A “Lost” Book Foretold the Death of Jesus Christ?

Did a "lost" book of the Bible, lost to modern Protestants anyway, foretell the life and death of Jesus Christ? And if so, how did this book of the Bible end up getting removed from Protestant Bibles... and why?
CHECK OUT MY NEW BOOK
www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Real...

[@EliEzraCopter]

As a Protestant this guy and Trent Horn have helped me a lot i always felt that something was missing in the Protestant church and always had a problem with sola sciptura and now know it’s because the earliest Christians preached what the Catholic Church teaches.

[@EliEzraCopter]

@CatholicDefender-bp7my Not yet but I am going to go I had an urge to go one day and didn’t go unfortunately.

[@TheologicalAmatuer]

This is exactly what Catholic apologetics needed, a bearded Trent Horn

[@grandpahand7410]

🤣😂

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

🤣

[@squishy8758]

And more than that, someone who is respectful and presents other people's arguments and positions in an honest way, that doesn't attack their personhood, but points out mistakes in their arguments. And without yelling ❤

[@finallythere100]

Ah but Protestants will plug Their ears and close their eyes bc Book of Wisdom is clear on Purgatory!

[@rappmasterdugg6825]

More like a dark-haired Jimmy Akin, if you ask me.

[@CruxSacraApologetics]

Why don't we use Protestant Bibles? They ain't got no "Wisdom." 🙏✝️

[@StoaoftheSouth]

The way out is that way, sir.

[@TrixRN]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[@vincenzorutigliano7239]

In Spanish Fr Luis Toro says "Le quitaron sabiduría" (They took away the wisdom)

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

What does a Protestant Bible look like? I know what a Catholic Bible and the Jehovah's Witnesses Bibles look like . And both are polluted with loads of trash.

[@justinbruck9602]

That is a papal level dad joke

[@alexchristopher221]

This Messianic prophecy in Wisdom is far more explicit and detailed than any other in the Scriptures.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 It's encouraging to see so many Protestants leave their man-made religions and cults and join the Christian Church.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

Only possessed people become Catholics. Saved people become Protestants....

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

@@benjaminfalzon4622 Yes, possessed by the Holy Spirit.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@From_Protestant_to_Christian If you have the Holy Spirit you would understand the Holy Bible, and you would also know, that the Holy Spirit is a Gift, not a possession. Evil Spirits are possessions.

[@TheologicalAmatuer]

When I was a protestant and started getting into biblical theology, I always found it puzzling that the best protestant biblical theologians felt the need to cite the deuterocannon in order to understand the New Testament in the biblical story and at the same time deny its authority and inspiration.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

I used to be a Protestant too. Sola scriptura is really the death of the Protestant heresy.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@TheologicalAmatuer. I think it’s so cool that you misspell “amateur” on purpose in order to emphasize your lack of academic standing. The fight over the deuterocanon (hey, neat, another misspelling!) is such a nothing burger to me. The Anglicans have no problem reading from these books in worship. Protestant Bibles up until recently (and even now in some instances) include the Apocryphal books between the two Testaments. And Anglicans, as far as I know, do not restrict which passages are read. There aren’t any verses that are marked off, “This particular text has been deemed heretical. Please refrain from including this passage as a liturgical reading.” The fact is, their inclusion or exclusion makes no difference whatsoever. Get over it. Get a life.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@@From_Protestant_to_Christian So true. Official Catholic channels no longer refer to Protestants as heretics. What I’m not quite clear on is why you think Sola Scriptura brought this about. Is the Vatican having second thoughts on how to interpret Scripture correctly?

[@mikelopez8564]

@@ericcarlson9885you are triggered by misspellings but not having 10% of inspired books dropped from your Bible? And by who’s authority did this happen? The British and Foreign Bible Society, in the early 19th century. I bet if someone took 10% of your next paycheck you would care about that.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@@mikelopez8564 I actually wasn’t meaning to be derisive about your misspellings. I was sincerely “tickled” that you spelled “amateur” in an amateurish manner. (I once spelled “semblance” with an “e”-semblence-so that it would be a “semblance” of the actual word.) After reading your reply, I went straight to a bookcase and pulled my “Protestant” Bible off the shelf (copyright 2007) and figured out what percentage of the whole the included Apocrypha was page-wise. Turns out it’s approximately 17%, or about one sixth, of the Catholic canon. That’s a good-sized chunk! But it’s not at all missing! There it is, as large as life. Turns out they deposited my paycheck in the bank, and I can spend the money whenever I like! I enjoy reading the Apocrypha (especially Sirach), but I do not find it at all Catholic. That being said, I don’t find the deuterocanon to be all that essential. I really doubt you do either. I could extract 10% of the NT books from your personal Bible (let’s say, 2 Peter, plus 2 and 3 John). And unless I told you I had done it, you might not even notice for a couple of years or so! Same with the OT. If I took away 4 of the 12 Minor Prophets, 1 and 2 Chronicles, plus Ezra or Lamentations, your day-to-day existence would not be affected to any significant degree. So, when was the last time you read “Bel and the Dragon”? And what did you get out of it more than “IDOLATORS, BAD”?

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

This is really becoming my favorite KZbin channel. Thank you!

[@JoeManzari]

100000000%

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

Me too!

[@ToddJambon]

We need more priests like you!

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

@@ToddJambon what a nice thing to say! Thank you.

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

​@@FrJohnBrownSJGod bless you father Pray for us all!

[@josephjude1290]

Protestant arguments are outdated. This is one great channel

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

He's helping so many Protestants leave their demonic heresies.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

I think so many Prots are converting to Christianity bc of the great work of Catholics Answers and their apologists.

[@patquint3291]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠Calling Protestantism demonic would not be helpful in ecumenical dialogue. We all know Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity and the so called “reformers” were greatly mislead in their private exegesis of Scripture and in error leaving the one Church founded by Jesus, but the sad fact is that many Protestants have not a clue what orthodox, historical, biblical Christianity actually IS. We do by the grace of God. I think many Protestants are frankly afraid of investigating Catholic truth using Catholic sources. Afraid to learn the TRUTH. Afraid after finding the truth, their consciences will lead them into the Catholic Church. We should pray for people (like Mike Grendron) who refuse to even read the Church Fathers.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

@@patquint3291 Denying the Eucharist and Our Lady is demonic.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Do you believe the Bible is open still to adding books??

[@davided9881]

I love this channel so much Trent Horn - observing culture Joe - in-depth theology Pints with aquinas - interesting thought food I love to be Catholic, so much good spiritual food

[@jowardseph]

How to be Christian - Basic Biblical Literacy in a hilarious way

[@davided9881]

@@jowardseph shame on me, how could I forget about him…

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Study the Word of God! Jesus Christ loves you! Get a King James Bible and believe. Read John.

[@jowardseph]

@@MichaelAChristian1 DR > 1611 KJV.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

@@jowardseph The King James Bible is Perfect. Does not even the scripture tell you that WHERE THE WORD OF A KING IS THERE IS POWER? God wrote om stone with his FINGER. So it starts Perfect. How then is it purified 7 times in Psalms 12? Like Nebechadnezzar was in wild 7 times? A period of time. Here a little there a little in hebrew,Greek, and Latin. 3 languages in one. Commissioned by king with 3 crowns. Multiple church coronations. Purified 7 times. Created peer review. And Cross checked. God made sure to give it all that authority. It's impossible to replicate if you tried. Read Numbers 5 and tell me which is Percect. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIrUZ4F-ga-cf5Y

[@BobBoldt-sp1gr]

1. At a minimum, there is a legitimate dispute about whether Wisdom and the other 6 books belong in the Bible. 1A. Without the Catholic Church, there is no authority to resolve the dispute. 1B. It makes no sense that God would leave us with no such authority. 2. Given its accuracy, the prophetic statements in Wisdom prove it was divinely inspired or was written after Christ died as fake “prophesy” to support the Christian argument. The latter seems implausible. Why would anyone do that? No one was getting rich off this stuff, but instead mostly shunned if not persecuted. Plus, writing was expensive then, and it’s hard to see how anyone would benefit enough to to justify writing something as a fake. And if one were to write fake scripture, one would think they’d write something more dramatic. 3. Christ’s message was my way or the highway (with heaps of forgiveness to those who seek it and non-culpability for those who don’t know His teachings). Christ didn’t present a Burger King, “Have it your way” theology. 3A. Protestantism today is akin to Burger King. Would you like bread with that, sir? The customer can say yes (Lutheran), or say no (most Evangelicals). How do you want your salvation, sir? Double predestination (Calvinists, traditional). Once saved, always saved (evangelicals in USA)? Throw some works in there (Church if Christ)? Would you like divorce with that? How about infant baptism, or adult? Protestants are often more holy and serious than many Catholics. I admire their intensity and character. But getting to decide what theology one wants to order, then picking a church that will provide it, is simply not consistent with Christ’s my way or highway teaching.

[@1901elina]

As far as number 2, people did write fake, apocryphal, gospels after Christ, like the gospel of Peter, so the idea that no one would write something fake because it was expensive doesn't really hold.

[@alonsoACR]

​@@1901elina These came with an agenda, every time. Gnosticism in that case.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

All us Catholics have a duty to evangelize and educate Protestants to help them becoming fully Christian and obtain access to the Eucharist, the other sacraments and devotion to Mary.

[@EspressoMonkey16]

I agree. I think most protestants only need to hear Catholicism properly construed and they will warm to it. We need to be unapologetic about our faith, and always cut through the propaganda and misconceptions that are so common

[@bengoolie5197]

@@EspressoMonkey16 In my opinion, that is a very naive point of view. I have, when the situation arose, been explaining Catholicism to Protestants for well over 50 years, and I could probably count on one hand the number of them who actually converted. Try it yourself; explain a Catholic doctrine to a Protestant, and then check back with that person at a later date and ask him or her if he or she is considering converting. Protestants spread lies about Jesus and His Holy Catholic Church because Protestants follow the father of lies, who influenced Luther to start Protestantism.

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

I think you’re right, and I’m not even Catholic. Growing up, I never met a Catholic who read their Bible and knew the scriptures. On the other hand, i knew lots of Protestants were more likely in Bible studies on a regular basis. I could not get past that the Catholic friends knew traditions more than scriptures. I think during the 1400s Catholics were not allowed to read it on their own ( maybe I’m wrong) but after the invention of the printing press and Bibles were more accessible to everyone, Protestants were encouraged to read it every day. In the US, public schools were started so that the teachers could teach literacy and how to read the Bible. I’m glad more Catholics are reading their Bibles more. I’m learning a lot from all of you.

[@John_Fisher]

@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I've never really heard a good source for the claim that lay (non-Priest) Catholics weren't allowed to read scripture in or before the middle ages. I'd be interested to look into such sources if you know any, but I think prior to that it was more of an issue that the majority of people were illiterate and that copies of any books were prohibitively expensive prior to the invention of the printing press.

[@fernandoalarcon8534]

Yes. As a Protestant that is starting the process of conversion. I was turned off by some that would be rude or name call.

[@CruxSacraApologetics]

0:00 Introduction 2:02 What's the Book of Wisdom? 3:14 When was it Written? 7:20 The Divine Silence Theory 8:16 The Prophecy of Wisdom 13:05 Key Features & Fulfillment 20:47 Holiness & Blamelessness 24:03 Vivid Prophecy & Inspiration 26:10 Wisdom & The Early Church 37:11 The "Quotation" Argument 47:11 The "Added Books" Argument 50:22 The "Quotation" Argument, Part 2 52:54 The "Council of Jamnia" Argument 54:13 The "Used but not Affirmed" Argument 55:32 The "Helpful Writings" Argument 58:06 Conclusion

[@AP-sg2ut]

Wisdom chapter 2 is one of my favorite parts of the Bible.

[@user-uc1yb7hy2n]

Amazing how Paul’s Epistle’s especially Romans, echo The Book of Wisdom.

[@stevenhazel4445]

Joe you are a phenom in your field. Thank you for all your work.

[@griffingartner3142]

Joe, you should cite Gary Michuta as the scholarly backing for this work. Maybe have him on the show, it would be a great discussion. He's an excellent scholar who deserves recognition here.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

I haven't read Gary's book, but I should, bc I have heard very good things about it! (We've discussed some of these ideas in interviews and such, so I'm broadly familiar with his views).

[@griffingartner3142]

@@JosephHeschmeyer Case for the Deuterocanon and Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger are both excellent. God bless you; may the Lord use you mightily.

[@MrRotwell]

Legitimately one of my favorite bits of media I look forward to listening to every week.

[@susand3668]

Thank you for this episode. There is so much heat over the the books today's Protestants reject! It is good of you to keep the subject front-and-center!

[@ronaldtrunk7944]

protestants avoid the deutero canons so they can avoid purgatory. but purgatory will be a reality for not only catholics but most assuredly the protestants. the problem is who will pray them out of purgatory? not the protestants.

[@irishandscottish1829]

Faithful Catholics will pray them out of purgatory and Catholics like me who not only pray for all the souls in purgatory but who also ask God if it aligns with His will to use my suffering I offer up for the soul in purgatory who has been there the longest and for the souls that have been completely forgotten/without prayers for them

[@ronaldtrunk7944]

@@irishandscottish1829 i'm praying for the protestants too. i'm sure there are some there that need our help

[@MichaelAChristian1]

​@@ronaldtrunk7944Purgatory is False. Jesus Christ is Lord. Read Luke 16. Abraham isn't on fire. "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."- Hebrews chapter 10 verses 9 to 10. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqvMi5dtiMufi6M

[@ToddJambon]

Dude, I was wondering how you were going to get an hour out of this. But it was a great hour, indeed! To me, this whole thing screams of cover-your-booty arguments from the Protestant side. Also, if you're going to use the Bible as the only authority, you had better know it. Joe is taking these dudes to school...if they are tuning in.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Over time protestants have really devalued what the point was of Israel in the old covenant and old testament to retreat to a more bare bones version of sola scriptura contra Catholicism. Now to them it's just a bunch of interesting historical stories. It's kind of similar to how they have retreated from a supposed successionism of their ideas from the early Church and citing the Church fathers, the apostles and their approved men teaching with authoriry, etc, to now whatever their tradition is just is whatever the Bible says, and if you don't get it, it's because you're not trying/a reprobate

[@Junnelayos]

Thank you for this ❤

[@PattiS3]

This was great! Thank you!

[@damnedmadman]

Awesome channel ‼️ Thanks man🙏

[@EW-go1xw]

Really appreciate your in depth videos!

[@heidigabalski6335]

Fantastic scholarship, thank you!

[@TheologicalAmatuer]

From Hill and Walton, “A Survey of the Old Testament” 3rd edition Pg 494-495: “Initially, the books of the apocrypha were added one by one to later additions of the Septuagint. This Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament was completed about 250 BC, and made necessary by the impact of Hellenism on Judaism. These books were distinctly separated from the Hebrew Scriptures, and not regarded by the Hebrews as part of the Old Testament. However, the Jewish scribes made no notations to this fact, which led to some confusion among the Greek speaking Christians, who adopted the Septuagint as their Bible . This was especially true after about AD 100, since subsequent copies of the Septuagint were transmitted by Christian scribes. During the early centuries of Christianity, there were conflicting opinions as to the canonicity of the apocryphal books. For example, Greek and Latin church fathers like your Ireneas, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, quoted the apocrypha in their ratings as “scripture,” and the Synod of Hippo (AD 393) authorized the use of the apocrypha as canon. Yet others like Eusebius and Athanasia‘s distinguished apocrypha from the Old Testament.” So, according to these Protestant authors, the Hebrews did not regard these books of scripture, but their scribes completely forgot to mention that fact when they copied down their scripture. 😂

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

Hey Joe, since you asked for one, I'll volunteer this. Dr. David Falk is a Christian Egyptologist (@ancientegyptandthebible) whose opinions re: the historical evidence for the book of Exodus specifically and the Pentateuch-Joshua-Judges broadly I respect. During his 99th live stream (video titled: "Live Stream #99: 9000 at 99"), he opened the stream with a 35-minute assault on the deuterocanon. He voiced the typical sorts of arguments you usually hear (i.e., the alleged contradictions and alleged errors like Judith 1:1 referring to Nebuchadnezzar as King of the Assyrians, lack of recognition as canonical by the Jews, lack of affirmation by the Church, St. Jerome, etc.). Now, obviously I don't believe his arguments work for the same reason atheist arguments of the same sort don't work against the protocanonical OT or against the NT; however, I consider Dr. Falk an otherwise solid source for things within his field (his channel and work on the Exodus has been recommended by Jimmy Akin, for example) and wouldn't mind if you or anyone else at Catholic Answers addressed his anti-deuterocanon arguments, as he's gone on record saying "I have no reason at this point to believe that they are inspired" ("Live Stream #74: Who Are You? What Do You Want?", 2:31:40) and told "Catholic apologists" to "go for it" on disagreeing with him.

[@Ekim1740]

Jews rejects the new testament books. Will we follow their cannon which was finalized centuries later after Christ. And when their authority has already been revoked and their temple has already been destroyed?

[@Ekim1740]

@robertstephenson6806 nope. Even during the time of Christ, Jewish sects have different cannon.

[@Ekim1740]

@robertstephenson6806 yes. I know Jesus was a Jew. but there were no approved cannon for OT even at the time of Christ. Even jews after Jesus were debating this.

[@Ekim1740]

@robertstephenson6806 Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes sects have different OT cannon. Thats why they have different beliefs like for example ressurection.

[@alternativefactory7190]

Does this guy not know that the first bible that was ever printed in the 1450s used the Catholic cannon of scripture? A century before the council of trent, where he claims the church added 7 books.

[@DystopianProphet]

Absolutely outstanding video.

[@johannaprice4880]

Divine mindset is not in their vocabulary their eyes hearing is not open.😢

[@user-uc1yb7hy2n]

Υιός τον Θεον (Son of God). Strong points made. Good video.

[@markprice81]

Hi Joe, the one scholarly argument I remember on the non-inspiration (or at least secondary status) of the Apocrypha was by John Barton, former Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University. It's 20 years since I read the argument (so it's a bit hazy) but I think it's in his The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon. He looks at how the books were used in Jewish worship and notes that these books don't require the washing of hands after reading them, which broadly translates to them not continuing the divine name (Tetragrammaton). This allows him to demonstrate a difference in their treatment within Judaism which he then suggests can be used to draw a similar distinction within Christianity. Now there are multiple problems with this argument, not least (as I recall he notes) that Esther would fail this test and I think he finds some way round this.

[@solovief]

So much to love here.

[@BeauBeckwith]

So good

[@hglundahl]

1:16 Of Baruch, I only know chapter 3 tolerably well. So, given the ending of that chapter, I thought you were going to say this one. Wisdom. I don't even know a whole chapter very well in it. OK, I'm "all ears" ....

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Psalm 22:8 - He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. Wisdom is not the only book that calls this out. It's a second witness (which is totally consistent with how the word of God is written. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses...")

[@conovan5081]

Hello Joe, I'm really loving your content, here's hoping for more videos on the deuterocanon. I have a question, it's not a wisdom-related question but one that pertains to the deuterocanon, my protestant friend argued that even if 2nd maccabees was scripture, purgatory would not be necessary any longer because it was before Christ's sacrifice. It was not a way into heaven, only the bosom of Abraham, because heaven was not open for the chosen in the OT. How would one respond to this? PS: Hopefully my phone-posting makes sense.

[@damnedmadman]

1 Cor 3 14-15 Mat 5 25-26 Mat 6 14-15 God does not force you to come to Him. Coming to Him will require your will, and it will be painful to let go of our pride, grudge, wrong beliefs, to face all truth about both us and others, to face others, saints and God himself, to feel the shame. This will be necessary part of reconciliation. Imagine Adam and Eve coming back from the world, "knocking on the heaven's door" and standing again before God. That's also why we Catholics have the Sacrament of Penance, where we can stand before God as often as we can and be clean again. Of course you can and should also reconcile with God in private, but it's not a sacrament, though a necessary spiritual practice.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Hi, van. Just to add a different dimension of thought to what po and mad already contributed, I would propose that you counter your friend with the more fundamental question of why he thinks whether something is necessary be the determining question, rather than simply and humbly being disposed to receive whatever God in His wisdom sees fit to provide in love for the glory of His name and the good of souls. Certainly what God does cannot be incompatible with reason, but nothing prevents it from being more glorious and generous that what is strictly required by reason. Once this is addressed, the character and thrust of questions dramatically shifts. As for heaven being open, it is Christ's humanity, not our fallen humanity, which freely enters. We enter inasmuch as we are recreated and transformed into participating in His sacred humanity. Most people, indeed most Christians, with Jim Baker being a notable example, progress through life without being perfectly configured to that newly created sacred humanity, and as such are in that measure incompetent to enter that open door leading to life which is perfect self-donation.

[@adamr9670]

Hey Joe, great video! If you would be so generous, an idea for a future video: you mentioned that the Sadducees did not accept the “old testament cannon” that the Pharisees did (only accepting the first 5 books) and I hear this a lot in Catholic apologetics, it’s even stated very mater of fact, but this bothers me because I’m not sure that this is accepted by Protestants as true and that the foundation for the statement might be shaky and easily argued against. If so can you express why that statement can be said with such a high degree of confidence or at least develop a more nuanced, stronger argument despite it possibly not being accurate. Thank you so much!

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

I actually go into depth on this in episode 1 of Shameless Popery, but it was before we got the video looking good, so it's still audio only. But you can find it on Spotify or Apple Podcasts!

[@TrixRN]

⁠@@JosephHeschmeyerWasn’t something said about this in one of the Gospels, explaining why Sadducees don’t believe in an afterlife?

[@kateguilfoyle5155]

@@JosephHeschmeyerhello Joe - I too, am loving your videos. Could you answer a question for me? I read that the Jewish Bible (the Torah) was only compiled in 450AD and that when they did do so, they excluded the deuterocanonical books (for the reasons you outlined at the beginning of this video). Luther, in excluding those books that weighed against his theology, justified his exclusion of the deuterocanonical books on the basis that they were not part of the Jewish Bible - presumably representing that the Torah preceded the Septuagint. Is it correct that the Jewish Bible was compiled subsequently to our Bible? And did they exclude these books?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The preface, "It is written", is almost always an indication that the writer (or speaker) is going to cite scripture. It's a biblical trope.

[@HumanDignity10]

Thank you for this episode. It motivated me to read the Book of Wisdom, and reading it is helping me to work through some difficulties I have been wrestling with lately. Also, it's my understanding that there are several places where the NT refers back to the Deuterocanonical books. For example, one of the readings for Catholics on July 9th was Matthew 11:25-30 and the priest who said our homily explained that Jesus was referring back to the Book of Sirach, specifically Sirach 6 and Sirach 51, and Jesus assumed that his audience in this passage was familiar with the book of Sirach. After Mass, I read those passages in Sirach and there are striking similarities to the reading in Matthew. So if Jesus is referring back to the Deuterocanonical books and assumes his audience knows those books, it seems to me that we need to know those books too, so we can better understand what Jesus's words mean. Jimmy Akin has compiled a list of references to the Deuterocanonical books in the NT: jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament

[@skarmat]

Protestant heresy in general (from most denominations) is flawed in matters of faith, the books of the Bible, rejection of Tradition, Eucharist and priesthood mainly because of their approach of nominalism toward matters of faith and lack of respect for the history of the Church and ignorance of the early church fathers.

[@MrPeach1]

It is weird to use the supposed council of Jamnia as an authority over our Bible. I mean that council wouldn't include any new Testament books or letters since it was supposedly a Jewish council.

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

Dr. Brant Petri said on one of his video's there was no council of Jamnia , look him up for the truth .

[@UrielAngeli147]

From Plato's Republic. Socrates: Now set beside this paragon the just man in his simplicity and nobleness, one who, in Aeschylus' words, 'would be, not seem, the best.' There must, indeed, be no such seeming; for if his character were apparent, his reputation would bring him honours and rewards, and then we should not know whether it was for their sake that he was just or for justice's sake alone. He must be stripped everything but justice, and denied every advantage the other enjoyed. Doing no wrong, he must have the worst reputation for wrong-doing, to test whether his virtue is proof against all that comes of having a bad name; and under this lifelong imputation of wickedness, let him hold on his course of justice unwavering to the point of death. And so, when the two men have carried their justice and injustice to the last extreme, we may judge which is the happier. My dear Glaucon, I exclaimed, how vigorously you scour these two characters clean for inspection, as if you were burnishing a couple of statues! I am doing my best, he answered. Well, given two such characters, it is not hard, I fancy, to describe the sort of life that each of them may expect; and if the description sounds rather coarse, take it as coming from those who cry up the merits of injustice rather than from me. They will tell you that our just man will be thrown into prison, scourged and racked, will have his eyes burnt out, and, after every kind of torment, be impaled.

[@CarlosGarin-zg7ez]

Is the later date of 100 A.D. in the work by David A. deSilva a typo? I ask because he goes on to say that the later date is evidenced by the use of the Book of Wisdom by New Testament authors. I'm pretty sure all scholars agree that the books of the New Testament were all complete before 100 A.D. Unless Mr. deSilva believes that parts or all of the New Testament were written after 100 A.D.

[@CarlosGarin-zg7ez]

Typo would be 100 CE, when it should be 100 BCE.

[@perhael]

Please get closer to the mic for more Catholic ASMR. Listen with your headphones in.

[@hglundahl]

0:24 I was just discussing the canon with My Apologies and with a Pinoy vlogger who's Catholic ... do you think that 382, Rome: * was infallible bc held under _Pope_ St. Damasus? * became infallible, when Popes _continued to_ approve it? * was never infallible, the first time over we have an infallible canon is Trent (or possibly Florence, which I don't know nearly well enough)?

[@garyr.8116]

JH, @ 21:22 the verses shown (20-23) are for Romans 6, not Romans 3 in the upper left pictorial.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

I totally noticed that too. Good catch. It hit my ear wrong when he started reading that passage and saying it was from Romans 3. Only us bible mavens picked up on that.

[@hglundahl]

50:28 I just got your answer to the question I posed at 0:28. So, you think Trent Session IV was the _first_ time the Church infallibly gave a list of the 72 / 73 books? This means, the mention in Florence was not infallible, the practise of the Vulgate was not infallible, the 382 + was not infallible ...? Two problems. 1) The wider problem is, your standard of when the Church speaks infallibly. Do you or don't you believe there is an Ordinary Infallible Magisterium? *"The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions."* Do you see "sometimes by special synods" (it really should translate "local synods" or non-universal ones) only as a means for the rarer occasions when Ecumenical Councils or Bulls like (was it Ineffabilis Deus?) in 1854 explicitate the Pope as making an infallible declaration? Or do you see "sometimes by particular synods" as one of the means expressing papal infallibility? I do the latter. When the Holy See approves a non-universal synod, it attains the infallibility of the Pope rather than remain as fallible as it would otherwise have been. 2) A more technical one. If there was no infallible list of Bible books and also no infallible act of each book, that would mean that Christians, as My Apologies actually said, could get along very well without an infallible authority to tell them which books are infallible. I e, you are ruining Patrick Madrid's case. With which I obviously concur.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

We don't know when Wisdom was written but we pretty much know when it was NOT written. In chapter 2, it makes reference of "the devil" introducing death into the world. That is a VERY late interpretation. Wisdom 2:24 - But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: That _almost_ breaks canon because the Apostle Paul taught that sin entering into the world passed death to us humans. Not the "envy of the devil" but the disobedience of Adam. We don't get imagery like this in any other part of the bible until the Book of Revelation, in which it calls that old serpent, "the devil and Satan" (see Rev. 12:9).

[@johannaprice4880]

Blinded by the light

[@johannaprice4880]

If Augustine said they used it means: Continuity

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

King David predicted the death of Christ centuries before Christ was born. "My God my God why have you forsaken me" Psalm 22:1'... Dogs surround me a pack of Villance encircle me; They pierce my hands and my feet all my bones are on display. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots, for my garment. Psalm 22:16-18 "David's Prophetic prediction was fulfilled centuries later in John 19: 23-24 "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into 4 shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom". Let's not tear it, "said one to another, Let's decide by lots who will get it." This happened so the scripture might be fulfilled, which said. "They divided my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment". John 19:23-24 {Many of God's revelations in the Bible are written in Codes, so the unbelievers can't understand}.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"? Psalm 22:1. Those are the exact words Jesus shouted from the Cross centuries later... The prediction pauses there and continues on at Verses 16-19. Psalm 22, is one of the Psalms of David. While David was praying to God, God was revealing to us through David the death of Jesus Christ centuries before Jesus's death took place, Without David knowing..."David was long gone, when the prediction happened" That's why there's a pause in the prediction, soon after Verse 1, until Verses 16-19. After Verse 19 David continues his personal prayer. Lost Book My Foot.! God's truth is never lost. No matter how hard the Devil tries to hide it through his churches.

[@annb9029]

I think Gavin Ortland talked about this I really don’t get why Protestants fight this

[@jas84173]

Most people think that what the Protestants call apocrypha is solely the books which are in the Catholic Bible but this is not true and has always been confusing to me. The Vulgate prior to the reformation also included the Prayer of Mannasseh, 1(3) Esdras, and 2(4) Esdras. In the Gutenberg Bible they are located right in the Old Testament. After the Council of Trent, in 1593 Pope Clement VIII moved them to an appendix of the Vulgate where it was published in all official versions of the Vulgate until the Nova Vulgata was released in 1979 which omitted them. This begs the question, why were these books which it seems like apologists conveniently ignore while also defending the deuterocanonical books against being called apocrypha not included in the Catholic Church canon of scrupture. To be sure, the Protestant apocrypha in the KJV 1611 is listed as follows: 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) Tobit Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva) Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 - 16:24) Wisdom Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch) Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90) Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13) The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14) Prayer of Manasseh 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees All of these were included in Vulgate Bibles yet the Catholic Church accepts all of these except 1 and 2 Esdras and The Prayer of Mannaseh. Why were these not included? It seems an inconsistency. They were also included in the 1609 DRB in an appendix following Vol. 2 of the Old Testament. They are also used in liturgy. I believe completely that the deuterocanonicals belong in the Bible, ( in fact I sometimes wonder why we don't also accept the books of 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 which the Orthodox do and are historically in the Septuagint as well but that is for another day) but I do not understand why these three books are not in the canon. Catholics say that Protestants removed 7 books and additions to two books from the Bible but does this mean that Catholics also removed these three books since they are right there in the "apocrypha" and historical Vulgate as well?

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

What about the Douay Rheim's bible written 20 years before KJB had all 7 books , did not the Protestants remove them in 1825 ,yes , Douay Rheims is probably the best English bible out there .Protestants need to have this bible .

[@jas84173]

Yes it did it also had Prayer of Manasseh, 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras in an appendix as well which are not printed in Catholic Bibles since the Challoner Revision in 1750 along with many notes and tables( Most likely because the original was volume volumes and this was a way to reduce it to one volume ( I am not positive so don't quote me this is just my theory). I wish a publisher would reprint a facsimile of the original 1582/1609 DRB as the Challoner is great but it is not the original.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

In the 39 articles of the Anglican Church are listed the books of the Bible, with those in the protestant, Canon, listed as canonical, and those additional books, as being good for example of life and instruction, but not for establishment of doctrine. The criterion seems to be that the latter books were disputed, as indeed they were throughout church history. Augustine and Jerome differ on this, for example. I think the concern originally in the reformation was to give weight to those books which were undisputed. I do not think you are giving credit to the scholar. What he is pointing out is that there was disagreement about the canonicity of the apocryphal books, and it is not confined to Jerome and Augustine.

[@tonyl3762]

Didn't include any citations of Wisdom by Athanasius?? Why not? Such a relevant person to include! Many Protestants respect him like Augustine. And Wisdom was used a lot against Arianism.

[@randomandfoxgaming4138]

Is Wisdom a synonym of Holy Spirit?

[@yourboieb4477]

I think the Book of Wisdom can be confidently rejected as later imaginative writings that pull upon motifs from prior Messianic prophecies from actual Divine Revelation, and does an imaginative spin on them. This same argumentation is what Tim Staples used in the Catholic Answers video that was done on the "Book of Enoch" where one of Staples arguments against the Book of Enoch being Scripture is that he says it's clearly later reimaginations of motifs found in older and inspired texts (like Genesis and Leviticus) and making an imaginative story out of it. The same could be said of the Book of Wisdom; it's just a book that uses Messianic motifs from earlier books. Just use any arguments against Book of Enoch being Scripture, and apply those lines of reasonings against the Book of Wisdom, then it all clicks into place. All of this could explain why early Christians found it interesting, but didn't find it to be Scripture, in the same way the mentions of Christ by Tacitus or Josephus are interesting, but not obviously not Scripture. But also, you and St. Augustine of Hippo seem to contradict. You both seem to say it was highly disputed as Scripture, but also then you both say that they were universally held. Which one is it? The only way to reconcile this is to just say that the Book of Wisdom was good in helping people understand the faith, but not to be held as Scripture, like the way the Corinthians saw the Epistle of Clement. "But the Fathers quoted these books to make key arguments against heretics, so therefore that means they thought they were Scripture, otherwise their arguments using these quotations would mean nothing!". Simply not the case. You see Fathers quoting from Plato and other philosophers to make key points against heretics, but you don't see these Fathers treating of the works of these philosophers as Scripture.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

1. What prior Messianic prophecies would Wisdom be drawing from? 2. By this reasoning, is there ANYTHING prophetic that the Deuterocanon could say that would cause you to take it seriously as Scripture? Also, the acceptance of Wisdom was universal in the sense of all parts of the Church (East, West, Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.) and all ranks of the Church (bishops and theologians, ordinary believers, new Christians, etc.). But it's not universal in the sense that literally no one questioned it. That said, it seems to have been accepted overwhelmingly by the early Christians.

[@Levi-ht4st]

babe wakeup !! Joe Heshmeyer just posted!!

[@starshipchris4518]

Didn't the early Church also have a somewhat different view of canonicity? Like refering to the deuterocanon as Scripture, while not always including it on "canon" lists? I'm not arguing against their inclusion, being myself Catholic, but it's a nuance I've heard mentioned that some Protestants might miss.

[@shlamallama6433]

Gary Michuta talks avout this, but you've probably already watched him.

[@damnedmadman]

Many early Christians were Jewish, and IIRC among them the deuterocanonical books were disputed - that's probably why some Christians could be skeptical about them as well.

[@StoaoftheSouth]

@@damnedmadman That would assume that Jews at the time were a monolith. There were many kinds of Judaisms.

[@damnedmadman]

@@StoaoftheSouth I said they were disputed - I meant among the Jews of course.

[@StoaoftheSouth]

@@damnedmadman Gotcha

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The Book of Wisdom is in the Catholic bible and describes the evolution of idolatry better than any other book in the bible. I wish all Catholics would read this great book and apply it to their lives and to their religion. I think the Book of Wisdom should be included in the bible. It doesn't break canon at all. The Book of James, however....

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Jerome did not think the deutero-canonical books should be on a par with those written in Hebrew.

[@RexKochanski]

Jerome did accept the authority of the Pope and included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate Bible.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

@@RexKochanski That doesn’t mean that the books were not disputed or even that Jerome was wrong. The reformers also kept the deuterocanonical books in their Bibles, and thought that they were valuable for teaching on morals and practice. They just didn’t think that they should be used for important doctrinal questions.

[@iggyantioch]

​@@marilynmelzian7370 That is true . The first point is pretty weak. The Jews up to the latter half of the first century A.D., past the time of Christ, had no settled canon. And the Church has fulfilled the mantle of Israel, as the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied. While the Jews still have a particular role in God’s plan of salvation, that role doesn’t include setting the canon for Christian Bibles. The second point takes various forms. Sometimes, they’ll cut right to Jerome, while othertimes, the argument will be presented as if the speaker knows of someone prominent Church Father besides Jerome who felt this way. Occassionally, you’ll even hear that “the early Church” rejected these books, but that’s just untrue. In fact, if you read what Jerome actually says on the subject, you’ll quickly realize that he acknowledged his own view as (a) the minority view, (b) opposed to the Church’s view, and (c) possibly wrong, even sinfully so. The best evidence for this comes in his book Against Rufinus. Courtesy of Shameless Popery.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Why not? Because there’s no indication it used to be. The widespread claim of the definition of the Old Testament except for Melito of Sardes and the Bryennios list is to say « The Books translated by the Seventy Two interpretors » We have one list that includes Baruch and Deutero Daniel called the Kaige revision. None that include Wisdom of Solomon. The Bryennios list doesn’t include it and it’s copied in a codex with the earliest Christian documents like the Didache and 2 Clement « the names of the books from the Hebrews ». The Muratori Fragment lists it after distinguishing it from books not recognized in the church but that are « counted or are used » so not necessarily counted but merely used. And it’s the only one Clement used in his letter. Melito is not saying « Proverbs and Wisdom » he’s saying the Wisdom as a category that includes Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Which « the Wisdom of Solomon » is what the Jews at his time were calling Ecclesiastes. Ireneaus alwayse quotes Wisdom and goes « as scripture Also says. » meaning « scripture also says what it says we can quote from Wisdom of Solomon » you can check it’s a commun pattern.

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

In my Lutheran church we studied the Deurticanical book/Apochrypa. The version we had was more of King James English. I went back to reread Wisdom to see this prophecy of Jesus. I’m quite surprised we missed this passage referring to Jesus. Maybe because of the translation. Your modern English version made it much clearer. I was amazed. I really didn’t see anything in these extra books that contradicts anything in the Old or New Testaments. I don’t see a problem with having them in The Bible. But I do wonder if Messianic Jews/Christian Jews would include them in their Hebrew Bibles. I would trust them to know what books should be in the preNew Testament Bible.

[@John_Fisher]

I don't know much about the Messianic Jewish movement. Does it have a history going back to Jews that converted in the 1st century and maintained something of that identity? Or is it composed mainly Jewish people from later in history converting from Rabbinic Judaism? In which case I'd wonder how much any of their later tradition reflects what was understood as inspired Scripture at and before the time of Jesus. Even so, given the diverse and conflicting understanding of Scripture within Judaism prior to the 1st century, I might give more weight to Apostolic interpretation of what is Scripture rather than that of post-Jesus Jews determining what is Scripture in light of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.

[@ImMyBeloveds_HeIsMine]

Messianic Judaism is considered the complete faith. It combines ONLY the torah (not anything else as far as rabbinic commentary; although they use it for historical references because i5 isn't inspired work by the Holy Spirit). FYI, there is a rich history of Jewish believers which was the original 1st century church before a widespread adoption by gentiles and Constantine/ Council of Nicea. Albeit a remnant survived with letters and documents and most moved to Europe and to North America whilst some are in Israel. However, they are not following rabbinic judaism, talmudic because again it is not inspired and most of which contradicts the Jewish writers of the new testament canon. They do however adopt a traditional approach similar to what catholics do and speak/ sing liturgy, wear tzitzit, observe feast days, take communion, etc. Tikvat congregation in North America is one of those such places and there is Beth Yeshua International in Georgia. All of which welcome Gentile and Jew to worship and be together, one in Jesus.

[@ImMyBeloveds_HeIsMine]

Also One for Israel is a good starting point if you want to know more :)

[@mikelopez8564]

@@John_Fishermessianic Jews are Protestants and their denomination began mid 20th century. Claims to being a remnant from the first century are unfounded. Being Protestant, they tend to pinpoint Constantine and the council of Nicaea as person and event that sent Christianity to ruin, except of course for their adherents, which again, did not exist til the 20th century

[@bernardauberson7218]

Les protestants dans leur ensemble, devraient savoir que c’est l’Eglise qui leur a donné la Sainte Bible. De plus , les premiers chrétiens utilisaient la 70, écrite en grec jusqu’à la fin du siècle et même après . Un exemple m’a frappé en lisant Exode 40, 34 et ss : l’archange Gabriel, dans sa salutation, st. Luc 1, 35, utilise les mêmes termes : « l’Esprit Saint descendra sur toi, et la vertu du Très Haut te couvrira! » Pourquoi cette Mariophobie des protestants ? Pourquoi ne peuvent- t-ils pas saluer la Mère du Sauveur comme tous les autres chrétiens ? Ils vont se retrouver devant une porte fermée sans plus pouvoir entrer! Car la Mère de Dieu est toujours à la droite de Son Fils, le Christ !

[@mil-ns3rc]

There are many gospels that didn't make it into the New Testament

[@mil-ns3rc]

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs History proven by archeological, and yes some are stories to prove a point

[@thinthest6832]

Are there "Missing" books of the Bible. Books that if found would be included in the Bible, but because we don't have them they arnt?

[@StoaoftheSouth]

No.

[@joseph2941]

Judge for yourself en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

INCORRECT! John 5:18 tells us 2 things about Jesus. Notice that its NOT telling us that these were the things that people were thinking but he is speaking in the narrative: John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. We're stuck with that verse. We cannot wave it away with a trick. Jesus broke the Sabbath and Jesus called God His Father, making Himself equal with God. These are not erroneous perceptions, these are the words of the narrator. Yes, Jesus healed on the Sabbath but Jesus also harvested on the Sabbath. These are functional violations of the Law.

[@paul_321]

Wouldn’t the Protestants want the book of Enoch and Jasher by their own standards?

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

Psalm 22:16-19. Foirtold the death of Jesus Christ, centuries in advance.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The Book of James comes out and quotes a passage of "scripture" that NOBODY knows where it came from. James 4:5 - Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? That's not enough to boot the Book of James out of the bible, even though its theology is dubious.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Along about 21:00 into the video you misquoted Romans 3:20-23. You meant to cite Romans 6:20-23. Rom. 6:20-23 - For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. I see that one other commenter caught that too. That shows how many people are listening to these videos who know their bible.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

One of the problems with the Book of Wisdom is that it only exists in Greek and not in Hebrew. It claims to be written by Solomon but that's obviously not the case. The reason it is rejected is not on canonical grounds but on authorship grounds. It was not written by the one who claims to have written it. Honestly, the Book of Wisdom is the greatest anti-idolatry book of the bible. It describes the evolution of an idol. Catholics should not only read but also observe the warnings this great book gives. I hear the claim, "We wrote the bible" a lot in my dealings with Catholics. Okay, then why don't you live by it?

[@cribedadabecri5764]

Knockout, brothers protestants: the book of Wisdom is revealed.

[@hglundahl]

53:38 I disagree. Perhaps _Sanhedrin_ of Jamnia is a better term, but the fact remains, it existed. Now, the fact also remains that some _Catholic_ Apologists (Sister Catharina Bromée, Sweden) cite it as when Judaism ditched Deutero-Canon. It may be true that Judaism had ditched these even before, and they didn't get up there though. I heard that the other day. Or it could be the LXX as such they ditched. I read in a Catholic Apologetics book (Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, 1920, I think), that the LXX day had originally been a "dies fastus" a celebration of God's good deeds, and had then become (not sure when, could be Jamnia), a "dies nefastus" comparable to day of Temple Destruction or things ... Nevertheless, the council of Jamnia was no longer the "circumcision" of which St. Paul talked in Romans 3:2. God did not confide His oracles to the Council of Jamnia. The heirs of this "Circumcision" is early Christians starting their lives as Second Temple Jews. That point was made clear by Sister Bromée, those guys were Anti-Christians. When Second Temple Judaism was split up into Christianity and a few decades _later_ what we call Judaism, they ended up with different OT canons. Trying to side with the Antichristian Jewish canon is one of the hallmarks of Protestantism not being the real thing in Christianity.

[@hglundahl]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my _"Both have condemned your view as heretical."_ When? What view "of mine"? Have you even read what I actually wrote? Or were you so satisfied discussing me with guys without reading me that you picked out a few words and then ran off to answer? If I had said "the Sanhedrin of Yamnia had authority from God" -- that certainly would have been heretical. But I didn't. I said on the contrary that Protestants are wrong to accept it as if it had that. What _exact_ words of mine have so ticked you off that you hysterically go off to try to stamp me as a heretic without even checking what I say?

[@hglundahl]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my A perhaps educated guess. Putin's pal Kirill and _your_ "Pope" Francis collude between them to stamp Young Earth Creationism as: * Judaising * Protestantising * therefore Heretical among the minority in either camp that still cares about Orthodoxy. When I say "stamp as" I don't mean make cathedral directions condemnations. That's exactly what such guys would want to avoid. So far they have been content with and successful in spreading urban legends against Young Earth Creationism, and some guys like you gob them up. Dito with sticking to licitness and honourability of teen marriages. BOTH prefer the views of Lenin, who in his tyranny over Russia raised marital age from 15/13 to 18/18. Again, they are _not drawing attention to this_ by changing the Church laws which now says 16/14. And previously said 14/12. Again, some guys like you gob them up.

[@hglundahl]

That's not my position, nincompoop@@CatholicDefender-bp7my ! If you had read through my comment, you would have seen I precisely argued _against_ 66 books. Can one mention what one argues against, without being on trial for arguing for it? Not with you around!

[@hglundahl]

Happens@@CatholicDefender-bp7my !

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

Who wrote the Book of Wisdom...Is it Joe Hesechemeyer?😅

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

1;01:11 long sermon about an event that is revealed in the Bible in less than a minute...The Book of Psalms in the OT foretold the death of Jesus Christ, long before Jesus was born... Read Psalm 22:16-19. Also, the Jews didn't kill Jesus Christ, neither did the Romans". Our sins killed Jesus Christ, We all killed Jesus Christ because we all have sinned. The Jews and the Romans killed Jesus on behalf of all humanity. That's the reason Jesus became a man. As a spirit being Jesus wasn't subject to death, but once he took on flesh he became subject to death like all of us.

[@Teachmetobehumble]

Not for you.. simple..😢

[@Teachmetobehumble]

Added note.. click not recommend

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

Read what God's 2nd Commandment in Exodus 20:4 says,? Then, Compare God's 2nd Commandment with the Catholic church's 2nd Commandment...Then ask the likes of Joe Heschmeyer by whose authority did the Catholic church change the 2nd Commandment of God and did exactly the opposite of what God commanded his people not to do.

[@brendagula6290]

The reason why the Apocrypha is not in the Protestant but Les is for good reason. There are contradictions in the Apocrypha with the Bible. Also the way the books of the Bible were chosen follow certain rules like they were either written by the apostles, someone who was close to the apostles, etc. well the Apocrypha doesn't meet these requirements so while they can serve as history books they are not considered God inspired so if the Apocrypha contradicts the Bible, then it's obvious these books should not be considered canon of Scripture. Just like historians who wrote about Jesus or people who have written Christians books which some are real Christians and some are not. Should we include them in canon of Scripture? No! If anything contradicts scripture, that should be a red flag for anyone and that's the problem with many of the Catholic doctrines, they are not Biblical. The same way with Calvanism, it is not Biblical but one needs to know their Bible in order to have discernment

[@cruznature7545]

It's safer to say Protestants took it out because it didn't fit their narrative.

[@bourbonrebel5515]

So what about the Book of Hebrews? No one knows who wrote it I’m pretty sure.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

Does the Book of Wisdom reveal the Third Secret? 😂

[@johannaprice4880]

Talk about scienrific😊

[@johannaprice4880]

Jesus came not to abolish the law.😊

[@prophet6154]

🎉 let's just say I grew up Protestant so I have a judeo-christian background and upbringing but my beef with anything Catholic is because I don't believe it's the true church the true church is fearful and it will be Catholic and Baptist and Protestants and Messianic Jews who has the right to say what we can or cannot read volume self even said there would be false prophets and believe that some people get saved by the soft profits because they are introduced to God is there any on their own personal Quest For Truth I have the complete 54 book apocrypha an undetermined some of them may not be legitimate but considering we've been lied to about so much if not everything know what you say doesn't prove the Catholic Church isn't lying to just like the Protestant you claim are lying play peace to you my brother. And to add, traditions and opinions vary and reign supreme when it conra to belief, so ... Is it man you are saved or thru faith in, Jesus christ as the promised messiah or by some church father... Christ is the only church father i know and trust. No6 some or any pope. No one speaks for God but God, unto the spirit of a man. Its spiritual not physical.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

King David predicted the death of Jesus Christ by God's divine inspiration many centuries before Jesus was born. Psalm 22... The prediction and the fulfilment of the divine prophecy couldn't be clearer. "God never inspire dates and years". Let's read the prediction and the fulfilment as inspired by God in Psalm 22 {from the Protestant Bible}"...It doesn't take over one hour for the truth to be revealed. It only takes 10 minutes. "Too much babbling only leads to lies and confusion". The prediction: From the Old Testament: Psalm 22: 16-18 16. Dogs surround me a pack of villains encircle me; They pearce my hands and feet. 17. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat at me. 18. they divided my clothes among them, and for my garment they cast lots. Psalm 22:16-18 "The Fulfilment in the New Testament: John 19:23-24 23. When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, divided them into 4 shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless woven in one piece from top to bottom. 24. Let's not tear it, said one to another, let's decide by lots who will get it. This happened, that the scripture might be fulfilled, That said. They divided my clothes among them, And cast lots for my garment. John 19:23-24... Note...That prediction is easy to understand, but many other Biblical messages from God were inspired in Codes, to make it harder for the unbelievers to understand...

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

I disagree withyour argument. You can accurately prophesy and not be Scripture. Enoch is referenced in Jude as accurately prophesying and is not Scripture.

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

The part Jude quotes from Enoch isn’t a prophesy. The part of Enoch is describing an event that already happened (the dispute over Moses’ body after his death). Enoch cites it as a historically true event. Prophesy is when something is described that is to happen in the future, which Wisdom 2 does with pretty good precision.

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

@@Vaughndaleoulaw The prophecy is "Look! The Lord comes with thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment on all". This is from Enoch. I am Catholic and think Wisdom is Scripture but this argument doesn't prove it.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

The Holy Bible disagrees with everything that Joe is saying...The so-called book of wisdom isn't from God, that's why it's so confusing. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 14:33...Joe Heschemeyer is the author of confusion.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

The Pharassess and the Sadducees are carbon copies of the Catholics... 1} Why did Jesus always claim that God was his Father, but he never claimed that Mary was his Mother? 2} Why did Jesus always call Mary by her gender a "WOMAN" John 19:26 and John 2:4. 3} When Jesus was told that his Mother was waiting outside to speak to him, why did Jesus ask "Who is my Mother"? Matt 12:48. 4} Jesus said. "No one has ascended to heaven except the one who descended from heaven-the Son of Man" John 3:13... So how does the Catholic church know, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. When Jesus confirmed that Mary wasn't in heaven.? 5} How can Mary possibly be the mother of Jesus, when 3000 years before Mary was born, Jesus was with Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness? 1 Cor 10:1-4. and 1 Cor 10:9.? 6} Jesus was the Son of God, If Mary was Jesus Mother, was Mary the wife of God and not God's mother? Mary never said that she was the mother of Jesus either. What the Biblical Mary said was. "My Spirit rejoices in God my Saviour" Luke 1:47...And who is the saviour of the Protestants and the Biblical Mary? Jesus Christ, that's who... {I have many more such questions but what's the point...I know the answers anyway since I'm no longer a Catholic}.

[@abrahamphilip6439]

There is no need for a book that fortold the death of Christ, for he himself told the Apostles of his death to which Peter said "I will not let it happen" on which Jesus said "Get thee behind me Satan" later Satan followed up the words he spoke through Peter by giving a dream to Pilates wife who told Pilate "Have nothing to do with that man" which led to Pilate washing his hands & asking the crowd "Barbabas or Jesus " expecting that the people would ask for the release of Jesus, but the People said "Crucify Christ" Man, instead of speculating like do the Protestants give some revelations,

[@djo-dji6018]

You missed the whole point of the video.

[@Ezekiel336-16]

Jesus foretold His own death and resurrection at least twice in the New Testament, so any so-called "lost book" adds nothing to that at all. Taking over an hour to listen to something that might try to contradict that and make the canon of Scripture seem incomplete or invalid is not worth listening to for over an hour. In Christ, Andrew

[@StanleyPinchak]

Translation: I am so unconvinced in my protestant faith that I don't dare listen to something that may challenge it.

[@Ezekiel336-16]

@@StanleyPinchak No, I'm so convinced in my biblical Catholicism that I'm not going to spend over an hour of my time on a video that has a title making it seem like the Scriptures shouldn't be closed and there was a book that should've been in there but wasn't. Any Catholic worth their salt believes that too. There aren't any lost books that should've made it into the canon. Revelation is closed, we have everything we need! In Christ, Andrew

[@StanleyPinchak]

@@Ezekiel336-16 I think your reaction is exactly what Joe was looking for. It is a fine line between garnering interest and gathering haters. As a Catholic you should know that Wisdom is canonical. The video title is a bit provocative, but only from a protestant prospective. Wisdom is listed as canonical at the 4th century regional councils of Carthage and Rome and the Ecumenical council of Florence as well as at the counter-Reformation council of Trent. It wasn't even removed from the protestant bibles until the mid 1800s. Considering that the formation of Canon can be a great opportunity to plant a seed of truth in those oppressed by the spirit of "sola scriptura" I think it is important to have ammunition to back up the Canon of the Church against the special feelings basis for the canon of the protestants.

[@Ezekiel336-16]

@@StanleyPinchak The thumbnail and related title about there being "a lost book" in the Bible don't give any reference at all to the Book of Wisdom, which is one of my favorites! Given that, such dishonest clickbait is not appreciated anymore than your comment is about me having a protestant repulsion to something that isn't even there (the non-existent reference to the Book of Wisdom). So, as a Bible believing Catholic who knows we are not supposed to add or subtract from Scripture, what I said about the thumbnail and related title is completely valid. I hope you are honest enough to see and recognize that, instead of unjustly judging me based on false information. In Christ, Andrew

[@Ezekiel336-16]

@CatholicDefender-bp7my If you actually read one or more of the comments I made then you would realize I am Catholic and not denying any truth in the 73 books of Sacred Scripture.

[@Phill0old]

Let's frame the question in proper terms. Were all those books deemed to be of the same rank? No, they were not. They, the secondary works, are never used to establish doctrine in the early church. They were secondary. So nobody "added them" and so they weren't in the canon to remove. That's a Roman Catholic deception. Look at who has the first dogmatic canon and who had the last. The RC has the last. They didn't even define the canon so to claim anyone did anything to it when they hadn't said what it was 😂😂😂😂😂

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

Phil, are you familiar with the Third Council of Carthage, or the canonical lists offered by people like St. Augustine? Are you familiar with the Ecumenical Council of Florence? Please read up a little before you spread these falsehoods. These books were regularly used in the early Church in defending doctrine - it's simply a myth that they weren't.

[@Phill0old]

@@JosephHeschmeyer Do you think that what you just did will work? Picking and choosing Councils achieves nothing and it doesn't address the actual issue. Being used in argument as supporting isn't the same as being definitional. I might quote a hymn or the writing of the Fathers support but the Canon is the Canon and everything else isn't that. If you think the church adopted the Apocrypha as Canon tell me when they did so and that will end your argument.

[@alonsoACR]

​@@Phill0oldHe just told you. Wisdom was always scripture. Just watch the video

[@Phill0old]

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs I'm basing my opinion on history and facts. You are basing yours on?

[@Phill0old]

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs No rash judgement on my part. The RCC didn't dogmatically define the Canon until after everyone else had done so. That's a fact. So for them to claim that books were removed from a canon that didn't exist is laughable.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Is he really telling people they are NOT WORKING BY TRYING TO BE PERFECT. This is hypocrisy. There is none good but God. So trying to work to perfection is literally him saying YOU CAN BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH through your own works. Pride. You are saying you are STRONGER than Samson, WISER than Solomon, MEEKER than Moses, More after God's heart than David, more RIGHTEOUS than Job, and more fine than John the Baptist if you believe you are able to work to perfection. Only Jesus Christ is PERFECT! Salvation has NOTHING to do with your works. You already fell short. Jesus Christ paid it all. Read Acts 15. Read Romans 10. Their righteousness is of ME SAITH THE LORD. Jesus Christ clothes you with his Perfect righteousness. By ONE OFFERING HE HAS PERFECTED FOREVER THOSE WHO ARE SANCTIFIED. "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."- Hebrews chapter 10 verses 9 to 10. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqvMi5dtiMufi6M

[@markskojec863]

It would be awesome if you took the time to study and understand the actual Catholic teaching, so you could argue against that if you want and not the false but common Protestant parody of it. I mean…I’m almost certain you won’t bother to educate yourself - but it would be fantastic if you did.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

@@markskojec863 What have I done? I believe, I believe, I believe, sound familiar? Notice no mention of works or repent of sins or purgatory in the nicene creed to weed out heretics?? You don't believe it. I gave you scripture. You say PERFECTED FOREVER BY ONE OFFERING is too clear for you? Shall not come into condemnation? Are they too clear? The BIBLE tells you of SIMPLICITY IN CHRIST. What must you do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved!

[@IprevailXIV]

@@markskojec863​​⁠​⁠​⁠ I agree and think this same grace should be given to other Christians also. I was on board for most of the video other than the cheap shot at Joseph Smith and the obvious lack of understanding there.

[@markskojec863]

@@IprevailXIV - What specifically did he say about Joseph Smith which you think is an obvious cheap shot that displayed a lack of understanding?

[@markskojec863]

@@IprevailXIV - Grace should be given to non-Christians as well, but in this case: 1) Joe said Joseph Smith died in a jail break guns blazing. That is entirely accurate. You probably object to “jail break” since he was attempting to flee a mob that wanted to kill him - without realizing that provides a perfect contrast to how Jesus reacted to those who wanted to kill Him. 2). My guess based on your comment is you are a LDS who wrongly believes himself to be a Christian. LDS is Christian in exactly the same way a man with XY chromosomes and male body parts is a woman simply by proclaiming it. In other words - you aren’t, it’s only a delusion you are suffering from. As a quick litmus test - Actual Christians can affirm their belief in the Nicene Creed…that covers Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestants. Pretend Christian’s are those who do not believe the Nicene Creed but falsely claim to be Christians anyway. If I’m correct and you are LDS, I strongly encourage you to leave that false church and join the actual Christian faith. Ideally Catholic, but frankly any church which affirms the Nicene Creed is more appropriate than where you are currently.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

There is no such thing as the protestant Bible, there's only the Holy Bible. Then there are two false Bibles that I know of. The Jehovah's Witnesses World Wide Translation, "NWT" and the Catholic Bible. Both Copies are false". The "NWT" added doctrines that are not inspired by God, and at the same time removed doctrines that were inspired by God, just as the Catholics removed God's Second Commandment as in Deut 5:8-9. which condemns idolatry. The Catholic Church is even worse, they added 7 books that are not inspired by God Changed the last day of the week which is Saturday that God blessed and made holy, to Sunday which is neither blessed nor holy, then the Catholic Church has the nerve to call every pagan doctrine and traditions they practice holy.

[@RexKochanski]

No, Catholics did not "remove God's 2nd commandment." You are quite wrong.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@RexKochanski Read Deut 5:8-9 "KJV" and see what God 2nd commandment says". Then compare Deut 5:8-9, to the 2nd Commandment in the pagan Catholic church. God's 2nd commandment totally forbids all kinds of idolatry. The pagan Catholic church removed the 2nd Commandment of God, then split the 9th commandment into two, to give a false impression of God's Ten Commandments. The Catholic church shunned God's 2nd commandment and polluted its church with all kinds of idols, and also Shunned God's 4th commandment and changed the Sabbath which is Saturday the day Which God blessed and sanctified, Gen 2:3. "KJV" and changed Saturday to Sunday, the day the pagans worshipped the Sun.

[@RexKochanski]

And how do you know that any particular numbering of commandments is correct if you hold ton the false man made doctrine of sola scriptura? Don't bother to answer, it is a rhetorical question; but you might at least thank Catholic monks for copying the Bible for you.

[@annairwin8147]

PLEASE…you aren’t spreading the Gospel of Jesus..there is NO such thing as purgatory…the Pope is JUST a man and not a very good one…Mary had children AFTER Christ and you can’t pray anyone into heaven..WE are saved by the BLOOD of JESUS and HE alone

[@mytestimonytojesuschrist]

Repent

[@fantasia55]

too much gibberish in one comment for a reply

[@fantasia55]

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs Anna is Pope of her own religion, hence the gibberish.

[@nellyblancaflor5559]

Protestants are their own Popes. They are the arbiter of the truth😂

[@johannaprice4880]

Blinded by the light