Why 7 "Extra" Books of the Catholic Bible? Deuterocanonical Apologetics with Dr Taylor Marshall

[@dianesicgala4310]

Brought up in the Anglican Church in England. Actually up until the about the 1830’s The King James Bible had those 7 extra books in the Old Testament. My dear grandmother had this very old bible that had these extra books in her old bible. She was born in 1877. Wish I had that bible I was living in Northeastern Pa. when she died. Did not have the money to fly back to England when she died. I converted to the Catholic Church living in the U.S.

[@mikelopez8564]

Most Protestants had the deuterocanon until early 1800’s when the British and Foreign Bible Society dropped them from the Bible’s they were printing. The KJV began excluding them in the 1700’s but continued to include references to them in the footnotes.

[@sylviajantjies8700]

Where can i buy a Catholic bible

[@tommcconville677]

This was the King James Bible that my grandmother Grace's father, Joseph Johnson might have read, being an Anglican Episcopalian. His father, who emigrated from London, may have read this earlier version of the King James containing the Deuterocanicals as well.

[@tommcconville677]

It's the Bible my great grandfather Joseph Johnson had, the seven Deuterocanonical books included, as he was an Anglican Episcopalian.

[@tommcconville677]

​@@sylviajantjies8700Go to Barnes and Noble and you'll find one.

[@corettaha7855]

Not a Catholic but have never been satisfied with explanations offered on why we don’t honor these books. This was very helpful and enlightening. Thank you.

[@nosuchthing8]

I'm a lasped Catholic and not very religious. I can argue all day long at the issues with the RCC, especially their mistreatment of children. That being said it's hard to see how any truth can come from a neutered bible that the protestants worship.

[@raymack8767]

@@nosuchthing8 Protestants actually don't worship their Bibles as it's more along the lines of they worship their own interpretations of it.

[@nosuchthing8]

@@raymack8767 haha. Beautiful!

[@saigie3908]

@@raymack8767 As a Protestant teen (or non denom) this comment was unnecessary as it includes generalization, pride, and self righteousness. I am looking to educate myself more on the other branches and do research on topics like the acrophya & etc. But seeing comments like these just creates unnecessary division & sterotypes. It’s giving me the same energy as the ignorant Protestants who believe Catholics aren’t Christians

[@raymack8767]

@@saigie3908 Wake up.. 180 degrees off. You've made up your miind, and in your heart you think yourself that captain of your own ship and want to attack me, try and make me the bad guy, to give you an excuse to go and do your own thing, but it will be you doing it. The generalizations, pride, and self-righteousness comes from those adhering to Sola Scriptura, each telling themselves they know the inrerpretation for this scripture, that one, another one, and yet another one, on and on.Ine person in a denomination says "I know the interpretation for all of these scriptures", anothrr says "No, I know the interpretation", and on and on until you have 30k protestant denominations, which is where the divisom comes in, and the pride that Luthrr, Zwingli, and Calvin and others had and have. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, not the 30k so-called churches. St. Paul said there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus gave the steps necessary for church discipline concerning those who sin and either refuse to repent or do. To those who keep refusing, Jesus said let the church ultimately decide the matter, so there is a church. Jesus founded one church, not 30k churches and it a isn't protestant. Martin Luther laid the groundwork for forensic justification, concocting a scheme whereby the "faith" that justifies and saves apart from the works of the law, per Romans 4, could be divorced from the "works" of James 2. But James 2 never mentions the works of the law but mentions showing love, and tangibly so, for one could say they had the faith that saves but what good was it without works? Notice James in chapter 2 never says faith without works is a faith that is still alive, and since something can't die unless it was first alive, the faith that one says they have that saves can die without works. To Luther, as he told his friend Melancthon, one could fornicate 1,000 times per day yet if truly saved they would not lose their salvation. St. Paul though, writing to the Corinthians, Galatians, and others said that the ones thereiin he said who were in Chrust, the elect, saved, etc, would not inherit the Kingdom of God if they committed sins such as he listed. He didn't say that these, if they sinned these sins while not saved/born again and didn't get saved, then they would not inherit the Kingdom of God, but in his writings spoke to those who were already saved; it's axiomatic the unsaved who commit these sins are lost already. Protestants R.C. Sproul, James White, John Piper, and others can say that when God looks at us, still supposedly intrinsically sinful, He sees only Christ because our sinfulness has been imputed to Him and His righteousness has been imputed to us and thus all of our sins past, present, and future are forgiven. But this is torpedoed by 1 John 1:8-10 which says "we" (St. John includes himself) are forgiven of sin after we confess them, so the sins present and future we commit aren't forgiven until we confess, thus no forensic justification, so this is, along with James 2, is another strike against the Protestant Defamation.

[@vanessagarcia7515]

My friend is shocked and is now “meeting with her pastor to ask this question” I am glad I planted the seed

[@HillbillyBlack]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) and the Nevi'im - (Prophets) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.

[@COMPNOR]

@@HillbillyBlackgive it up, Protty

[@xtusvincit5230]

The question isnt about extra books, but why Protestants erased 7 books from the Bible.

[@joan9569]

Joey Suggs: Correct. :)

[@xtusvincit5230]

@@lcringo3498 The Protestants erased them from their Bibles. The point is that these books were not added. They were subtracted by the Jews and by the Protestants.

[@JeOrtiz1]

Obviously Martin Luther erased the 7 books because it didn't support his teachings and therefore this passed on to all other protestants.

[@TheNaKio]

I was a about to ask the correct question but you did it first.

[@eliflores8438]

You are mistaken in stating Luther “removed” those books. They are found in the Bible Luther translated to German. Because they are found in the ancient Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text, they were placed between the Old and New Testaments. (1534) Do the research! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of FACT, when Jerome, commissioned by Pope Damasus and the Roman Church in 382, completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate in 405, he specifically stated; “just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, BUT DOES NOT receive them among the CANONICAL Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, BUT NOT FOR CONFIRMING the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was the roman church that first “ERASED” those books! Until the Vulgate was “Revised” by Clement VIII in 1592, again in 1593, and again in 1598. The Clementine Vulgate of 1598 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church until 1979, then it was the Nova Vulgata. To this day there are more than 20 “catholic” VERSIONS of the Bible. All differ in one way or another. Which one is correct? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18:2

[@fionafairechild6272]

You guys are rocking it now! Looking so forward to your next several shows!

[@ourlifeinwyoming4654]

Studying history makes everything so clear. Memorizing scriptural snippets to attack Catholics leaves one empty inside.

[@HillbillyBlack]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) and the Nevi'im - (Prophets) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.

[@COMPNOR]

@@HillbillyBlacklol literally proving the point you were responding to. What a muppet 😂😂

[@stpaulphillip]

@@HillbillyBlack🙄😒

[@NoahSteckley]

Haha, it’s as if, perhaps, true understanding of truth beats neurotic, law, group based thinking. Seems to me like many people just moved the goal posts and continued to be pharisees.

[@johnhorcher2120]

@@HillbillyBlack You have a good point, but I want to pose a hypothetical. Imagine that in another 500 years, another Reformation happens and somebody removes the Nevi'im (I understand that's ridiculous). Then their followers look back and say, "You Protestants and Catholics affirm the Pentateuch but where does the Nevi'im come from? Nowhere else in scripture are there Prophets." And from their perspective, the Nevi'im is indeed unprecedented. Now back to reality and to your much more reasonable comment. What if the Deuterocanonical books were just a third type of unprecedented to you in the same way that they would have been unprecedented to that other guy in my hypothetical example?

[@ceeshanks8319]

Thanks Dr. Marshall. I really do appreciate these videos. I'm eager to know more about my faith so that I'm able to defend my positions when occasions arise. I admire your love for mother church. Godspeed!

[@susannebrule3160]

Me to.

[@mulehedeogracious1353]

Protestant versions are too late to convince us about these books 1500 years to long a time for correction it's protestants who are wrong Martin 6letters, Luther 6 letters, Calvin 6 so this is 666 check what it means

[@voltape]

thanks, Dr Marshall - your exposition is very enlightening - the Deuterocanonicals are marvellous books- I loved the Bible by reading first Tobias

[@elizabethannpesco9781]

Thank you for this most informative video Dr. Marshall. God bless you

[@mj6493]

Maybe others have already mentioned this, but it's not exactly accurate to say that Luther removed 7 books from the Bible. He included the Deuterocanonical books in his German translation. So did the early Calvinists and even the Anabaptists. The issue is how we regard these books. Informed Protestants find these books helpful and, like Luther, encourage their continued reading. In some Protestant churches they are still read along with the Old Testament lessons (mostly Anglican and Lutheran). Protestant churches will also use canticles sourced from these books. To this day you will still find them included in the modern version of Luther's Bible and Bible translations in other predominantly Lutheran countries. Granted, many American Protestants are unfamiliar with the Deuterocanonical books, but this is a more recent phenomena due largely to publishers omitting these books from modern American translations. The issue, then, is whether or not these books should be utilized as a source for establishing doctrine. That's where the Protestant/Catholic divide on these 7 books is more evident. Protestants look at the "Deutero-" nature of the books and say they should not be used to establish doctrine. Catholics look more to the "-canonical" side of the equation and say yes they should. Thanks for a well done video, Dr. Marshall.

[@anthonylogiudice9215]

Luther inserted the Deuterocanonical books between the Old and New Testament. He added a cover page stating that these books are helpful and edifying for the reader but they should not be considered Scripture. Many modern protestant bibles don't carry this section in any form.

[@mj6493]

​@@anthonylogiudice9215 Yes. It's significant, though, that many Protestants do still use bibles that include the deuterocanonical books. In the United States, German Lutherans continued to use bibles that included the deuterocanonical books well into the 20th century. These books only began to go out of usage as they transitioned from German to English. I'm not sure Scandinavian Lutherans ever stopped using the deuterocanonical books. I have a Swedish bible from the early 20th century published in Chicago that includes these books. I also have a modern Swedish bible published by Verbum AB in Stockholm. It includes the deuterocanonical books too. Among Episcopalians/Anglicans it's easy to find bibles that include them, usually published by Oxford or Cambridge. So the idea that there is a "Catholic" bible and a "Protestant" bible that divide sharply on the issue of the deuterocanonical books is overstated. Granted, there are differences in usage that can be noted. And, of course, there are groups of Protestants who do not use these books at all.

[@justaguy328]

I've been a protestant, and I have literally never seen another protestant ever use those books in any way so i don't know what you're going on about.

[@mj6493]

@@justaguy328 As I said, there are Protestant groups that don’t use the Deuterocanonical books at all. Don’t misunderstand me. Those that don’t use these books is a sizable group of American Protestantism. My point, though, is that some do and we shouldn’t ignore that fact.

[@leeinermunoz6129]

This is so helpful! thank you! Protestant barely learning about this!

[@ericascottsthoughts5306]

Where are the “notes” that show the 70 places the apostles use the deuterocanonical books? That would be very handy to have saved for Protestants who challenge me.

[@thecrusaderofchrist]

I've been looking for them for more than one day I'm dead serious and I CANT FIND IT😭

[@lovely8864]

Erica Scott's great question I thought he would specify that important argument.

[@shellieperreault6262]

You can't find it because it doesn't exist.

[@raymack8767]

● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14 ● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30 ● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16 ● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16 ● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7 ● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59 ● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7 ● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13 ● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9 ● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26 ● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7 Far from all but enough.

[@ericascottsthoughts5306]

@@raymack8767 thank you!

[@davidnix5211]

This is a great channel. Thank you for explaining this

[@joan9569]

I remembered "7 books, & parts of 2 others". Thanks for the refresher. :)

[@timtaps77]

Excellent presentation dr. Thank you. Pax

[@timtaps77]

william cloud I notice you have three followers. Did you call your dad Father? You are not only wrong you are completely ignoring that Martin Luther created your faith 1517 years after Jesus rose from dead. And the other 40,000 + protesting faiths were created in the past 500 years. Some even in our lifetime. This is just as bad as Joseph Smith creating mormonism circa 1820. Mohamed created Islam only 600 years after Jesus Christ walked the earth. I know our history and I know you are wrong. Pax. Via Veritas Vita

[@timtaps77]

william cloud. Pray-tell... What is YOUR religion?

[@timtaps77]

william cloud here’s what I think. You mention you have a few assignments here on earth and I came up, and that you wanted me to watch your film. If you were truly here sent by God you wouldn’t try to influence me on the internet you would have appeared to me face to face. AND if you were truly doing God’s work you wouldn’t have made a low budget film in Canada (because it’s cheaper to film there than in Hollywood) that you are now hawking online for your worldly benefit. You are a fraud and a cheat. You are doing the work of the devil not of God. You are sewing division just like these bad bishops cardinals and priests. I say to you, get behind me satan. Stay off my page you deceitful troll. I don’t believe you and there is nothing you can sling that will turn me away from Jesus Christ. Piss off devil.

[@timtaps77]

william cloud YOU ARE DELUSIONAL! And you are preying on people who need healing! You sir are NOT a Godsend. You are a mental case! Stay off my comments! If you were real you wouldn’t be trolling the internet you moron! You would meet people face to face. Hmmm. Maybe you are Joseph Smith reincarnated and still influenced by beelzebub? Go away! Get behind me satan! If there is any hope for you may the Lord Jesus Christ drive all the unclean spirits from your body and send them to the deep. Until then please, Stay off my page! TY

[@borneandayak6725]

The right question is : why protestant kick out 7 books from the Bible.

[@Julius064]

True but you have to keep things really idk how to put it, gently to get them to listen.

[@ilonkastille2993]

Puruan Langit because Luther decided that those books would contradict his heretical teachings. Apparently he wanted more books out of there, for instance the book of James which contradicts his idea of Sola Scriptura (faith alone) .

[@alexkrakowski8597]

Ilonka Stille I think you mean Sola Fide.

[@ilonkastille2993]

@@alexkrakowski8597 sorry for the mistake. you are right. I wrote "James contradicts the idea of Sola Scriptura "which means Scripture alone, not Faith Alone. Faith alone is Sola Fide. Thank you for correcting me.

[@alexkrakowski8597]

Ilonka Stille no problem brother. The Bible contradicts all Protestant “theology”.

[@cliffbarber1642]

Excellent explanation! Many thanks! I love these books especially Sirach but recently Tobit. I love the Catholic Church and that we can trace the history of the things in the way you described.

[@loganross1861]

I recently started reading the apocrypha and was like 😯 this is great, why would this ever get removed. I walked in and showed a passage to my in laws and wife thinking they’d be like “wow yeah that’s awesome!” But instead I’m sitting here now after an epically tense uncomfortable and weird interaction like “wow that was a bad idea”.

[@jendoe9436]

Oaf, sorry to hear that. It can be tough trying to explain something to those who don’t listen, but don’t let that stop ya from trying anyway 😁 Personally, the book of Tobit is one of my favorites and the prayer Tobias and Sarah do together is going to definitely be part of my wedding scripture.

[@wms72]

Pray for them. It's a spiritual battle

[@19e-k2m]

I haven’t heard any moral or good teachings out of the apocrypha at all. Only ones that contradict Jesus so what precise parts are you talking about.

[@Scubaduude]

that is because Protestants don't believe it was inspired by G*D, so it is not canonical. Yes, it has historical significance, but it is not canonical.

[@mariad4183]

Wonderfully communicated! Thank you for your hard work

[@XramBrain]

Thank you for this very enlightening video. This is a very good material for apologetics. 😊

[@ivanlisboa6209]

God bless you, great explanation and representation. I love the book of Daniel and the story of Susan. We can learn much from these accounts and storys of biblical times.

[@seanrathmakedisciples1508]

A lot of End Times students like to study these books for historical knowledge. If we read all these books then we will have great wisdom and knowledge in Jesus name

[@jimr4319]

This answered so much of my questions. Thank you.

[@TheAnnoDomini]

Amen, Brother!

[@lusttravel1247]

Thank you Taylor…short, sweet and to the point

[@rebelyell112449]

Yep....agree wholeheartedly with several below. The real question you need to address is why the Protestants put the kibosh on the 7+. We don't have 7 extra......they have 7 missing.

[@shellieperreault6262]

According to the Eastern canon, you're missing a bunch of books, too.

[@rebelyell112449]

@@shellieperreault6262 How Interesting! I just looked them up and look forward to reading them. I found this list: 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, The Prayer of Manasseh in Chronicles, and 1 Esdras; which I assume is 2 full books and parts of 3 more. I knew that at least one of the Eastern Rite Churches that's in communion with Rome uses The Book of Enoch, but didn't know about the Orthodox. The history of that canonical difference will also be intriguing to read about. Thanks for pointing it out.

[@nehemiah5860]

There is nothing the protestant has missed! writing the same thing over and over can't make a book🤷. Go and read the first 66 books before you added more and get confused.

[@Jman155]

Thank you so much for this useful video! I loved that you put the different facts on the screen! I wrote em’ all down and put ‘em’ in my Bible!

[@axelrodriguez5425]

I’d like to bring up questions I’ve had asked of me as a Catholic. 1. The book of Jude and many Church Father site books like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, which are not canonical. Why aren’t they canonical? 2. The Septuagint also contained other books not found in the canon (like the prayer of Manasseh and psalm 151). Why aren’t they canonical? 3. Many Church Fathers give canon lists that do not match the Catholic canon (like Jerome rejecting Maccabees and Athansius rejecting Sirach as well as Esther). Why not their lists? To be clear, I am a catholic and have found responses to contemplate when these questions come. But maybe you can do a follow up video to clarify info like this!

[@witchf4ce310]

Axel Rodriguez catholic canon doesn’t include the entire Septuagint due to printing problems. The Orthodox bible has them all though.

[@brblum]

My main takeaway? When the apostles quoted the Old Testament, 2/3 of the time it's a direct quote from the Greek Septuagint, which (shocking!) has the 7 deuterocanonical books that Martin Luther pulled out. Case closed for any reasonable reader, I think. Are there any credible counterarguments?

[@masterkeep]

Actually that is inaccurate. Their quoting more often matched the dead sea scrolls than the septuigint. We didn't have the dead sea scrolls until 70 years ago to realize that they were quoting hebrew.

[@kimfleury]

@@masterkeep See 3:34 and give a close listen. Dr. Marshall names 3 Books from the Deuterocanon that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Tobit, and Baruch. But the Gospels and Epistles quote from all 7 (plus the Book of Enoch). It may be more accurate to say that they were quoting Hebrew, but it's still the same canon found in the Septuagint, which is the point.

[@masterkeep]

@@kimfleury No. His statement is that they quote the septuigint whereas we now know it was a Hebrew text. They weren't spreading Greek wherever they went unless the people there specifically used Greek. This fits with historical narrative of Aramaic use in Northern Africa and the near East and other languages as they went to India - both supported by the Orthodox tradition.

[@ernestrobinson8441]

The Septuagint also translated books and writings not in the Catholic Bible such as 3rd Maccabees and 1st Esdras. If the basis of Canon is whatever the Septuagint translated (which seems to be the argument), then why are those extra books they translated not in the Catholic Canon?

[@shellieperreault6262]

Martin Luther never took any books out of the bible. He rearranged the order but never removed any. The full canon can be found in the German Luther bible and in all pre-19th century KJVs. Please stop with this ridiculous strawman about Luther, it makes you look even more ignorant and your argument weaker.

[@leeinermunoz6129]

Thank you so very much! 2024 and I am not barely learning about this! I am a protestant considering becoming a catholic.

[@antoniusrusticus383]

Thank you. I'd like to know why some Orthodox include other books: prayer of manesseh, Enoch, 3 Maccabees and I think 3 Esdras come to mind.

[@antoniusrusticus383]

@Dale Lerette I think it's first Enoch

[@kimfleury]

This website might answer your question: catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why-orthodox-bible-is-different-from-catholic.php

[@witchf4ce310]

Antonius Rusticus because the orthodox bible has the most of the original books. Catholic bible doesn’t have the entire Septuagint. And that was due to no access to printing. It wasn’t intentional.

[@MrMac6375]

As a non-Catholic, I respect this and have definitely been interested in reading these books.

[@joannaulufong4812]

God Bless! Thank you for this comprehensive explination. It’s sad because these misunderstandings between Catholics and Protestant are the same arguments used by orher religions and atheism to further divide Christianity.

[@yusukehanabishi9757]

Thank you so much Dr. Marshall...

[@LivingLambsVeganKitchen]

Hi, Dr. Marshall! I don't see the numerous references you'd mentioned that you would put into the comments section (70+ Bible references to the deuterocanonical books). Could you update the description to provide them, by chance? Many thanks, either way!!

[@eastonjones3571]

I would consider myself a Protestant however I am interested in learning more about Catholics. I find both sides have very different accounts of these books throughout history. I guess I will have to continue to search.

[@M25Dashcam]

Every major event in the life of the Messiah was foretold by prophecies. How ever only the book of Wisdom (2:12-21) has the Messianic Prophecy that explains what lead to the crucifixion of the Messiah including what would happen at the crucifixion event (what the Pharisees & the priests said about him on the cross). Is it God inspired then?

[@ChristiDea]

Whoah, thanks for that one. I'm a convert to Catholicism, so I had not seen that portion of the book of Wisdom. Yeah, I'm thinking if I was a Jew trying to prevent people from converting to Christianity in the first century I'd definitely want to discourage that book from being read!

[@tophatt5706]

What about Isaiah 53?

[@tophatt5706]

Or psalms 22

[@BornAgainRN]

M25DashCam...Wisdom 2:12-21 is actually referencing BACK to passages from the Hebrew Bible, not prophesying FORWARD to the NT.

[@neneklampir6664]

It does not say anything abouy that. I just read it.

[@glendanikolakakos7431]

Thank you, i needed to learn this history of the Bible❤️❤️❤️

[@JeanneDelmonego]

Martin Luther removed them

[@lukeyea]

J Shy so basically your saying he removed them anyway but just it at a later date😒

[@shellieperreault6262]

No, he did not. They are all in the German Luther bible. The books weren't removed until printers/publishers decided to try to save money by taking them out of protestant bibles since protestants don't use them for theology.

[@andreeattieh2963]

@@shellieperreault6262 the catholic church is the church of Jesus Christ

[@shellieperreault6262]

@@andreeattieh2963 The Roman church is one limb of the Body of Christ.

[@richlopez5896]

@@shellieperreault6262 The Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ. the Roman Church only refers to one Rite. I happen to be from the Byzantine Catholic Church.

[@tomasleiva5587]

Oh you should have that cool intro back, very nice!!

[@huacxix4032]

Great video overall, but there is 1 mistake. Dr. Taylor says that the first time the cannon was established was 382 ad, but Codex Vaticanus (the first full Bible) was written in 325 ad and holds the modern cannon. Since 325 ad, the Bible has included the deuterocanonical texts while rejecting gnostic texts like the “Gospel of Thomas.” That established the cannon until Martin Luther rejected these books in 1522 ad; he also rejected books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Epistles of James and Jude, but other reformers convinced him to keep those books in the Luther Bible.

[@kimfleury]

@@angelicdoctor8016 You got something right!

[@richlopez5896]

Council of Rome “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; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@mj6493]

It's one thing to hold to unexamined bias or innocently accept mistaken information. But, Huax Xix, you take it to another level. Martin Luther didn't "reject" the deuterocanonical books. He found them useful and encouraged their reading to gain insight and context for the intertestamental period. He didn't regard them as equal with the Old Testament though. And, my goodness, he certainly didn't reject the synoptic gospels. Where did you get that idea? Regarding James, he wasn't a fan of it because he felt that it didn't proclaim the gospel with the same clarity as other books like Romans or Galatians - hence, his famous "book of straw" statement. Nonetheless, he kept it in his German translation of the bible and so do all subsequent Protestants.

[@susannebrule3160]

Thank you for sharing this information.

[@titaniumsteel9114]

The Bible Is A Catholic Book - Did you ever wonder how the Bible came into being? A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church. For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was debate about which scriptural writings were inspired by God. The canon of Scripture (the books of the Bible) was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. This decision was upheld at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today’s Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God. As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.

[@thouartdust7464]

Fantastic! Shall I copy this?

[@titaniumsteel9114]

@@thouartdust7464 please share....😊

[@shellieperreault6262]

First of all, Catholic history up to the 1500's is also Protestant history, so you don't own the copywrite on the Bible. Second, Martin Luther NEVER took any book out of the bible. The full canon is there in the German Luther bible today, just as it was 500 years ago. I don't know why Catholics have that one basic fact so wrong.

[@JohnDoe19991]

@@shellieperreault6262 No heretics don't have right to tradition . Heretics can go and make their own rules . Divorce is the first rule they ever make lol . And he took them out of the Canon showing stupid claims as to why he believed it was not canonical . And made up stuff like Sola scriptura , Sola fide and other retarded stuff . Loony Luther and turd Calvin were a disaster . That is the truth .

[@filiusvivam4315]

Good refresher. Thanks for posting.

[@braxtonbb3613]

I haven’t watched this video yet, but seeing the title brought one question immediately to mind. Since our bible was the first compilation of the growing Catholic Church, shouldn’t the question be why did others feel the need to remove the 7 books. They don’t strike me as being extra. Probably just semantics but I feel that we should remember that we are the bedrock of the Christian Faith. So we should be the baseline by which all others are measured. And apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way. Lol

[@shellieperreault6262]

If you want to ask that, you first have to ask the Catholics why they "removed" so many books from the Ethiopian and Orthodox canon?

[@charliefrostcharlie]

Thank you Dr God bless you

[@luanlopes9415]

“Now, the complete canon of Scripture, under which we render this judgment that is to be practiced, consists of the following books: Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, one book of Joshua, son of Nun, one of the judges, a small book called Ruth, which seems quite to belong to the beginning of the Kings; then, four books by Kings, and two by Chronicles - the latter do not follow each other, but run in parallel, so to speak, and take place in the same land. The books mentioned are now stories, which contain a connected narrative of the times, and follow the order of events. There are other books that do not seem to follow any regular order, and are not connected either with the order of the previous books, nor with each other, such as Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, the two books of the Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which seem to continue the story that ends with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the prophets, in which there is a book of the Psalms of David, and three books of Solomon, namely, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiastical, they are attributed to Solomon in a certain similarity of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus, son of Sirac. They are placed among the prophetic books, since they obtained recognition as being authority. The rest are the books that are strictly called the Prophets: twelve books separate from the prophets that are connected with each other, and having never been removed, are counted as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and then there are the four greatest prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The Old Man's authority is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. The New Testament, again, is present in the following: Four books of the Gospels, a second Matthew, a second Mark, a second Luke, a second John, fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul - one for the Romans, two for the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews; two from Peter, three from John, one from Judas, and one from James; a book of the Acts of the Apostles, and one of the Apocalypse of John. ” SAINT AUGUSTINE, 397 AC

[@richlopez5896]

Council of Rome “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; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@cierrarorick1566]

protestant here, thank you so much for explaining !I remember getting so mad at school when I asked why Catholics had extra books and my teacher just said Protestants didn't like them so they took them out, but now im older im really curious why they did and think im going to have to start reading them

[@thepflare6050]

This was sick. Could you do a video like this but going through papal authority and recognition of early bishops of the pope’s status as head?

[@ultimouomo11]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJ6ocqiCg9SDY7M

[@ultimouomo11]

@YAJUN YUAN The term pope was not exclusive to the Bishop of Rome himself. Rather, in the very ancient Church, there were three regional patriarchal bishops (1) Rome, (2) Alexandria (in Egypt), and (3) Antioch (in Syria) in that order of primacy. All three of these bishops derived their authority from St. Peter and from ties of discipleship between Peter (in Rome) and his disciples Mark (in Alexandria) and Evodius (in Antioch). It was necessary to have patriarchs in different parts of the world when fast communication and transportation systems did not exist. Here's how Pope St. Damasus I describes the Tradition, writing in A.D. 382. He says: "Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.) So, there were three patriarchal bishops, each in charge of directly managing the churches on the three known continents; Rome managed Europe and the West, Alexandria managed eastern Africa, and Antioch managed Asia. Yet, Rome itself held the primacy and was the final court of appeal among the three patriarchies. And, since each of these three bishops were patriarchs, all three of them were called "Popes." ...that is, the "Pope of Rome," the "Pope of Alexandria," and the "Pope of Antioch." Rome did not hold primacy because its bishop was a "Pope/patriarch," but because the Bishop of Rome happened to be the actual successor of St. Peter.

[@CristhianS]

Great video Dr. Marshall!

[@standforfreedom5264]

Excellent explanation!! That was the beginning of the “cancel culture”. Luther, simply drops 7 books!!!

[@shellieperreault6262]

No he does not. Luther never removed them from his bible or the German translation of the bible. He simply repeated JEROME'S opinion that they are good for edification but not for supporting theology.

[@samanthagirikhanov2796]

😂

[@nosuchthing8]

Yup

[@nosuchthing8]

@@shellieperreault6262 difference without a distinction. His opinion helped lead to those 7 books eventually being dropped from the protestant bible. Remember you could always dig up some religious expert to support any idea. No one forced Luther to make that statement. And in any case he said they were not canon. I.e. not relevant for settling religious disputes like 2 maccabees and purgatory, on and on.

[@nosuchthing8]

@YAJUN YUAN false. Prove it. Find a Christian bible before the protestant revolution that didnt have the 73 books there since 400ad or thereabouts.

[@caedanjennings]

Just got a question on this on FB THANK YOU well done lad!

[@joangnarlwode4176]

What is your opinion of a few additional things beyond these 7, found in Eastern Catholic bibles, such as Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Macabees?

[@watermelontreeofknowledge8682]

Lol I’d love to know this as well. Pat Coffin punted when I asked him

[@joangnarlwode4176]

@@angelicdoctor8016 It would seem here they should be treated with at least as much respect as items like the Didache or the Protevangelium of James. I would love to have a Catholic-approved Bible which includes sources like this listed under "Of ancient and venerable origin, worthy of reading, deeply respected by many Christians within the Church, not necessarily infallible." But that would be my take. I don't know what the "right" take is.

[@carltonpoindexter2034]

@@joangnarlwode4176 I agree with you and hate toting around like minimum 3 Bibles, a book of the lost Gospels (Protoevangelion being my first, plus 3rd Esdras and Henoch which were in the earlier Bibles.

[@fool1shmortal]

@@joangnarlwode4176 Is the Didache considered part of public revelation? Are those books not? That would make a difference.

[@joangnarlwode4176]

@@fool1shmortal It's unclear to me--my guess would be "not" but I'd like an expert to say.

[@WandaCasamento59]

thank you

[@cmoberg2036]

As an Orthodox Christian, we have even two or three more books than the Roman Catholic Bible has

[@TheNaKio]

What are those and what is it`s story?

[@geoffrobinson]

@@angelicdoctor8016 so you reverence those, but you don't think they're Scripture. In other words, the Eastern Orthodox has more books than you.

[@lucienlagarde8093]

@@TheNaKio for more details you need to look the council of thrullo

[@richlopez5896]

@@geoffrobinson 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees never were in the canon of the early church is why we ask what's the story with them. Council of Rome “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; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@CPATuttle]

Right. Because Christianity doesn’t come from any bible. And Sola Scriptura is false

[@catlady6532]

This is a great argument against sola scriptura.

[@joecummings1260]

I am so confused about the differences in Christianity, different Bibles, which books of the Bible are valid, and I must say that the trinity has me really really confused. I've been working on trying to be a good Christian for over twenty years now, but this is so complicated and I am so confused

[@PentaRaus]

Lol right! For a divine book written by God there seems to be some major inconsistencies.

[@maggie_codes]

What would be my reference to prove the Apostles were carrying around the Septuagint version of the Old Testament around for teaching?

[@wayneorellana2549]

As a Latter-day Saint I would like to thank you for this presentation.

[@seanrathmakedisciples1508]

Wayne Orellana the Mormons need to read one verse Isaiah 43:10 Jesus is God manifest in the flesh and not a half brother of Satan. The JWs Believe that Jesus is michael the archangel which the SDA believed but now know that Jesus is God actually becoming man and emptied himself of His deity

[@richlopez5896]

Council of Rome “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; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@sullivanblanco7306]

Thank you Dr Marshall. I do not see the 70 criss references of the Deuterocanonical and the New Testament. Can you please help?

[@pierrederu7878]

I’m looking for the same thing?

[@lawrencedsouza8888]

The Protestants removed the 7 books because it doesn't agree with their teachings. In the book of Maccabees praying for souls does not go with the teachings of the Protestants. For me the book of Maccabees actually made the way for Jesus' coming.

[@BeYeSeparate]

The Catholic NAB annotation on the death of Antiochus IV in 2 Macc. 1:14-17 actually tells us that _"A different account of the death of Antiochus IV is given in 2 Macc 9:1-29, and another variant account in 1 Macc 6:1-16."_ Thats 3 different deaths in 3 different places... Blessings.

[@geoffrobinson]

Melito undermines your position ("Wisdom" is probably a reference to Proverbs). He excludes the Apocrypha and he would undermine the position that the Septuagint gives you a particular canon.

[@edwardlucas3575]

One of the best books on this topic is "The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments" by Gary Michuta.

[@BeYeSeparate]

Greetings. At 05:41 you stated that _"the New Testament refers to the deuterocanonical books."_ And that _"in the notes of this video [you] will include about 70 examples (70 cross references between the deuteros and the New Testament)"_ which I could not find. Can you please kindly point me in the direction of that supporting info? Thank you, and Blessings!

[@ginogoossens8952]

Have you found it?

[@13thravenpurple94]

Great video Thank you and God bless 😇

[@jesselazo]

I think that this topic wasn't presented very forthrightly. Melito's reference of 'Wisdom' is widely disputed and may have just been a reference to Proverbs. And even if he does reference Wisdom, that would be the only Deuterocanonical book he included. So is he trustworthy (which would exclude every deuterocanonical book except Wisdom), or untrustworthy (in which case I fail to see why you would use him as evidence)? Likewise with Origen, he included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. So is his inclusion of Baruch and reference to the Maccabees very helpful? He was seen as incorrect with the Shepherd, what faith can we put in the rest of his choices? And again with Augustine, he does include those books you mention. But he doesn't include Baruch in the Synod of 397. Even among the early church fathers you mention to add credibility to the deuterocanonical books, there seems to be widespread disagreement. Am I wrong to see glaring disagreement among the early church fathers about this?

[@shellieperreault6262]

No, you're not wrong. Catholics are obsessed with the idea that what they do today is a direct immitation of what Catholics did 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago... There is NEVER any recognition in modern Catholic sources to any of the history, beliefs, theology, or practices of Church Fathers that goes counter to whatever the latest catechism says. Catholics don't seem to understand that their own theology and dogma has been "growing" since day one, and much of what they call heretical today were actually ideas entertained by Church Fathers that the church rejected at some point hundreds of years after their deaths. Conveniently none of them are called heretics, yet Protestants who keep the very same theology and practices of said Church Fathers are all going to hell. It's one of the most mind-blowing examples of cognitive dissonance you'll come across in Catholicism.

[@marystachowiak7272]

Have a Great and Blessed 4th of July guys! Enjoy all We The People... Still have.

[@abridealdipratama6861]

Even Marthin Luther want to kick some books in New testament

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

Yes, James being one of them. He called it "the book of straw" and said it should be tossed in a furnace. Why? "Faith without works, is dead!"

[@tophatt5706]

If he truly felt that way, why is it still there? He simply didn't understand it, or have the resources we have now. If you read st. Jerome's notes, you'll find he questioned whether some books were inspired or not. Yet, he kept them because the higher ups said so. They would have weakened support for certain beliefs if removed.

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

@@tophatt5706 I believe I read that they wouldn't let him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon Re: St. Jerome. He simply had an opinion. The Church Councils didn't agree with him, obviously. In the end, he accepted the Canon that the Catholic Church declared "inspired!" This is excellent: www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm I hope it helps Jerome is down a ways, but the entire article is great.

[@abridealdipratama6861]

@@gabepettinicchio7454 Nice, brother

[@fool1shmortal]

He also added "alone" to "faith" in Romans. He was no reformer. His madness probably came from his Judas kiss.

[@elvinrivera3392]

We're in the Church of Christ,the Catholic Church!!!!🔥🙏🇵🇷

[@ontologicallysteve7765]

Holy tradition (and the pervasive adherence to it) is what preserves the faith once delivered. Because Protestantism has stripped and sanitized itself of all traditions-----they're caught in a rinse and repeat loop that requires each succeeding generation to approach the bible as if they're the first one's to consider its meaning. Ironically, (via the flawed and narcisstic system of sola scriptura) THIS is a tradition. It has been passed on down since the reformation. Even more ironic, most Protestant churches can only trace their roots back a decade or so (at best, 500 years). They always fancy themselves as being on "the cutting edge" and cusp of truth-------as the first one's to properly define and hereby articulate it. Which, in turn, implies that there was no truth until they came along. Which implies that the gates of hell DID prevail against the church--------until Calvin, Luther, Finney, James White or Joel Osteen properly defined it. Calvinism IS the gospel? Lutheranism IS the Gospel? Truth didn't come into fruition until the aforementioned men came along? Well, if that's the case, then Christ is a liar. He said the gates of hell would *not* prevail against the church. If truth disappearing (for 1500 years) from the church isn't a prime example of the prevalence of hell------I don't know what is. This is why I make the claim that sola scriptura is an idolatrous system of self-worship. Yet, they have the audacity to point fingers as things such as iconography and declare it "idolatry". Not realizing that truth requires a context (in order to rightly comprehend, apply, articulate and interpret it): they misconstrue "harmenuetics" as being one in the same with infalible truth. In other words: they use human understanding as the measure and standard of infallible truth. What's worse, is that many protestants see no problem with this. They only care for their interpretation-------whilst mistaking that interpretation (ignorantly or otherwise) AS inherent and God breathed truth. Tradition is the glue that preserves truth for each succeeding generation. If you take away the glue, it all falls apart. Protestantism: Behold your mother. She is the tradition of a "traditionless"division that is responsible for 40,000+ denominations that all claim to be right----while never being able to agree. Her lifeblood is that of cultural, moral and mental relativism. It is programmed with a spiritual software that downloads the inevitability of self-destruction. Thus the reason why the shelf life of a protestant church has such a small window of operation. Thus the reason why Protestantism comes unglued so quickly (while adapting itself to the world around it--------------until it becomes indistinguishable from the world. Why is it indistinguishable? Because it IS the world. Yes, so as to win the World----protestantism has become the world. Protestantism is the rinse and repeat madness that's presently self destructing because of the fact Calvin and Luther's system of anti-traditionalism has been ignorantly sown in the spiritual soil of reformed theology. The harvest that springs from the soil is pre-programmed to self-destruct. This would explain the influx of Protestants into the EOC and RCC. If you don't believe that tradition matters, stop eating dinner with your kids every night and see how it negatively affects the structure of the family. If you don't believe tradition matters, stop adhering to your traditional wedding vows and just observe how quickly your marriage falls apart. If you don't believe tradition matters, just observe the abolition of traditional values (in our modern society) and you'll see a society that's coming apart at the seams. Tradition is the mere observance of spiritual reality. Want to know why people are unfulfilled in Protestantism? Because there's no profundity or tangibility to back up their profession. It's all in their head. Remove the glue from the profession, and it all falls apart. Behold Protestantism.

[@GaryM260]

Very well stated....little to argue with here...Thank you .

[@marccrotty8447]

Ontologically Steve. Well stated. One point on the number of Protestant denominations: I just made a count. There are only 32,364, not the 40K that you claim (due to double counting and others having "ceased operations"). LOL. Marc

[@eliflores8438]

Jesus warned of what you have been taught and now believe... Mark 7:6-9 And He said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And He said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

[@tophatt5706]

It is clear from the above texts that whoever has faith in Jesus Christ (the rock on which the church is founded) will gain eternal life and not perish. Those with a true faith are promised that they will triumph over the grave and live forever. This is exactly the same promise that Jesus made in Matthew 16:18 to Peter! He actually said there that the second death, the grave (the gates of hell), will have no claim on the people of God, who as their reward for faith will inherit eternal life. The gates of hell will, however, claim the wicked, who will perish forever. So, it was not a promise that the Catholic Church would be protected from apostasy and remain doctrinally pure from the time of Christ through to the second coming. Rather, as shown above, it is clearly prophesied by the book of Revelation that the "mother" Catholic Church would fall into apostasy, persecute God's true people, and never recover from her apostasy even unto the second coming!

[@tophatt5706]

biblelight.net/gates.htm

[@x21dcv]

Proud Catholic here..

[@timothyosborn637]

I know if origen was around today he would be excommunicated as a heritic. And I'm sure a few others that you listed as well.

[@lynetterankin7787]

@@Justas399 How do the Marian dogmas and purgatory doctrines deny the gospel.

[@kimfleury]

@@lynetterankin7787 The Marian dogmas and Purgatory doctrines don't deny the Gospel, as I hope you know. I studied a lot of religions before returning to the Church. Interestingly, I hadn't heard of the doctrines that Protestants object to from anyone other than Protestants. They'll say they ask young Catholics, "Look at your parents and your grandparents. Who do they pray to? Mary or Jesus?" And they say the young Catholics always answer, "Mary." Well, my parents and grandparents focused on God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in everything. My parents didn't pray the Rosary with us, or talk about Mary in any way other than with respect. So the Protestant claims didn't hit a mark with me. And in speaking with other Catholics, the only ones who say that they see Catholics giving more attention to Mary than to her Son are the ones who live in mostly pagan societies like India, where Hindus go to Marian shrines and worship her as a "goddess," and they say that often leads to confusion among Christians who don't know any better. In the West, especially the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., young Catholics, Anglicans, and Protestants might focus on the moments when their families pray to Mary, while ignoring the 98% of the times their families go to Jesus. Then they turn that into what they call "Mary worship," because of blindness.

[@raymack8767]

@Justas399: R.C. Sproul, Piper, and others can say that when God looks at us, still supposedly intrinsically sinful, He sees only Christ because our sinfulness has been imputed to Him and His righteousness has been imputed to us and thus all of our sins past, present, and future are forgiven. But this is torpedoed by 1 John 1:8-10 which says "we" (St. John includes himself) are forgiven of sin after we confess them, so the sins present and future we commit after salvation aren't forgiven until we confess, thus no forensic justification.

[@jesusrosary9067]

@@Justas399 childish

[@GonePaisonesCFD_Debates]

Amen

[@petergrey4151]

There seems to be some historical inaccuracies creeping into this discussion. First, the Orthodox Church recognises several books as canonical that the Western Catholic Church do not and the removal of these books took place at the time of the "Great Schism". Second, Luther was not acting arbitrarily according to his predispositions, rather the Protestant Movement chose to follow what had been defined by the Jews as the Jewish Canon. May I suggest rather than bash Luther or bash a Protestant we be a little more gracious and allow that the Protestant version is perhaps best understood as minimalist and their grounds for excluding the books was driven by their preoccupation for certainty regarding Scripture. I'd suggest a reasonable means of resolving the question is not one to be settled between Catholics and Protestants but rather on the basis of the Jewish reasoning for their canon. After all, the OT was and is theirs if only by authorship at the very least.

[@mojo7495]

Oh be quiet Pete. If there is any religious institution on Earth that has a preoccupation for "certainty", it is Roman Catholicism, which considers the magisterium INFALLIBLE. And not only that, if you don't believe everything she teaches, they state you have forfeited your salvation! Honestly, your comment could not be more hideously hypocritical. You couldn't PAY me to be Catholic, for it is counterfeit christianity to the MAX.

[@petergrey4151]

@@mojo7495Thank you my dear Mo Jo for your comments. I am not Catholic but Christian. If you had read my comment with a little more care you would have seen I was critiquing the video for historical inaccuracies. It claimed harmony between the catholic and orthodox churches on the canon when there is not. They also demonised Luther unnecessarily for actions that weren't his and it supported the Protestant position on the OT canon, where the differences occur, as being consistent with the Jewish definition of their canon. I don't think any of that constitutes a defence of Catholicism. The place of the Magisterium is a whole other discussion.

[@mojo7495]

@@petergrey4151 I did read your post over again, but you must admit, in the midst of your critique, you never came right out and said what side you were coming from; (other Catholic comments here also corrected T.M), thus, my conclusion that you were a fan of the Pope was not unreasonable.

[@ChaseRoycroft]

1. Josephus does say that there are twenty-two books of the Hebrew bible, but does not say it's because there are twenty two letters in the Hebrew alphabet. That association is made by others, though, like Origen. Comparison with other early canon lists makes it pretty clear that Josephus is grouping Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. 2. Athanasius of Alexandria: "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." 3. Tyrannius Rufinus: "But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches." 4. Jerome: "This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

[@hoponpop3330]

The original King James Bible also had at least a dozen footnote references to the 7 books. Those books where not totaled removed from Protestant Bibles until the 19th century. With some notable protest from some of there leaders. Also the famous Gothenburg Bilble 1400’s is identical to current Catholic Bibles

[@juans6639]

I believe it is "Gutenburg"

[@fool1shmortal]

Those books were considered apocrypha by the Protestants and put, at best, on the level we give the Shepherd of Hermes. I think the Septuagint were placed in the back of the KJV for some time, but later removed.

[@shellieperreault6262]

... Because the Protestant reformation didn't come until the next century ...

[@MyJustOpinion]

I have a very heavy heart towards all Protestants in the world and I pity them so much because they were deceived and lied upon. I can't imagine Martin Luther can do such a horrible act of removing these 7 books. He thinks that he was smarter than the early fathers of the church. It is such an unbelievable act. Such an arrogant man. He deceived millions of people throughout history.

[@RobinPoe]

The 1611 Version of the King James Bible, which the Protestants make so much of, also had the Deutero-Canonical texts, and those texts are read in Anglican Churches to this day.

[@morelmaster]

They have never been considered inspired Scripture by Protestants, but they were included in the 1611 King James for historical value only.

[@habituallinestepper9879]

Not only that, but that version of the KJV also had a calendar of saint feast days, including the feast of the Immaculate Conception. :)

[@morelmaster]

@@habituallinestepper9879 Interesting, I didn't know that.

[@shellieperreault6262]

The Luther Church (Missouri Synod) in the US has their study bible on the full canon, but since they used the ESV, Crossway made CPH publish the deutercanonicals separately.

[@JohnDoe19991]

Talk about consistency . No wonder there are a thousand denominations lol

[@annfoster6943]

I used to listen to the Jewish radio and they said that they got Macabees 1 and 2, as well as Esther from the Catholics

[@ronsavard6336]

The Proteastant bible, composed of 66 books implies the number of man, while the Ethiopian bible contains the 76 books of the Catholic bible plus the book of Enoch to make the God number 77.

[@christianedelao5554]

Selam, for the correct information of the books included in our church, please follow the link below :www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

[@ronsavard6336]

@Mr. No Name There are 76 books in the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate; 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, and 3 books in the Apocrypha.

[@ronsavard6336]

@Mr. No Name The Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate is composed of 76 books; 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, and 3 books in the Apocrypha.

[@stjohnssoup]

Angelic Doctor You haven't read Revelation then.

[@Yemisrach]

It's actually 81 (The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bible)

[@aka.yehoshua]

My question is, what about the major historical inaccuracies in the deuteros?

[@myfivestarrealty]

Luther was determined to make the Bible fit his theology, even if that removing books. From the New Testament, he decided to take out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation because they didn't fit his teaching of saved by faith alone without works.

[@shellieperreault6262]

Nope. They are all in the German Luther bible. Try again.

[@myfivestarrealty]

@@shellieperreault6262 so your saying the German Luther Bible has includes the whole 73-books?

[@myfivestarrealty]

@@shellieperreault6262 Martin Luther wanted to also take out the books of James, Jude, and Revelation. He did not because he would have lost his congregation. Those 7 were taken out because he did not like certain passages very much. If someone were to ask you to name a divine and perfect number, what would it be?

[@shellieperreault6262]

@@myfivestarrealty Yes, they've always been there and they are still there today. The full canon was in the KJV until the 1850's, and Concordia Publishing House here in the US wanted to publish a study bible using the ESV translation, but Crossway (protestant bible publishers) wouldn't allow them to publish the deutercanonicals in the same volume. So, CPH had to publish the English study bible in two volumes....

[@JohnDoe19991]

@YAJUN YUAN what do you mean removed . The Church put together the first Bible . The Bible is the OT +NT . How can you remove something before it exists ?

[@marycallahan1224]

I love ❤️ to read the Bible it is the word or God! There is no better way to learn about then reading the Bible🔨🕔

[@saucyvinnie3812]

The real question is who are the 11 people who disliked this video and why?? Nothing but sited primary sources from Dr. Marshall in this video.

[@masterkeep]

He states many inaccuracies. The OR quotes more often match the dead sea scrolls than the septuigint, the books of canon were listed long before when he states, etc. Some of what he says is correct but he gets enough wrong to warrant a dislike.

[@HerotPM]

The Didache does not have a 4:31 and none of the sources you mentioned explicitly cite these books as scripture as far as I could find. They did cite the Deuterocanon, but that no more proves they were citing it as scripture than that Jude citing Enoch would prove he was citing it as Scripture. I do believe these books belong in the Bible, but either you are leaving something out in why you think they were citing these passages as Scripture or this comes off as a little dishonest in how it's presented and could come back to bite our side if a Protestant fact checks you. Hopefully you can elaborate.

[@Conmezzo]

Thank you for the information in this video. I recently overcame by Protestant bias against reading these omitted books and purchased a copy of the 1611 Apocrypha and the Orthodox edition of the NKJV study bible. These books were in the 1611 edition of the KJV then omitted. Is it possible that the omission of these books contributed to the constant fragmentation of Protestantism? BTW, thumbs up.

[@shellieperreault6262]

Yes, it did. The full canon was in the KJV until the 1850's when printer started catering to neo-"awakened" Protestants. The full canon is still the official bible of the Lutheran Church, and Luther's translation still has the full canon. Concordia Publishing House here in the US wanted to do a study bible with the full canon based on the ESV, but Crossway (Baptist owners of the ESV text) wouldn't allow CPH to do it. So now, Lutherans in America are stuck using two volumes for their bibles.

[@richlopez5896]

Council of Rome “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; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@doubtingthomas9117]

@@shellieperreault6262-the Anglican Church also includes them in between the OT and NT, plus 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh

[@herbertalbert4315]

@@shellieperreault6262 Don't take the place of God, let God do his job.

[@carpentertom2835]

The apocryphal books were removed long before Luther if you do your research , they were kept as historical reference and not considered scripture by St. Jerome in the 4th century and not part of the Jewish Canon during Jesus's life or before

[@brucewmclaughlin9072]

St. Jerome took the seven books out as he felt they had no doctrinal value but were good for historical reference only . Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were put back into the canon. However what all Ctholics will tell you is Luther , Luther , and Luther and completely ignore St. Jerome as they are taught only Luther the bad guy.

[@TheForbiddenLean]

The Council of Nicaea was the first council under Saint Constantine, Emperor of Rome.

[@edwardlucas3575]

Constantine was the Roman emperor famous for ending the persecution of Christians. He is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Churches, but the Western Church honors him as an important figure in the history of the faith with the title Constantine the Great. He perceived Arianism as a threat to the stability of the Roman Empire and wanted the matter resolved. His principal contribution to the Council of Nicea was using his authority and influence as emperor to facilitate safe travel, living accommodations, and meeting facilities for the participants (i.e., the pope, bishops, and advisors). This was a significant logistical challenge because approximately 300 bishops attended from every region of the Empire except Britain. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts.

[@american1911]

Dr Taylor I would like to challenge you on your statement that all of the church fathers agreed that the Deuterocanonical books were part of the Old Testament. Saint Jerome, the early Church Father and biblical scholar, is known for his work on the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. Jerome's views on the Deuterocanonical books reflect a certain hesitancy to include them in the canon of the Old Testament, as he primarily relied on the Hebrew Bible, which did not include these books. One of Jerome's notable quotes on this subject is from his Prologus Galeatus (the Helmeted Preface), where he discusses the canon of Scripture. He expresses his reservations about the Apocryphal books, stating: "This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the apocryphal writings. Therefore Wisdom, which is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon." Jerome eventually included the Apocryphal books in his translation of the Bible at the request of the Church, but he did so with some reluctance, noting that they were not part of the Hebrew Bible and, therefore, not considered canonical in the same way as the other books. His hesitancy stems from his belief that the Hebrew Scriptures were the most authentic and authoritative source for the Old Testament.

[@josephtucciarone6878]

Thank you for these lessons you gift us. They provide us the tools to spread the Word. God loves us so much he sent his son with 3 tasks: Teach us his New Covenant, Establish His Church, and die for our sins as the Lamb of God (ending animal sacrifice). This fulfilled the Old Covenant and created the New Covenant.

[@cafecomescrita]

Very good video!

[@daddorocket]

Jesus himself quoted the Septuagint.

[@masterkeep]

More likely he quoted the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls which matches the NT quotes more than the septuigint does.

[@daddorocket]

@@masterkeep So then, do you think that when the Septuagint was translated into Greek that the Dead Sea Scrolls version was somehow used? I realize that a couple of hundred years factors in.

[@masterkeep]

@@daddorocket Or something close. The modern Textus Leningradus definitely show signs of being tampered with now that we have the dead sea scrolls.

[@daddorocket]

@@masterkeep Is the Textus Leningradus the 10th cent. version?

[@masterkeep]

@@daddorocket Scholars date it to 1008 AD. Quite late compared to intact Greek manuscripts. Also plenty of time to edit to remove strong references to Messiah or to the Trinity. Most probably this is why it is so different from the Dead Sea text.

[@yonatanmikhael4295]

In his 1984 Concise Exposition of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology Fr. Michael Pomazansky enumerates and identifies the 38 Old Testament books (Judges-Ruth are bundled) recognized by the Church, stating that "a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books (he lists 10 plus additions to 3 canonical works) has always been maintained in the Church." This agrees with the list of Old Testament books in Philaret of Moscow's 1823 Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, which cites as reasoning the consensus of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, and (like Pomazansky) John of Damascus. So, it seems there exists at least a 1700-year-old tradition, especially in the East, of viewing the Protocanonical books as approved in a way that others are not. This is very similar to the historical Protestant position (1611 KJV). By stating that various Deuterocanonical works must be considered by the faithful as on par with the Protocanon the Council of Trent unwisely disregarded the traditions of fellow Christians with an all or nothing approach almost entirely unique to Rome.

[@T_frog1]

I have an old King James Bible with Apocrypha from the 1950s and it has 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, which are not in my Catholic Bible.

[@shellieperreault6262]

Thank you for pointing out something that Catholics seem to be insanely ignorant about.

[@idontexisthere9509]

I think all humans are ignorant in the amount of books and the translation with meanings as a lot of translations and writings were lost in time. Kind of like playing the game of telephone. By the time the message gets to the end it’s been completely changed. I am sure as time goes on the message will continue to change. Calling one denomination of Christianity ignorant is ignorant in and of itself as no one can be 100% that they have the translation completely correct.

[@T_frog1]

I finished reading those books and they're actually not that great. 1 Esdras is basically a corrupted version of Ezra and Prayer of Manasses says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not sin. "Thou therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the just, hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner:" That whole verse seems false.

[@SacrumImperiumRomanum]

Very interesting. What of the argument that Jerome, in the Vulgate, separated the deuteros into a section which was useful for learning but not as canonical?

[@josephcole8875]

shamelesspopery.com/does-saint-jerome-endorse-the-protestant-canon/

[@masterkeep]

@@josephcole8875 That just gives a mixed answer showing it wasn't settled amongst catholics as you wish to say.

[@shellieperreault6262]

@@masterkeep It's ok for Catholics with the name "Doctor" of the Church or "Father" of the Church to write against the deutercanonicals, but if you do it today you're just a heretic.

[@masterkeep]

@@shellieperreault6262 I would be in good company so I am not bothered by that.

[@edwardlucas3575]

Jerome's views are often misrepresented. He produced the Latin Vulgate at the request of Pope Damasus I. He submitted to the pope’s authority, including the entire Deuterocanon along with the rest of Scripture. In his prefaces for some of the Old Testament books, he noted his dissatisfaction regarding the quality of the Greek versions used for translation. He also noted how his Jewish friends exclusively used the Hebrew version and rejected the Deuterocanon. When he pointed out objections to the Deuterocanon, he was not explaining what he thought but what his Jewish friends commonly said against the Christians.

[@dioscoros]

Protestant arguments against the deuterocanon are ridiculous because their position is ridiculous. Even though this video is pretty good as a beginners guide, there are things that should've been added about Josephus and the like. I'll make a response to this comment dedicated to those details.

[@geoffrobinson]

Our position is not ridiculous. First, we don't have to defend books with clear historical errors. There's a lot of details Marshall didn't include, and when we include these books shouldn't be considered Scripture.

[@tophatt5706]

The catholic church has no authority to canonize a book written by jews. It wasn't written by catholic.

[@mojo7495]

Oh shut up Tom. Your comment that "it is ridiculous" we reject the Apoc because we are "ridiculous", is the height of stupidity! You show no proof, so kindly clam up. We reject those books for FAR TOO MANY REASONS to mention here, and if I were to debate you, you'd be laughed off the stage, as would Mr. Marshall, who simply likes to hear himself talk. He wouldn't debate anyone if his life depended on it.

[@aarontrahan4943]

The argument is not who took out or who added any books. This is a noner from both sides of the argument. There were both good and bad things about the Roman Catholic Church as well as what the Reformers were trying to do, but one need only look at what St. Jerome had to say about his own translation of the Latin Vulgate in 405a.d. In which after studying in Bethlehem and becoming proficient in Hebrew, the term Biblia Hebraica was born. He included the Apocrypha in his translation and he states the historical value of the books, but he himself does not see them as divine, as his studies pointed to prove (as does this video) that the Pharisees and Sadducees did not include these in formal 2nd Temple Literature...though they were circulating during the time of the 2nd Temple.

[@aarontrahan4943]

@@angelicdoctor8016, Gal 2:10. Paul rebukes Peter (Cephas) on doctrinal issues for the Gentiles and Peter capitulated. Even Peter himself, says to Cornelius not to bow to him, that he was only a man. Peter never thought of himself as "infallible". If one takes that position, then logically they must reject Galatians. "Keys to the Kingdom" can have several different connotations as Jesus refers to Simon being called Peter (Petros in Greek) and that upon this rock (Petra in the Greek) he would build his church.

[@duromusabc]

Yes the Catholic Bible was officially put together in 382 AD

[@sojanjoseph9699]

Original Bible contains 73 books but protestant took away 7 books from Bible according to their personal interests

[@agile0ed]

Hello. Can somebody please point me to where I can find to 70 examples of New Testament references that Dr. Taylor mentioned? Thank you, have a nice day.

[@mosesking2923]

So if Catholics accept the Greek Septuagint, why do they exclude some books from it? Such as 1 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, psalm 151 and the prayer of Manasseh?

[@Rome_77]

The Church and only the Church was gifted the grace through the Holy Spirit to recognize what is inspired.

[@WerIstWieJesus]

Maccab 3+4, psalm 151 and prayer of Manasseh are not part of the original Greek Septuagint of 2.Jh. before Jesus Christ. Macc. 4 is written after Jesus Christ. They are falsifications.

[@TheMac813]

5:40 Laying down the FACTS