, and finally old bellarusian. All before the reformation began. All the anti catholic myths are getting dismantled! This might be the start of a new era of apologetics.

[@princechukwuemeka2639]

Please what did you type into Google? I ask because I can't seem to generate the same response from Google as you did. I'll love to have that reference handy when debating Protestants.

[@timboslice980]

@princechukwuemeka2639 Hey sorry about that, I've been doing some research and edited my post. It's definitely not 500 full bible translations. The number comes from adding up all the variants and retranslations of languages, partial translations, and all the languages the old testament was translated into. Samaritan, Greek ect. Please forgive me for jumping to conclusions and posting on that number without doing the research. Still I listed the known translations in the edit and my original point remains. The catholic church was not trying to keep people from reading the Bible in their native languages at all. Most of those translations come from the ancient church. As we got to the middle ages, a bunch of new languages start sprouting up and evolving. Translating the Bible into a changing language could have serious doctrinal problems later on down the road.

[@princechukwuemeka2639]

@@timboslice980 This is helpful. Thank you! What's the reference so that I can read more on this? And any other book suggestions you have 🙏

[@ilonkastille2993]

They are just parroting what their anti catholic teachers are telling them.

[@cruznature7545]

Most of the people in midevil times were illiterate and couldn't read the bible even if they wanted to and because Bibles were hard to come by before the printing press they were closely guarded.

[@jimklein6958]

Call me IMPRESSED!! THIS WAS WELL DONE!! unfortunately Protestants don’t want to see the truth of Catholicism because it would mean that they would have to change their ways and follow a more strict road to Christ called Catholicism!! Catholicism is the one true and holy apostolic church that CHRIST started!!

[@JesusIsTruth316]

Do you not remember Jesus said something along the line of “anyone who isn’t against us is for us” as well as “you will know them by their fruits”, also the true church is defined by who believes in the nicene creed and apostles creed meaning Protestants are part of the one true “catholic” and apostolic church. Also read the catechisms of your church and realize how some of the deuterocanon disproves Saint James on justification before God and “men” ( 2:24 being your strongest point on faith alone rejected, not being strong enough because your catechisms lean in the direction of faith alone talked about by the council of Trent KZbinr on his debate with redeemed boomer, also if you try to disprove me on James 2:24 just know he is talking about justification before man and how to evangelize better, not before God) as well as Jesus in certain verses and all of the epistles of Saint Paul, also if the deuterocanon disproves faith alone and contradicts it by saying you can change someone’s destination by giving money to the church, therefore disproving faith alone, why should it be in the Bible if the Bible never is supposed to contradict. Yet again read the catechisms, watch Council of Trent debate with Redeemed zoomer and how faith alone is a concept Catholics almost take the same way and how if the deuterocanon was truly inspired it wouldn’t contradict Jesus’ teachings, Saint Paul’s teachings, Saint James teaching, Saint Peter’s teaching, as well as changing the course of someone’s end to heaven when Jesus teaches against it. As well as the fact that if you read with attention you will realize all the contradictions on the teachings of the apostles and the deuterocanon, should really pay attention and first read the catechisms on faith alone, as well as knowing it contradicts Saint Paul, Peter, James, and Jesus so if Jesus teaches against it and never refers to it, there must be something wrong with it. Also, don’t hat on us because of our beliefs, as well as the fact that if you believe in the garbage of one true church, that would also contradict Jesus, and it is idolatry and a mortal sin called pride towards you guys. Much love though, brother in Christ.

[@RayBooM_]

is this your interpretation of the bible or are you appealing to an authority?@@JesusIsTruth316

[@CPATuttle]

Thank you. Appealing to Jews that reject Jesus for the OT is not logical

[@elperinasoswa6772]

This video is absolutely bad a$$. I love it that you're not pulling punches, you go straight to the point and hit it hard. I get annoyed when Catholics play nice, it's like no, this one does not warrant niceties. You have truth on your side, don't act weak and pull punches. Throw it hard!! I cannot love this enough!!!❤❤❤❤❤

[@KentuckyBrad]

Goes to show you don’t actually read the Bible, that is not how a Christian should act

[@elperinasoswa6772]

@@KentuckyBrad tell that to Protestants. We're sick of their lies, so like Christ, we'll turn over some tables and bring out the whips. Oh wow! I guess I read the Bible once 🙄

[@mtaylor3771]

Jesus quoted the deuterocanon many many times. Protestants used to claim the deuterocanon wasn’t Hebrew, then the dead sea scrolls were found and lo and behold, there was the deuterocanon.

[@t0p_phoneix939]

Hey!! 😡 that’s not what my lesbian pastoress 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️ told me during the smoke machine concert

[@zeektm1762]

Did he really *quote* from them? This is where both Protestants and Catholics get things very wrong. To Quote: To directly reproduce the words from a speech/text (like citing a source). To Reference: To refer to an idea or set of words from a speech or text, but usually in your own words. To Allude: A more obscure reference. We need to be careful with our language. Likewise, many “references” in the NT to the OT are not quotes.

[@josephssewagudde8156]

A prominent pastor here in Uganda misrepresented the council of Trent in the way you said they always do! Protestantism has a lot to explain

[@OceanPlantsLove]

thank you for making this video! please make more like this, ie: with this much detail, in response to other protestant arguments. Love this! I am still learning catholism and trying to figure it all out.

[@zerotwo51553]

Thankyou for making this video. I learned alot.. Keep up the good work. You are doing great!!

[@therese6447]

And the dead sea scrolls...wow the Essenes a Jewish sect...guess what books they had...the same ones in the Catholic bible Old Testament.....

[@zeektm1762]

The problem I have is verifying whether they received them as scriptures. The Qumran/Essene community collected many texts in the DSS, but we do not know if they were considered inspired or not outright just by being there. Examples of other texts from them include Enoch, the War Scroll, etc. It certainly shows a diversity of thought, but the conclusion that the Essenes considered them scripture I have difficulty accepting.

[@theshipmasterbanished3902]

FINALLY THANK YOU I BEEN WAITING FOR THIS VIDEO FOR SO LONG.

[@TheXone7]

I am amazed how professional your channel is. God bless you! 🙏🏻

[@phenixorbitall3917]

Thank you such much! I love your seriousness in providing solid sources and arguments for each video ♥️✝️😎👍 Keep up the good work: I learn a lot from your work!

[@XavierMuskateers444]

Glad i found your vids on ig and even happier you have a whole yt channel im going to be binging these vids and cannot wait for the next of them God bless man🙏🙏🙏

[@J-PLeigh8409]

At this point any Protesters that hold this uniformed view, are just elementary in church & biblical history..& really this shouldn't even have to be addressed any longer. Hopefully....hopefully...seriously, hopefully this will put it to rest. Btw the attempted removal by Luther & Calvin of NT books James, Rev, & Heb, should only help Prots comprehend the Deuterocanon removal

[@therese6447]

Luther didn't like those books because they supported Catholic doctrines instead of his private personal fallible interpretation of scripture.

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

very true .

[@EmberBright2077]

Could you support that with evidence?

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@EmberBright2077 Read Luther's writings.

[@EmberBright2077]

@@julieelizabeth4856 Please be specific.

[@Onlyafool172]

​@@EmberBright2077do you know he tried to take james out of the bible in his denomination, he opposed it in church councils, because it was against sola fide, im pretty sure he just didnt removed it because other reformers would give him heat because of it, but it was very much close, he also contested hebrews, because hebrews attest to inteecession of the saints if i remeber correctly even tho he believed it

[@elmerzavala2878]

Really great Channel man, came upon while on KZbin shorts and it's a really great Channel. You will definitely get big soon if you jeep uploading like this. Keep going man!

[@malloryanderson724]

I gotta say -- every time I watch these videos I still don't expect the voice. LMAO Love the content, please keep it coming!

[@kimutaijoseph6958]

Thank you so much.I'm learning a lot.I'm grateful to have found myself Catholic.

[@gerardducharme2146]

Enjoy your program one book maybe you’ll know about it. It’s called Catholic controversy by St. François de Sales. Excellent book on refuting Protestantism God bless.

[@FoundedByJesus]

Can you site your sources? It’s hard to watch you and not be able to find the sources. I would appreciate it. Thanks. You are a great apologist of the Faith.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

Gary Michuta has a great book called "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" and he cites sources.

[@zeektm1762]

Luther’s Bible, Apocrypha Preface Luther’s Antelogemina Council of Rome/Hippo/Carthage, 382, 393, 416 respectively. 2nd Leipzig Disputation (Luther vs Eck) These are not all directly related, but they cover a significant amount of information regarding this video

[@mulipolatuuumataafatiufeaa4964]

Thank you, brother Alex, for your insightful talk about the 7 Books the British Bible Society totally removed in 1830 AD and the clear grounds for doing so.

[@luxither7354]

A key point on the Deuterocanonical books: it wasn't some fixed 7 books in dispute in the Old Testament, and the mentioned books in the new. 1 Enoch & 3 Maccabees was disputed also, as well as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache & The Shepherd of Hermas. Figures like Origen and Tertullian, prolific writers of their time & considered both THE Fathers of Greek and Latin Theology respectively, showcase the discourse of their Canonicity in their works, showing a broader discussion going on in the Church at the time. It was only settled by local councils in the 4th-5th century, many of which were enforced by the Patriarch of Rome, like the Councils of Carthage, the Council of Rome & the Synod of Hippo. The aforementioned books were rejected, and, at this point, generally fallen out of favour, unlike the Deuterocanonical books that were accepted by the Fathers. Later councils in the east appealed to these councils to support their Canons.

[@JH_Phillips]

Great summation!

[@jonathancabada3104]

Great vid 🙏

[@operasmith7162]

Awesome video!

[@marissabuyao2092]

Thank you again VOR.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Truth on the councils. I've also heard that the Jews supposedly made the canon in 200 BC but the problem with that is there was no agreement in the canon in the 30s AD when Jesus was teaching. The Sadducees were the priest class and only believed in the first five books of the Old Testament. High Priests came from the Saducees, so that would be pretty strange if they had a set canon with the current Protestant OT when the class their priests were from rejected it. There is no 66 book Bible Canon before Luther.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

The Jews didn't close their canon until about 100 years after Christ's death, after the Pharisees overpowered all the other sects who were dispersed or died out. By then it didn't matter what they did with their canon, because they didn't accept Jesus.

[@zeektm1762]

There is a difficulty in what you said. There is little to no evidence that the Sadducees rejected or only had a 5-book canon of scripture. The evidence points to a focus on the Law, yes, but a rejection of the other books is not present. It would be good to show evidence that the Sadducees had a 5 book canon, other than their absence of use in the NT.

[@truthseeker5777]

Thank you for this video. Helped me understand a lot about difference in Catholic and Protestant bible🙏

[@ConettaF]

Thank you. I didn't know the history of cannon books

[@joshuaconaan9964]

hi Alex you have shared a very informative message to us not only for us catholics but also for many more who dont know the logic behind canon law. i want to make a request to plz cover the concept of different canons of orthodox and Ethiopian and the books which are not included in catholic canon like book of gaints, book of Enoch and there are others too.

[@christianmalik9996]

PLEASE keep making videos we will support you.

[@ROMANS3-25KJV]

​@DieBibelistGottesWortKatholiken kommen leider in die Hölle. Es ist so traurig. Viele sind einfach zu sturr um zu erkennen das sie einer falsche Religion folgen.

[@marksockgulsas]

@@ROMANS3-25KJVthe irony

[@michaelrome3527]

I’ve been wanting enough funds to buy a very old Bible, pre Reformation. Just to have and to show any who ask why we ‘added’ to the Bible.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@adifferentangle7064]

Protestants are hilarious.

[@rodrigofernandes5242]

Ethiopian Jews, even today, still use the seven deuterocanonical books.

[@franj1142]

Well done

[@13me5]

your videos are good keep up the work a little correction though it is not pronounced dutero but more like deftero (the d is pronounced as th in the )

[@gabriellearagon3470]

“Lo barato cuesta caro…” Being cheap coupled with pride has cost people the truth and salvation.

[@rodrigofernandes5242]

Esse vídeo ficou Ótimo. Além dos 7 livros deuterocanônicos citados(Tobias, Judite, Sabedoria, Eclesiástico, I Macabeus, II Macabeus, e Baruc) há também trechos deuterocanônicos no livro de Ester(capítulo 10, do versículo 3 até o 14) e trechos do livro de Daniel: Daniel 13 e Daniel 14, e um pedaço de Daniel 3, que vai do versículo 24 até o 90, chamado de Cântico de Azarias na fornalha). Saudações do Brasil!

[@hometownapologist7879]

Hahaha … “you need to stop .., you need to stop commenting on the Internet” 😂that straight up wrecked me 😂

[@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve]

Really good and well informed video. Good key points and well explained my kind Lad. 👍🏻🕊😇✝️🙏🏻🙌🏻☝🏻🍷🍞📖🕯⛪️ week Catholics become protestants but strong protestant eventually become Catholics. 🤔😉

[@truthteller3288]

Different topic but some parallels on the current topic brother. Numbers 16 (korah revolt) and the reformation when i read Numbers 16, i see many things thats protestant do and say about the Catholic church authority like korah said about Moses and Aaron I would like your opinion, thank you.

[@_tdprater]

Excellent video. I have a question for you. How would you respond to the argument that papal or church infallibility removes free will? As in, if someone is unable to be wrong then how can they have free will? Any feedback is appreciated. God bless you.

[@user-sk3rb3kk2i]

The problem with this argument is that they want to equate being able to be wrong with free will. Free will is not about being right or wrong is about being able to make your own decision whether right or wrong. Besides papal or church infallibility is on doctrine, doctrine taught by Jesus is not based on right or wrong it’s based on you making a choice to agree and follow the doctrine or not agree and not follow, your choice is still there. In either case if you don’t agree with the church/papal infallibility why would you want to follow a doctrine that you don’t believe in? Isn’t this what Protestants do when they don’t follow the Universal doctrine? No one is being denied free will.

[@lolina7888]

🌹❤️🌹Thank you 🌹❤️🌹

[@michaelhaywood8262]

As well as these seven books, the protestants also cut chapters out of the books of Daniel and Esther, including the Song of the 3 Children in Daniel, [Benedicite] which we Catholics use at Morning Prayer on Sundays. The Eastern Orthodox Churches also include the 3rd and 4th Books of Esdras and the short Prayer of Manasseh in their Bibles. [the 1st and 2nd Books of Esdras are the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah in most Western Bibles]

[@DevelopmentRobco]

The problem with debating prots about the 7 missing books in their Bible is that for the most part they have no idea these books exist, why Martin Luther took them out, or even who Martin Luther was... And if they do know who ML is, they say "well I don't believe in Martin Luther" The thing is they are putting a lot of faith in Martin Luther and his idea of Canon to simply go along saying they are not Lutheran's in one way or another.

[@Phoenixmagnus]

Wait did he mean Martin Luther not Augustine in his debate with Johan Eck?

[@jimmyMc1971]

I agree with you 100%. I would like to add something that I want you to do some research on. In 1611, the original King James Translation had the Deuterocanonical books. But as I was looking at bibles on eBay, I noticed a King James from 1630, and it didn’t have the deuterocanonical books. After researching this, I came to learn that the Puritans, under the Church of England, might have removed the deuterocanonical books from some bibles in the 1630’s, but then the British Bible society removed them from all bibles in the 1800’s. I’m not saying that I’m correct about the Puritans, I just want you to investigate this and see if it’s true.

[@annegillen5651]

Please do a video on LDS. Maybe a one on one with Saints Unscripted.

[@shenron7]

The reason the apocrypha were removed from the Bible is because books like Tobit says historically inaccurate stuff, like king nebuchadnezzar ruled in Nineveh, when he didn’t.

[@brandonkerlin6323]

Well, it’s actually Judith that says that. But it says that King Nebuchadnezzar(Babylonian) was the king of the Assyrians. Now, to modern people today who haven’t been exposed to much ancient writing, especially wisdom type writing, this may seem very odd. But I think the first indication that Judith isn’t a historical book is the fact that the name Judith literally translates to “Lady Jew“ and is meant to be a representation of the kingdom of Israel. Following this, King Nebuchadnezzar, a well known ancient enemy of the Jews, is the representation of all of Israel’s enemies, which would also include the Babylonians and Assyrians. I don’t exactly remember what this genre of writing was called, but it was fairly common in ancient times. The modern equivalent of the book of Judith could be George Orwell‘s Animal Farm. In his book, you have farm animals representing real life characters from the Russian Revolution. But despite the timeline not being entirely correct, we see the farmers of the other farms representing common enemies of the Russian people like Hitler and Churchill, despite them not being around at the time of the revolution. It’s just a specific writing style that is meant to convey a message. Jesus‘s parables often follow a style like this, and the book of Tobit might as well.

[@Malygosblues]

Then Revelation would be tossed for allusions to the whore of Babylon when Babylone was already gone and continues to be gone. But we recognize that Babylon is important and tied in with the Danielic prophesies. It makes sense to my mind that the name of their king would be invoked in a general way about the enemies of the Jews.

[@zeektm1762]

Historical inaccuracy? Or are you just not understanding the metaphor given? An anachronism is not always erroneous.

[@joannafong4394]

Here are the first Ecclesiastical Decree on the Church’s canonical books of the Sacred Scriptures. It is exactly the same canon used today by the Catholic Church Martin Luther removed seven of those books, plus portions to Daniel and Esther. Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle. Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) Canon 24 states... That nothing be read in Church besides the Canonical Scripture Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, 4 books. The Chronicles, 2 books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, 2 books. Macchabees, 2 books. The New Testament. The Gospels, 4 books The Acts of the Apostles, 1 book The Epistles of Paul, 13 epistles The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, 2 The Epistles of John the Apostle, 3 The Epistles of James the Apostle, 1 The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, 1 The Revelation of John, 1 book. Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

[@zeektm1762]

This is a regional council, not a universal council. What makes this difficult is until Florence-Trent there was no infallible universal decree on the canon of scripture.

[@aussierob7177]

No matter what you say to Protestants about Scripture, they will refuse to change their minds, because they have to justify why they do not belong to the Body of Christ.

[@nicoguapo584]

Bro can you lower the volume on the intro music alittle 😅

[@VoiceOfReason_]

Noted! - producer

[@hcimlvl99fishing63]

My brother please move the hair that is your eye 😂 but great video

[@TheCrossMK]

I need a source still of these claims.

[@calebcunningham3034]

When you say apocryphal I think it might be helpful to clarify that you mean heretical. Apocryphal, I believe, refers merely to hidden books or books not to be read during mass. I could be wrong on this but that is my understanding. Good video! Thanks

[@thecatechumen]

amen bruthuh

[@GlennLyon-sj8to]

🙏 🙏 🙏

[@ismaelfeliciano1172]

When Protestants say we Catholics add books to the Bible, I love to respond “yes, we added exactly 73 books to it”

[@abelsalinas5777]

Spot on brother. The canon that Protestants want to appeal to is Rabbinic Judaism that goes against Christian theology and includes the Talmud.

[@donmorrissey1453]

So true, they were even thinking of getting rid of James. Most probably, because James talks about doing works

[@Gladdig]

What is the intro music called?

[@snoopyjenn8379]

The reason they were questioned was because after Christ the jews tried to purify their religion. Since they didn’t have any Hebrew copies of those books they decided to remove them. They only had them in Greek. Then Martin Luther followed suit. Since then some of them have been found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea scrolls. Even though Jesus admonished the pharisees for their hypocritical behavior, he never disputed any scriptures which tells me they are trustworthy. I prefer to use the Old Testament that was in circulation during Jesus time.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

There was no definitive "Old Testament in circulation" during Jesus' time. Different groups of Jews accepted different groups of books, as the video explained. Jesus spoke to each group according to the books they accepted.

[@zeektm1762]

Since Jesus disputed no scriptures I would agree that the Deuterocanonical books (which were in circulation at the time of Christ, and were received by the infant church) are scripture. I would also agree that especially after the temple destruction of 70AD (with the likes of Rabbi Akiva and Joseph), the Jewish apologetics and scholarship regarding the “inspired sacred scriptures” should be met with skepticism, over the Christian fathers.

[@clarkkent5442]

I've noticed a lot of protestants believe that when a council convenes that's the moment an idea is brought about

[@gustavovilla45]

FORMER priest Altman is the new and vicious Martin Luther. So sad his ego carried him over the edge. 😢

[@zacharyconner9319]

I feel such resistance in joining a faith that is in communion with the pope. I can't even explain why, other than my own ignorance on the validity of the papacy. I was raised protestant, but became an athiest for many years. Im stuggling to decide on Eastern Orthodoxy Eastern Catholicism Roman Catholicism Guidance would be appreciated.

[@christopherfleming7505]

Essentially, I see no difference between what you call Eastern Catholic and plain Catholic. The former is a subset of the latter. The Eastern rite catholics are in communion with Rome, it's just a different tradition and liturgy. The real decision is between Catholic and Orthodox. I believe the separated Eastern Christians are closer to the fullness of the truth than protestants, because they held on to Tradition when they split from Rome. They maintain valid holy orders and apostolic succession, which means they have all the sacraments. Anglicans or Episcopalians, for example, do not have valid priests or a valid Eucharist, even if they believe in the sacraments. Many are drawn to the Orthodox Church, because they have remained largely immune to the secularisation process that has ravaged the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. So many scandals, so many bad bishops and even bad popes since then, have caused many Catholics to abandon the faith. I sometimes feel tempted to do the same. However, if we examine the claim that Peter is the head of the apostles, and if we study the historic reality of the first millennium, we have to conclude that the papacy is of divine origin. The schismatic churches of the East admit that they are unable to convoke an ecumenical council, because the Pope is the only person who has that universal authority. The different churches squabble with each other, unable to decide on anything. So, despite all the unrest and confusion in the Catholic Church, I will not be going anywhere. God willing, I will die Catholic. I hope this helps. God bless +++

[@zacharyconner9319]

@@christopherfleming7505 I respect you for such a response. Thank you. This helps.

[@alacson100]

Team Septuagint lezzgoooo

[@Daven8]

Do any of these books say we should worship Mary or anyone or thing apart from Jesus Christ?

[@triciaworld]

What books?

[@mfwolf86]

Hey Alex, Welcome back brother! Have you seen any of Padre Luis Toro Debates with Protestants?

[@NyashaMuz]

There was a guy who mentioned that even the Jewish Canon was missing parts of Isaiah that foretold the suffering of the coming Messiah. Don't know how true that is

[@chanano1689]

How did Eck win the Leipzig debate if it literally sparked the reformation in Europe?

[@hervedavidh4117]

You probably are the "Sylvester Stallone" of catholic apologetics (The Voice). Rambo, Judge Dredd, Rocky !

[@notnull5878]

On the subject of appealing to people or Jews after the time of Jesus, even the most liberal estimates place the writing of the first canonical gospel to be written Mark, was written well over 50 years after Jesus died, some place it at 70, so 200 years is not as much of a stretch as imagined.

[@gloriosatierra]

I hope they do not remove my Book of Forerunners. 🌿

[@Bruh-cg2fk]

I love when he says the word wrong

[@RobertHallKoC3]

one word: Septuagint.

[@princechukwuemeka2639]

Here's the 39th letter of St. Athanasius for anyone interested in this conversation. Please read through carefully and tell me what you think as it relates to the subject of this video. 1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables , in which they show stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God. ...2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 2 Corinthians 11:3, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books - those called apocryphal- led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. 3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance. 4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. 5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'You err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.' 7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. Translated by R. Payne Smith

[@paul_321]

I thought the Apocrypha is for the Gnostic writings, not Deuterocanonical. Protestants use the words so loses.

[@paul_321]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Agreed

[@derekm.ciulla9303]

The absence of direct references to the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, despite the extensive use of Old Testament scriptures by Jesus and the apostles, raises doubts about the authority and inspiration of these texts. Given the meticulous attention to prophetic fulfillment and scriptural validation in the New Testament, the lack of acknowledgment of the deuterocanonical books suggests they were not considered authoritative or inspired by Jesus or the apostles. This absence in the New Testament, coupled with the established pattern of referencing every single Old Testament book (with just the exception of Esther), undermines the credibility and validity of the deuterocanon within the Christian tradition.

[@zeektm1762]

Therefore, given the absence of direct references to Esther, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and a couple more books, we must conclude the Bible has less than 62 books. That is what you are intending right? Since you are positing that *an absence of direct reference in the New Testament is proof of its rejection*, we would be consistent in that. If you are applying this criteria to only the Deuterocanonical books, you are committing a special pleading fallacy and your argument plummets (and your credibility). Your established pattern of referencing every Old Testament book is not lifted *from scripture*, but based on your interpretation of it. Your statement about Esther’s exception *is proof of its error*, unless you are again committing a special pleading fallacy. Also, the books of Ruth and Song of Songs are not referenced in the New Testament, not just Esther, further showing the inconsistency in this argument. Unless you can show a verse that describes that this is a purpose of the New Testament. We could also go even further, and see that as Jude directly quotes from 1 Enoch (or some variation of it ), even calling it a prophesy, this should move you to consider it more canonical than the deuterocanonical books? I assert that a quotation (or lack of one) of a text does not have a say in its canonicity, otherwise we arrive at a Bible neither of us agree with. Likewise, the criteria of what a “reference” counts as is subject to debate. Often Protestants will insist that quotation is required, which is erroneous due to my first point. If we allow references in general, or perhaps allusions, then we can clearly see that Paul is directly referencing the Maccabean Martyrs without naming them in Hebrews, the Sadducees are referencing Tobit in Matthew (7 husbands), and the Chief Priests appear to (purposefully or not) relay a messianic prophecy given to us in the book of Wisdom.

[@83pan]

Why cause devision between Catholic and Prodistants. We both belive in God. I think we should encourage other Christians to read and learn as much as possible instead of poking at the differences.

[@marksockgulsas]

Because in essence we are different and it’s important to figure out the truth

[@nathanielfraay648]

😂😂😬 we are his church!

[@sptomase]

It appears that Jesus himself approved of Sirach because be gave us the Our Father and we ask to forgive us as we forgive other and that’s also found in Sirach.

[@liliabrizuela2569]

Great video, lots of important info and please keep them coming so that our brothers and sisters in Christ can come back home to the one and only church JESUSCHRIST funded in Mathew 16, 18. The Christian Catholic Church.

[@CatholicOnTheSpectrum]

Matthew and Mark both reference Tobit.

[@som1udntknow755]

Can you add your sources?

[@julieelizabeth4856]

Gary Michuta wrote a great book called "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" and he cites sources.

[@notnull5878]

On the subject of jews that rejected Jesus, I think there is no better example than Paul, or Saul of Tarsus, who spent many years prosecuting the early Christian church, freely killing the early disciples or apostolic men of the church, yet he is commonly considered one the same level as one of the disciples of Jesus (though never having met him) and yet none would dispute him or his contribution to the bible.

[@ultravegito4339]

What do you mean never having met him

[@bethanyjohnson8001]

I think he means Paul did not know Jesus in the way that the 12 Apostles did. However, the comment is very unclear in its wording.@@ultravegito4339

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@ultravegito4339 Paul didn't know Jesus during Jesus' three-year ministry, but Jesus appeared to Paul a few years after the crucifixion.

[@zeektm1762]

Except unlike Josephus, Paul accepted Christ and joined his Church. By relying on extra-Christian sources and treating them as authoritative post-biblical sources for something as sensitive as this, we open ourselves up to false doctrine. Remember, Judaism as we know it collapsed in 70AD.

[@lifestylemedicinals8692]

I'm of the belief that God's "Eternal Word" is Jesus Himself, and any revelation that comes through the Holy Spirit is not some eternally existing pre-written revelation, but a unique inspiration filtered through the personality of the one's submitted to God. They reveal Truth, history, wisdom, knowledge and mysteries pertaining to God, but the words themselves don't deserve to be viewed in the same light as God himself, who is Christ. I genuinely believe God can still reveal more unknown Truths through the Holy Spirit and would still be just as powerful as what the believers wrote when compiling the Bible. Some would call this perspective blasphemous, but it makes God look far less limited and far more powerful/charitable for allowing his eternal truths to be found and uttered without respect to time and location. He gives revelation to anyone who asks and because his truth/knowledge/wisdom is eternal, we'll never be done receiving his word through THE Word.

[@Catholiclady3]

So, can your pastor not advocate for you? He doesn't pray to Jesus on your behalf? That's terrible for you

[@mikaelrosing]

I wish to be greek catholic orthodox But there is no orthodox church here other than romanian and its only romanian they speak i acnt speak romanian. Im sure that the pope early church was aight then got kinda tyranical then got ok again but got some strange things still. im very skeptical of the pope and catholic church but eastern orthodox im sure Christ is in the midst of that church.

[@marksockgulsas]

The Catholic Church was the first church, everyone followed the papacy until 1054

[@2pac1996-]

In Matthew 16:18 it says, “You are Peter; and on this rock my congregation will build.” From this the Catholic Church derives the office of the Pope and also the thesis that Jesus wanted to build the church on Peter. Verse 19 says, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens,” etc. How should we understand this verse? Bible passage(s): Matthew 16:18,19 Peter is “Petros” in Greek, while rock is “Petra”. Petros means: a stone, a piece of a rock. Petra is the rock itself. So this passage does not give the slightest basis for the teaching that the church was built on Peter and that Peter is the head of the church. What verse 19 says has nothing to do with the church, but with the kingdom of heaven. You don't build with keys, you unlock things with them. The verse means that Peter could open the kingdom of heaven and admit people, as we see in Acts chapters 2, 8 and 10. God also wanted to acknowledge what would bind Peter here, i.e. when he refused to admit anyone, for example. This power to bind and to loose in connection with the assembly is given in Matthew 18 to the two or three gathered together to the name of the Lord; and in connection with forgiveness of sins for this earth, it is given in John 20:23 to every disciple who makes use of it, for example, when baptizing another. He then admits him to the kingdom of heaven, or to the assembly, seen as the house of God, and by this fact declares that he recognizes him as one whose sins are forgiven.

[@bibleman8010]

As Greek scholars-even non-Catholic ones-admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek-an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petrosandpetrasimply meant "rock."If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithoswould have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368). 😁😁 Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy. Petros vs Petra Jesus spoke aramaic not Greek. The Aramaic leaves no room for the Petros/Petra distinction. In Aramaic the work for rock is Kepha(rock) and upon this Kepha(rock) I will build my church. Why does the Greek use two different words? because the Greek word for rock is feminine. The translator gave petra a masculine ending and rendered it petros. Petros was the preexisting word meaning "small stone". The Greek text is a translation of Jesus' words, which were actually spoken in Aramaic. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kephas (which is why Peter is often called Cephas in the Bible). The word Kephas in Aramaic means "huge rock." The Aramaic word for "little stone" is "evna," and Peter was not called "Evna" or "Envas" or anything like that. In Aramaic, Jesus said "You are Peter (Kephas) and upon this rock (kephas) I will build my Church." The metaphor worked well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine or masculine, but in Greek, the noun "rock" was feminine, and therefore unsuitable as a name for Peter. So the Aramaic wordKephas was translated to the masculine name Petros when it referred to Peter, and to the feminine noun petra when it referred to the rock. In ancient Koine Greek, petra and petros were total synonyms, unlike modern Attic Greek and unlike Ionic Greek which was about 400 year before Christ.

[@2pac1996-]

@@bibleman8010 Bro Religion are from Satan

[@marksockgulsas]

@@2pac1996-that’s your only response? How about you refute his arguments if they’re from Satan, also “religion” comes from the word “religio” which means Relationship with God, also Christ established a church and a religion and you can’t deny that

[@Viiola24]

What a coward he was xD