The Apocrypha - Deuterocanonical Books | The Jewish Catholic
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- Welcome back! Let’s talk about the Deuterocanonical Books! What are they? Did the Catholics add books to the Bible or did Protestants remove them? What’s the history? Who is the authority?
All this and more in this video!
If you enjoy this video make sure to subscribe and leave a thumbs up! Follow me on Instagram @TheJewishCatholic - Zábava
Luther is the one who called it Apocrypha, these were not known Aprocrepha, prior. There were other books known as Apocrypha to the Hellenic Jews, but these were not it. But he used it and it stuck. The guy also removed several books of the New Testament canon and placed them in a section known as the Antilegomena. However, the issue was the humanist scholarship of the age. The humanist scholars followed the principle of translating from the original language, Hebrew and all they had were the Masoretic text in Hebrew, which is why they adopted the Masoretic Text for their Bible translations. Of course, the Masoretic text (gen 4 Hebrew) was canonized between 850 - 870 AD. This is the Pharisaical canon. Catholics, Orthodox use the Septuagint (LXX) which is the Bible used by the apostles. The Peshitta has all the DC books, so does the LXX and so did the Targum. The LXX is a 1 gen Greek translation, which was a miracle.
Excellent. Thank you for sharing this.
@@TheJewishCatholic Question 👋🏻🤚🏻If the Jewish traditions based on Torah, then why do we have trad gangstas [and i was one of them] calling out Talmud 24/7? As if all the Jews care what Talmud is all about? But seriously what is it all about? 👀☺
@@la.x-neverthedodgers The Traditional Catholics come in two groups.... The Radicals and the Traditionalists ... SSPX are radicals. The problem is that in come of the SSPX churches they have publications such as the Catholic Family News which peddles the old canards... the SSPX has also had a history printing and distributing the Protocols of Zion etc. The Catholic Family News at least when it was under "St" John Vernerri, (a crazy guy who belonged to the conspiracy peddling Holy Family Monastry, which was not a real monastry but that is what the brothers running the sham called themselves) ran that rag. There is also the Williamson affair. The SSPX has split in many directions, my mother's cousin (who was Jewish and taught at a NY Yeshiva) who was teaching at the Econe semenary lead the first break away from SSPX and formed the SSPV which was Sedevaticantist. Then there was the SSPX-MC break away, then there was the USML which also broke away. There was the Williamson's group which broke away. It is like protestantism. When you deny the pope's authority, you, yourself have no authority.
This is why there are many in the Radical Traditionalist movement who are anti-Jewish. I attend Latin mass and understand the Latin having studied it at school and at home (required to enter the "family profession"). But I do not attend the SSPX mass but on at a regular diocesean church. If you attend a regular Latin Mass said by the society of St. Peter FSSP you will be ok.
French traditionalism (Gallicanism, which should not the same as Catholic traditionalism or the School of traditionalism - AKC's philosophia Perennis or his theologian sophia but both having influence on French traditionlism) was for a large part born out of Rene Guenon's influence in Paris. Rene Guenon was a disciple of AKC the founder of the traditionalist movement. Rene Guenon became Muslim. AKC is my mother's uncle. from a well known apostate Jewish family. He married an Ashkenazi Jew. His son (RC) was the one who was hired by Lefebvre (a French Traditionalist) to teach Ecclestical History and later started the SSPV. If you were a traditionalist, you probably know whom I am talking about.
@@la.x-neverthedodgers Many who belong to these societies are cultis... they feel everyone is out to get them, so they lash out in all directions looking for enemies under every stone.
@@deusimperator I find you in a lot of vids, do you have a blog/vlog yourself? Thanks for all the posts and info btw
Thank you for sharing! Interested to know your perspective on how each of the books relate to the fulfillment of temple Judaism and the gap (if correct) between the Torah and New Testament.
Daniel, you provide an excellent and thorough summary of the matter! Thank you for your work!
I remember reading that we now have Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Tobit (or atleast parts of it) thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This helps counter the argument that these books weren't written in Hebrew. The discovery of the Hebrew manuscript of the book of Tobit gives some archealogical support of the possibility that the deuterocanonical books (at least some of them) were originally in Hebrew.
Also, Tobit is a wonderful book to read when things aren't going so well. It gives a lot of hope. IMHO Sireach 21:1-2 is the best verse to read when you've fallen :-)
They were available in Hebrew at one time but only in Jerusalem but not anywhere else. One has to remember that the complete DC exists in the LXX, Peshitta, and the Targum. It only does not exist in the 4Gen HMT. Most Jews outside Jerusalem did not speak Hebrew. Even Christ spoke Aramaic. Jews who lived around the Mediterranean spoke a regional language but most spoke Greek. But we need to step back to 200 BC when the Seleucids conquered Jerusalem and what Menelaus, Simon, and Jason did - Hellenization of Jewish culture (200 - 170 BC). The Pharisees were against Hellenization. However, when the 70 sages translated the LXX it was done in Alexandria, not Antioch under the Ptolemies was around 220 BC. It was translated so that the Greek speaking Jews could use it in their synagogues. At the same time, Protocanonical books were available in Hebrew in synagogues, but outside Jerusalem, it was only available in Greek. In two campaigns the Romans destroyed all Hebrew writings in Jerusalem, first in 70 AD and again in 130 AD. Nothing written survived in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina and all Jews were expelled from the city.
The Pharisees as a political group were against Hellenization and fought against foreign influences. The Sadducees (representing mostly the haLevi and upper classes in Jewish society) were pro-Hellenization. Remember the last ordained priest Eleazar ben Azariah died, there was no ability to revive the priesthood. The priests were the religious authority. The Pharisees stepped into the void.
30 AD G-d stops accepting the sacrifice at Yom Kippur. He gives Judah (Jews) 40 years to enter into the new promised land (the Olam Haba) and after 40 years destroys the Temple. Covenantal Judaism ends in 70 AD. Eleazar ben Azariah dies in 120 AD and the Judaic priesthood cannot never be recovered as a chief priest was necessary to ordain priests by the laying on of hands in the temple. Covenantal Judaism ends forever.
In 142 AD Simeon ben Gamaliel II (Judah, not a haLevi) comes to be the nasi, and a Biet Din is formed by his own Yeshiva which he forms in Usha (a town known today as Hawsha). When he dies his son, Judah haNasi the person who founds Rabbinic Judaism becomes the nasi. He has a yeshiva in Shefaram, then moves it to Beit Shearim and at last to Sepphoris and with his relocation so does the Beit Din. It is during this time the Rabbis begin to consider what should be in the Jewish scriptural canon.
Excepting that the Rabbis are not the authority who can do that. Beit Din was only supposed to be a judicial body that would render judgment in cases. The ability to legislate rested with the Kohen Gadol and through the Knesset HaGadolah. The Beit Din was supposed to judges. Talk about activist judges who legislate from the bench.
Just to add, the talmudim were the ones who made up the mufla in these Beit din of Simon and Judah haTzaddik. Talmudim just means disciples and once they have studied they become the mufla of the court. How many disciples did Christ have? 72. One left - Judas. There are 71. The number of the members of the beit din gadil. Not only was there a Beit Din, but also a Knesset haGadolah of 120 who voted Mathias as an apostle to take the place of Judas. Remember Matthias is Acts 1 criteria, one who was already disciple. What Christ did was a complete replacement and a mirroring of polity which existed in Judaism - the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Judean government of the Second Temple period which existed until 200 BC.
@@deusimperator What source do you use to say God stopped accepting the sacrifice in the temple? Jesus’ death on the cross? Did the priests know God was not accepting their sacrifices? I’ve not ever heard it articulated like this. I never equated the 40 years between the crucifixion & destruction of the temple w/ the desert years. Makes sense. Thank you for your well thought out & written explanations. I’ve subscribed to your channel.
@@TrixRN Talmudic Tractate Sefira Yom 39b tells us that G-d stopped accepting sacrifices 40 years before the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD and Christ died in 40 years earlier in 30 AD.
_Yoma 39b.5 The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually._
This is speaking of two events. There are many references made to Shimon HaTzaddik, Shimon was the last "pope" of Judaism who like the Catholic pope was a father and king. The patriarchal monarchy and the Knesset haGodolah was abolished after his death. This occurred in 200 BC. After the death of Shimon haTzaddik G-d was not pleased and this was evidenced that when the drawing of the lot for the two goats, the lot for the goat for G-d was found in the left hand of the Kohen Gadol most often which indicated G-d's displeasure. Remember that was in 200 BC and going forward.
However, things change in 30 AD, 40 years before the destruction of the temple...
God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all - Indicating G-d's displeasure by not accepting His portion of the sacrifice
So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white - meaning that G-d did not forgive the sins of the people
and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually - indicating that G-d's presence was no longer in the temple.
So, yes all the priests knew first had that the the sacrifices were not being accepted and the sins of the people were not being forgiven and G-d was no longer present in the Temple.
_Yoma39b.4 Without the presence of Shimon HaTzaddik among them, the Jewish people were no longer worthy of the many miracles that had occurred during his lifetime. For this reason, following his death, his brethren, the priests, refrained from blessing the Jewish people with the explicit name of God in the priestly blessing._
The Jews did not call him pope, but like all Kohen Gadol he was called father. Pope just means father, papem meaning father. After the death Simon haTzaddik the office was split between the nasi and the ab beit din and the Kohen Gadol was removed from the Beit Din Gadol all due to apostacy. Simon haTzaddik, just means Simon the saint. G-d blesses the people through Kohen Gadol.
This is why St. Peter whose name is Simon is important because Christ restores these offices to him unified. He is given earthly and spiritual authority just as it was supposed to be in Judaism. This is why there can be no separation of church and state in Catholicism or Judaism. The time G-d was happiest with Judah was between 516 BC - 200 BC when the Kohen Gadol was both a temporal and spiritual ruler. A father and king, a patriarchal monarchy. This is what Christ restores in St. Peter.
According to some Eastern traditions, it is St. Peter, NOT Christ who ordains the apostles as bishops and only St. Peter was ordained by Christ as a bishop. The orthodox use this to claim that for this reason that all bishops are his successors, not just the Bishop of Rome and therefore they all share equally in the Petrine office.
Protestantism is a revolt against the patriarchy which is what the papacy IS. The papacy is also a monarchy. There is no separation of Church and State which is a protestant idea. We are not supposed to live in as dichotomic beings. This is a protestant idea.
I don't have a channel of my own, a friend of mine has a channel called "Christian Virtue and Grace" and I sometimes provide a presentation of his channel. I just have a few videos on my own channel usually those I find interesting.
@@deusimperator Thank you for your answer. It is absolutely fascinating. I was raised a Protestant & didn’t convert until I was 57 in 2014 (yeah you can figure out my age 😜) With age & my health status I sometimes have difficulty understanding complex ideas & unfamiliar words. Please bear w/ me if I ask you to repeat or explain something.
That said, I think I got the gist of your explanation. I commented on another of Daniel’s videos that I’ve always wondered what happened to the thousands of Jews who were Christians. When I attended a Divine Liturgy I felt I was seeing the influence of the early Christian Jews.
I’m excited to see a growing population of Catholic Jews! If gentiles who are grafted into the vine have spread the Word to all parts of the world just imagine the rejoicing as the Jews, the natural branches, return home & take their rightful place. I think it would be possible to have a new Pentecost like outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Finding this website is one of the best discoveries I've made on CZcams in years! I am both fascinated and informed about so
many truths of my Catholic Faith that come from Judaism. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOUR COMMENTARY & INSIGHT!!
Beautiful! Thank you brother.❤️🙏
Good show, clarified a lot for me.
I believe Luther even tried to make "apocryphal" certain New Testament books.
Great video man. This was really helpful for me
Glory to God!
Ruach ha-kodesh! Love that!
Another great video
thanks for the easy explaination
Ruach haKodesh
The "breath holy"
The breath of Life.
I have been saying this for almost two decades. I thought I was alone.
Thank You.
Blessings on your House.
The Catholic Church chose the 73 books which would be part of the first christian Bible in 382AD at the Council of Rome and canonised it. Catholics handwrote the first bibles, it took 3 years for the priests/monks/nuns to handwrite them hence they were scarce/valuable, this is why Bibles were literally chained to the pulpit. In the 15th century the printing press was invented, making mass production available. These 7 books were taken out much later by protestants.
Council of Carthage in 397 AD. The Council of Rome started it in 382 AD. I have a video on the Christian Virtue and Grace Channel (which is related by the channel owner) with the title "What did the Bible come from". It was ratified in 420 by pope Boniface. There is a canon at the synod of Carthage at 419 indicating that the Council of Carthage had to be ratified fully as the paope in 397, Siricus forgot to ratify some of the documents from the Council. When Pope Damasus called the Council of Rome he issued the Decretum Damasi which had the current 71 book canon. Two books in the OT were subdivided subsequently to make 73 books, due to master-disciple splitting of books.
@@deusimperator Are you able to give a response to the argument that Jesus wasn't "descended from David according to the flesh" because it is decided according to the biological father and Joseph wasn't his human father. Was it a jewish tradition that Jesus is legally his son under the "law"? I can't find anything on this.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker
Sanhedrin 19b
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa as well, isn’t it written: “And the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel” (II Samuel 21:8). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you to understand it this way: And did Michal give birth to these children? But didn’t Merab give birth to them for Adriel? Rather, Merab gave birth to them and died, and Michal raised them in her house. Therefore, the children were called by her name, to teach you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.
This is speaking of David adopting the 5 sons of Michal who were born to her sister Merab and her husband Adriel. The 5 sons which Micha adopted are to belong to David as if he was their natural father.
(This does not apply to the Leviim or Kohenim as only natural sons are permitted as Levites or priests.)
The king in a way was a son of G-d in many cultures of the day, Israel was adopted by G-d as His people/family, and entering into the covenant meant that the Jews belong to G-d as a people. However, it also can be said that G-d gave His Son to be adopted by men so that through Him that man can be adopted by G-d into His own family, known commonly as the Catholic Church, and again this is covenantal.
What you are asking and explaining here is the catechesis that has been sadly lacking. This is the catechesis that brings Judaism "back into" the Temple [after a manner of speaking].
I am somewhat tempted to laugh [not derisively but] in "good" humor.
I started studying at Temple BethEl [once a Conservative congregation] now a Reform. It's sort of hard to tell just exactly what the Reforms believe in; I get the feeling at times it's almost a "roll your own" version.
But, having said this in study I have found that catechesis among our Rabbinic cousins is in worse shape than our side of the aisle. We studied the passages of Moshe' killing off Zepphora's people and the participants were horrified; some even wanted to walk out and on the poor Rabbi.
I know that from experience studying Hebrew [limited but still] that the Rabbi only allowed me to go so far and that he would go no farther if I was "not" converting to Judaism.
On the whole my experience/s were good ones; I was given run of the Temple Library, a wonderful experience. I find that any number of the books could well have been written by a Priest; the flavor is full and the substance is there. I have used them in my own Maronite formation.
At any rate, blessings on all here. The prophet Shmu'el tells us to do that [bless each other]; if we don't are we any better than atheists?????
Keep this up; as our Rabbi said it is a "mustard seed".
Alham'dulillah!
This Shabbat is the Sunday of the 'talents'.
After praying, thinking, and writing I will attempt to explain it's significance.
One thing we "must" do is to understand the catholicJudaism on our side of the isle through the eyes and ears of a 2nd Temple Jew. It is simply not possible to understand Catholicism otherwise, and Protestantism is simply 'sheol'.
Gr8 explanation!
Thanks for sharing. Love your content. Subbed :)
Thank you for sharing
Whew! That is a lot to rehearse over, but it is helpful here. Thankx, dude!
Thank you so much!
I’ve been trying to find a short video to send to people explaining the Bible being put in a blender without a lid. You can easily loose a person in a one minute when they have no understanding of what you’re talking about and have been brainwashed for 500 years that Catholics added books to the Bible 🤦🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
איזה ברור ההסבר שלך! תודה רבה דניאל!
ברוך השם .בבקשה
תודה רבה דניאל! 👍
בבקשה
@@TheJewishCatholic דניאל האם אתא. בפייסבוק? אני Francesco Antonio Scotece Peters. שבת שלום ומבורך!
@@francisanthonypeters9002 שלום אחי.
שבת שלום😁
What are your thoughts on the Greek longer version of the book of Esther (AKA the additions to Esther)? To me it seems like the longer version causes contradictions not apparent in the Hebrew version of the text. Do you have any commentary/reconciliation on these additional verses? In the future are you considering making a video on this topic?
There are around 55 million Jewish Catholics around the world. 13.1 million in Spain alone (cY and mDNA). The total number of Catholic Jews in Central (Converso) And South America is about 40 million. The total number of Jews in the US and Israel is 12 million. Worldwide including US and Israel it is 15 million. I was surprised to find that many Philipinos are of Jewish descent.
Im filipino... :) im tornatra that mean in the spanish caste system im mix of chinese, spanish, and filipino (indio).. but while i have lots of spanish ancestors, my mom’s surname is said to be not spanish but greek. most spanish who went here are conversos or converts.. some of them fleeing the expulsion of jewry from spain. My middle name (mother family name) is balano.. according to family histories ( from a balano who is white, coz im not im already asian) our clan was from smyrna, where there were a lot of jews.. (not sure im i have jewish ancestry) but we do look like jews (or middle eastern).. from smyrna to italy. habsburg spain also controlled sardinia and italy probably why from there to the philippines. Our ancestral house is located at the back of a church, near the spanish boatworks.. my grandmother (my grandfather’s sister) has red hair which definetely isnt an asian/filipino hair color. Lol. Majority of filipino men are circumcised probably becuase of the conversos influence. All those in my family are circumcised... my family is kinda weird, on holy week we never get out of the house, or do any significant work on saturdays night to sunday night.. (most housework done friday nights) and we have the family habit of naming kids from the names of dead relatives (but not for my generation since we started using 2 first names). So our greadgrandfather was domingo and my moms cousin is also a domingo... we have three simons in the past 5 generations. simon the present, my mom’s second cousin is the third. (Its the same name, we dont use jr., sr., or the second or third) like most filipinos.
@@markv1974 I'm Filipino as well. Our original surname is German but it was changed to Spanish during the war & my father and his father , & etc all have this rare disease common in Jews of Northern European descent.
O so hes racially jewish but catholic religiously?
@@luismacias3146 yes... we are ethnic Jews who are Catholic
@@deusimperator got it nice
Great video!
great video..i subscribed to the channel !!
Excellent commentary
Glory to the Most High
Dead sea scrolls proved that 7 books are part of Jews Bible.
And what about the book of enoch and other written scrolls that were in the dead sea scrolls then ?
The Bible as a book was not unified in that time, they were separated scrolls, so back then if you see someone having a series of scrolls from Isaiah, pslams,etc. and with it as a scroll name Gado, it doesn't mean the person considerd Gado as the word of God like psalms and Isaiah. It's a library not a codex.
@@dodleymortune8422 the book of Enoch wasn't even written by enoch
what are you talking about? there are 24 books of the hebrew bible. chumash contains the first five books.
It’s shows some Jewish sects viewed those books as scripture, and there was no closed Jewish cannon.
@@dodleymortune8422The Book of Enoch not only wasn’t written by Enoch, its style of writing is throughly representative of the Hellenistic Jewish and post-exile pseudepigraphal literature from the 5th-2nd centuries BC. I assume you’ve only heard of the Book of Enoch and morons supporting it, because according to the Book, Enoch himself is the prophesied Messiah, not Jesus.
Finally, what all sides often ignore in these discussions is that historically everyone’s Bible has an appendix. The only difference is which books it includes.
Roman Catholic Deuterocanon
The 1592 Clementine Vulgate included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther, Daniel, and Baruch as part of the Old Testament, but placed 1 & 2 Esdras [3-4 Ezra] and the Prayer of Manasseh in an Appendix.
Protestant Apocrypha
The 1611 King James Version included the exact same material, but placed all these works mentioned above together in a separate section called the Apocrypha.
Orthodox Anagignoskomena
Most Orthodox include 1 Esdras [3 Ezra], 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh along with the works mentioned above as part of the Old Testament with either 4 Maccabees (Greek) or 2 Esdras [4 Ezra] (Slavic) in an Appendix.
However, in his 1984 Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Father Pomazansky claimed that the Church has always maintained a distinction between canonical and non-canonical books and that the latter are included in volumes of the Bible as an appendix to the canonical books.
So, there is an ancient, widespread, and venerable tradition, especially in the East, of viewing the Protocanonical books as known and approved in a way that others are not that 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 these traditions with an all or nothing approach almost entirely unique to Rome.
Plus, Wisdom 2 has prophetic words about Christ and His passion.
Jewish sects pre 900s AD between 600s bc - 900s AD had different canons for old testament (Tanakh)
The current Masoretic canon is the current.
But Jews in Sassanid Iran for example happily used books neither Catholics or Protestants used.
Daniel, I have not had much luck over the years with Jewish websites, so I am hoping you can help me. I had heard long ago that an old Jewish tradition was to sprinkle salt into the ground in front of the front door, or even mix salt with mud or clay and bake it into a tile - similar to a welcome mat. I believe the idea was that a person would wipe their shoes/feet before stepping on the tile before they kiss the mezuzah. I think the idea was related to God telling Moses to take the sandals off his feet for the ground he was standing on was holy ground. I have heard the Jewish people regard their homes as being one of God's possessions, so it is holy inside and out. Does any of this sound familiar to you? Can you give me an idea as to what the tile or the tradition was called? Thanks.
May i ask about the errors without the Deuterocanonical such as Judith 1:1
First, thank you so much for treating this issue with the complexity that it deserves. That the use of the Septuagint does not set a canon a great point. Use of part of a collection does not endorse the collection as a whole and the contents of the Septuagint are a bit nebulous.
Works included in codices are not the same across the earliest examples that we have, which occasionally contain works like the Shepherd of Hermas, Psalms of Solomon, the Letter of Barnabas, or 1-2 Clement, which no Christian traditions today consider part of Holy Scripture.
@7:42 When was the talmud, chagigah 13A written?
Remember the gospel went out 130 years before the Old Testament was agreed upon. Even St. Jerome had to be corrected. Folks should read a book by Machuda and use that as a reference for his sources and you can see he is spot on.
My only thing as a latino jew myself I'm surprised you didn't mention the difference between Jerusalem canon and Alexandrian canon. The Jerusalem canon never really included the apocrypha only the Alexandrian jews did and the only books we know to have been originally in Hebrew are the 4 found in the dead sea scrolls
Fortunately, some of the best Protestant BIbles have been enriched with the addition of the Deuterocanonical writings, well rendered. And, atop that, some of these enriched translations have been edited into Catholic Editions, so that their are improved texts, very important, and, also significant, the O.T. canon completed for Catholic use. That is how we got the BEST of any edition of the Revised Standard Version, namely the Second Catholic Edition, and the best edition of the English Standard Version, the Catholic Edition. I am Lutheran, but I use these Catholic editions because they simply are superior to any of the defective Protestant texts of them.
I actually don’t own there translations you are talking about. Between the two, which would you recommend most?
I think that of these two made-into-Catholic versions, the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition is the better of the two and quite likely the best Catholic Bible available. @@TheJewishCatholic
@@geraldparker8125thank you!
May you use and enjoy the R.S.V.--C.E. And don't forget, that, ultimately, older less often mentioned versions are even better and more beautiful, like the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, the 1940s Confraternity N.T., and, to some extent, the elegant Knox Version. However, the R.S.V. is perhaps the best for day-to-day use in the life of a Christian. @@TheJewishCatholic
How would you solve the fact that the Septuaginta had more books than what the Church recognizes in the canon? For example, it had the third and fourth book of Machabes.
There was disparity in ancient versions of the Septuagint, and the Church did not uncritically accept every book listed in the respective versions.
1 and 2 Maccabees, which are canonical, address the history of Maccabean revolt. Meanwhile, 4 Maccabees treats the subject of Maccabean martyrs and 3 Maccabees, which does not have any historical connection with the Maccabean period, derives its name because it addresses another persecution of Jews.
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives further details on why 3 and 4 Maccabees were not included in the biblical canon:
III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 BC), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is, religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author’s thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for awhile received favourable consideration in some Churches.
In addition in compiling the biblical canon, the shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and those that aren’t, including whether excerpts from the books were proclaimed at Mass in the early Church, as well as read and preached about otherwise. 3 and 4 Maccabees didn’t make the cut.
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]).
Third Macchabees is a fine book and the Eastern Orthodox accept it as canonical, at least most among them. Fourth Macchabees, on the other hand, has contradictions and suchlike in its text and it not on the same level, so few among the Orthodox and Oriental churches regard it as canonical. It has a sort of toe-hold on them, however, and tends to be valued for its heroic virtue recounted.
A claim you hear a lot is that: jews didn't used those books in their Canon and since they didn't used neither do we.
But for me the Bible is the history of the jews and to not include Macabees and Hanukka is weird
I always believe that the protestant eliminated the Deuterocanonical? Why a Israel Jewish website said that the Canon it was discussed in the Counsel of Jamnia? Why I see American Jews are using the protestant Bible instead their closes Catholics brothers. I don't think so the apostles were using the Bible without the Deuteronomy books. Blessings. Good explanation.
Can you explain the historical mistake in Judith that says Nebukadnezar was the king of Asyur and lived in Niniweh?
It’s a compilation of various evil figures into one person.
There are historical mistakes in many canonical books so that is interesting but no criterion for exclusion.
I like the Antiochian Orthodox repliy that I once read, that Judith is like a long parable and that the errors at the beginning constitute a sort of "once-upon-a-time" way to start it off without making historical reality an appropriate factor even to consider. @@cpnlsn88
Can you explain the historical mistake that the world was created in 7 days in the book of Genesis?
@@geraldparker8125 that actually sounds plausible
And why wasn't 2.Esdras not included in the Canon although being in the Septuagint?
1st and 2nd Esdras go by the names Ezra and Nehemiah. They are part if the canon as dictated by the Church under the Authority given by Christ.
Lol silly question
My friend the way they did it was based on who wrote it and if it was an eye witness or not that is how they decided it
I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help.
That’s why you need a Catholic Bible.
love the teaching but I wish my brother would stop using protestant language by calling the bible books "apocrypha", thats not how we as Apostolic Christians don't call the deuterocannonical books "apocryphal".
The video is meant for non Catholics primarily. I become as they are and speak their language. You and I know what we mean here :)
I call them Apocrypha out of habit and because the Bibles I have call them thus. I do feel uncomfortable with the term and would like to see it phased out.
There are many writings one could classify as apocryphal ie sacred writings that were adopted locally but never gained wider acceptance by Jews or Christians. Such writings may have been popular in their time but never gained wider acceptance. Eg Book of Enoch.
The deutero-canonical/inter-testamental books clearly aren't in that category so the term Apocrypha is both misleading and slightly pejorative.
Romans 3:2“Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
Why did the church wait 1200 years to make a decision on the duetero canon?
There is a difference between making an infallible decree (on what the Church already teaches and believes) and having already accepted the reality that it would later pronounce again. The Church had confirmed the canon since the 300’s and confirmed it in several later councils. After the Protestant Revolution, the Church declared it in its most authoritative decree as an article of the Faith.
@@TheJewishCatholic was that because the Protestants were debating them, so the Church felt the need to decree a formal proclamation?
@@TheJewishCatholic thank you for answering my question BTW. I really enjoyed the video and subscribed to the channel.
@@aaronraynor7703yes, you pretty much describe what Dogma is according to the Church.
When a serious confrontation emerges regarding the faith, then the Church clarifies her official position on the issue.
That official position is Dogma
Question: Why do Jewish sources tell, that the spirit left Israel after the last Prophet Maleachi and didn't raise up new peophets (Talmud Sanhedrin 11a)? Isn't that a counter argument against the deuterocanonical books written after that?
It’s not a counter argument due to the fact that while God really did remove the authority away from the old Sanhedrin and cast of priests, the Spirit of God was deposited upon the new leadership (the Apostles and their successors through sh’micha) and the Church.
@@TheJewishCatholic So did the Apokrypha become authoritative because of and just since it's decleration by the catholic church or were they autoritative since it's writting? And if the latter, where did they get their authority from when the Talmud states that the spirit left israel -> no inspired prophets left?
@@ralibalyase2531the Deuterocanonical books have been used by the Church since the early centuries of the Church. But to be sure, it is Christ who gives the authority to the Church to ultimately decide what is Scripture.
It really doesn’t matter what the rabbis feel on that matter. Even for the different groups within ancient Judaism, there were certain books which were contended such as the Song of Songs. And among the rabbis, who would have the authority to decide a canon? No one because the Beit Din HaGadol was dismantled since the destruction of the Temple and 40 years before that, Christ had established the New Court through the Apostles.
@@TheJewishCatholicOk, I understand. So in your view what is autoritative doesn't depend on the nature of the writting itself (it is inspired and the church just recognizes that what is the case in protestantism) but on the one (-> the church) declaring it as autoritative what it becomes thereafter. However now I have a question? How do you know that it is really the church that Jesus gave this authority to? Aren't usually NT Verses such as Matt 16:18 or 1.Tim 3:15 used for basing this claim?
But how can you really trust them as being true if not believing in the inherrent autority of these books first ?
@@ralibalyase2531no, thats not quite what I’m saying. The Writings are sacred due to the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired their authors to compose them. The Church, from the other end, affirms this through its authoritative declaration of their validity. Imagine two bits of magnets attracting each other by the same force. In this case, that which unites it all is the Spirit of God Himself.
This is why, for Catholics, we do not claim “the Bible is our ultimate infallible authority”. And we don’t say that about the Church either. Rather, what we proclaim is that God is our Ultimate and Infallible authority and He governs and guides His People through a sacred trifecta of authority: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Living Authority of the Church (the Magisterium). All three are inseparable and indispensable to one another.
👍
How would you answer a protestant objector who says that God entrusted His OT oracles to the Jews and no one else according to Romans 3:2, and so it doesn't matter when the Rabbi's closed the Hebrew , we are still bound to go with their judgement???
This argument is most likely a misinterpretation. At one point the Jews were God’s chosen people. This is an issue that can probably be resolved just by reading though the passage.
Paul is trying to get at that being a Jew is no longer required to being Christian. Verses 3:22, 28-29 back up this point.
Also if the logic that Jews decide the canon was true, it would have to be consistent. This means the New Testament isn’t canon. You’d also have to accept Jewish authority which, unless you’re a Messianic Jew (maybe), denies the divinity of Jesus.
Those same Jews reject Jesus and ALL 27 books of the Old Testament.
@@richlopez5896 do you mean the New Testament?
"Time to get a new Bible." 🤣
Speaking of new BIbles, do not forget to consider obtaining the 2020 "New Catholic Bible" I have the hardback "St. Joseph Edition" of it, which is quite attractive and with good features (published by the Catholic Book Publishing Corp.); alas, the binding is not sewn, but it seems to be rather sturdy despite that (and it's time that will tell). This seems like a good candidate to displace the dreadful New American Bible, but I don't know if there are such efforts afoot. I have not had it long enough to give it a trial run, but first impressions are favourable.
The universe we live in is the Friedman Lamatire Universe, named after a Jew and a Catholic priest. Fr. Lemaitre being the one who discovered the Big Bang.
A story:
Fred Hoyle is the one who mocked Lamaitre's primordial cosmological singularity as the Big Bang and the name stuck. Fr. Lamaitre was quite a good-natured person and put up with Hoyles mocking and they became good friends and took vacations together. While vacationing together in Italian Alps, they all went out together. When the plates arrived Holye had his stake but Lamitre had a very large fish... Fred could not help teasing Fr. Lamaitre as usual "Now we know at last why you are Catholic". Fr. Lemaitre turned red and began fidgeting nervously. Barbara nudged Fred and whispered, "You know he hates fish, he is eating the fish as his penance for Friday." Now it was Fred's turn to turn red in the face.
I have that version 1611 kjv for those who want to claim something that is not.😁
I have big problem with Catholic "tradition" as it broke Church tradition claiming singular Authority in Rome breaking the tradition of genererallly coequal cousels. Especially that of Conatantinople and Rome. This gets into the quagmire of Roman politics influence on Church Politics . I know oversimplification. But the "tradition" argument is weakened when traditions change to suit thier needs.
So we look to Jewish tradition. It too is not fully cohesive on these books. The modern Rabbi's I read and watched seem to agree they are to be considered Jewish Writings. But not genreally accepted as Authoritative texts. Kinda the same as Martin Luther "setting them aside" but not removing them.
Furthermore the Orthodox branches who also hold to church "tradition" accept Apocrypha.
As a protestant I hate the fact we have no central authority per se and too many single individual interpretations (THough the Pope does the same over centuries but much more incremental) and recognize that we really decend from the Roman Church. So keep them in the bible, My bible has them. It stands as the only tradition that does not include them and would appear to stand in error.
Now........ Authoratative texts or not is another quagmire.
First I think lol
Eyyyyyy! Nice haha
I knew this decades ago. Keep going; the Jew, our Rabbi, Yeshua haMashiac, has been taken out of the Temple. It is sad that the Sanhedrin of Yavneh initially fueled this. The curtain of the commonly shared Judaism was torn asunder and the inevitable creeping and pervasive anti-Semitic behaviors of Gentile culture crept in.
I have a King James Bible with the Deuterocanonical Books
Which one do you have? I have the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Although, my main Bible at the moment is the ESV- Catholic Edition by the Augustine Institute.
@@TheJewishCatholic I have the old Oxford King James Version.
The KJV included the DC in the first few editions. When Cromwell and his gang of holy thugs captured the Royal Press and committed regicide, he ordered the Royal Press to remove the books. Who gave Oliver Cromwell the authority to removed the books?
It’s one of those things, they chose under their own authority. I don’t know why people aren’t suspicious about all this. If even the KJV had it, I would hope it would inspire curiosity. But to be honest, when I lived as a Protestant I knew nothing about this. When I found out, I felt as though I’d been robbed of a treasure.
Glad to have a complete Bible now!
@@TheJewishCatholic Most protestants today engage in _post-facto rationalization_ when defending the Masoretic canon
Apocrypha?
The only deuterocanonical book that is problematic is Ecclesiasticus. In ch 25:24, it says "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die." Which explicitly contradicts what Paul says in Romans 5 and 1st Cor 15. Besides that I believe in the inspiration of the rest.
Remember when Sirach wrote this he is speaking of women in general and how men follow wicked women into wickedness. That is the context. Sirach is speaking of the primeordal sin which was committed by Eve first and then entices Adam into sin and due to her sin we all die. But dont we all die? So, is it not true that due to her sin we all die? But that is not the point of Sirach here. The point he is making is that.
In Romans St. Paul mentions that through Adam, death entered the world. In Corinthians he says in Adam we die and in Christ we live.
The questions to ask are
1. Who committed the first sin of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge?
2. Is it not true that she enticed Adam into doing the same?
3. If Adam had not followed what would the situation have been?
We must remember that each of the Biblical writers brings a perspective and just because one persons states something one way and another in another way does not mean that they are contradictory.
@@deusimperator 1: Who committed the first sin was Adam. Job 31:33 If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,
Adam was already sinning by letting the serpent deceive Eve. She committed the first physical sin, by eating the fruit, but not the first sin.
2: No, not in the slightest. Adam was right next to Eve when the serpent was deceiving her, hence the plurals in the Hebrew and the Bible's with thee's and thou's. The serpent enticed Eve to eat and then she gave it to her husband.
3: Both probably (not 100% sure) would have been expelled because they both fell into sin. Adam first in his heart, Eve first by physical action. Think about this verse though. Genesis 3:23-24: "The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. He expelled the man, stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life."
Adam was the one who was banished and expelled because he sinned that sin with knowledge. Eve just followed Adam out.
So I think Paul was inspired to ascribe death to Adam instead of Eve like all the other sexist Jewish Rabbi's in the Second Temple period.
Now I still think it shouldn't have been thrown out of the Bible, but right now I do not believe that Sirach is inspired.
@@xUncleA123x [1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
[2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.
[4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.
[5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.
[6] And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.
So addressing 1: _But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die._
Who said that? She knew it was against G-d's command.
_She committed the first physical sin, by eating the fruit, but not the first sin_ this does not make sense.
2: She ate of the fruit and then gave it to her husband ... there is no mention that the serpent was right there... the serpent tempts the woman who eats and then in turn tempts the husband.
3: _Adam first in his heart, Eve first by physical action_ huh??? Where did you get this from??? What do you mean???
Just going by what you mentioned how do you know what Sirach was talking about? May be he was talking about physical sin and not heart sin?
You miss the whole point of Sirach... Sirach is writing to men not to follow wicked women in their wickedness. First Sirach speaks about the wise women and then speaks of the wicked woman. That is the context. [30] A woman, if she have superiority, is contrary to her husband.
The wicked woman rules her husband and leads him into sin.
Who first committed the sin, Eve and she leads Adam into sin.
You throw out Ecclesiasticus because of something which you deem contradictory? There is no contradiction ... Eve commits three sins before Adam commits the sin.
Adam told Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is confirmed by _But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die._ G-d gave authority to Adam to tell Eve not to eat of the tree.
1. Eve knowingly disobeys Adam who is "superior" (Ecc 25: 30] "she disobeys in her heart?"
2: She eats of the fruit committing the sin (physical sin)
3. She gives the fruit to Adam, tempting him into committing sin - which is a sin of the interllect
Sirach chapter is a warning to men to associate with the wise woman and not the wicked woman. That is the point of Sirach 25.
Now lets take this...
Rom 4
[1] What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh. [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.
James 2
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
So who is correct St. James or St. Paul? Which of the books do you want to throw out? Luther threw out St. James which is a Catholic epistle intended for the Church as a whole.
@@xUncleA123x BTW I am not saying that there is a contradicting between St. Paul and St. James. Both a expressing an understanding of "faith" to the people they are writing. St. Paul is writing most likely in Latin to the Romans , St. Paul had to speak Latin to be considered a Roman citizen and wrote Romans in Latin and not Greek, he would not have written in Greek to the Romans.
@@xUncleA123x
Adam didn't let her do anything, there was Free Will at the time and at the time- the curse was not established on man: so the woman was not commanded to be subservient to her husband.
Go read it and see that I'm not lying
I am hearing what you are saying, but something inside of me has a difficult time accepting the magisterium and most man administered authority in the “church” today as being the authority that had the Ruach HaKodesh. We were all promised him as our comforter and part of his in dwelling was to bring to remembrance those things which Jesus said. And that was straight from His mouth.
Throughout history these men have been known to be some of the most perverse, greedy, licentious and blood thirsty. The book of Matthew reads: “If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness.”
I also have/read the deuterocanonical books (second canon), and don’t see any real issues here. If Jesus is the central and the Gospel is the mission set forth to make disciples of all nations, why is there so much anger seemingly between the RCs and the Protestants. I was on a post a while back and Catholics were talking about wanting to relight the fires of the reformation and eliminate those they didn’t agree with. This isn’t going to end well for anyone who starts a war over. That sadly to me would definitely be lacking the Ruach HaKodesh !
I understand your concern. The matter requires proper understanding of what we mean when we say the Spirit guides the Church. It does not mean that all its members are pure, good and holy… it simply means that the Spirit of God will always guide the Church in spite of our selves. Thus, while it’s members and even those in the hierarchy may fail, the teachings (dogmas and doctrine on morals and faith) will always be guarded.
There is a resource I recommend to understand what the Church truly teaches and believes. Get the app “Hallow” and try out the “Catechism in a Year”. We are going through the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church together.
@@TheJewishCatholic thank you for your response.
As someone claiming Judaism as their ethnicity, are you actually from the tribe of Yehuda, or are you of another of the 11?
Also, what sect of Judaism were you brought up in before you became a born again believer in Yeshuah HaMechiach?
We’re you exposed to Babylonian Talmudic and Mishna teachings in an orthodox sect or were you more of the secular?
And with that answer then, how did that impact your working out your own salvation with fear and trembling?
What major issues led you to settle on the capital C, proper name Catholicism rather than the lower case c catholic (universal) body?
Thank you.
@@charliewhon6548 I am currently in a back & forth with Catholics & I keep telling them I only follow scripture, I only preach the gospel of Christ. Yet they continue to go on & on about Catholic Faith, Catholic traditions, word of mouth, the rosary, praying to saints, the sacraments, turning bread into flesh & wine into blood, praying for the dead, faith by works etc. They could care less about the gospel of Christ, or it is just seen as 1 of many things to practice. I find it much easier to get atheists to understand the purpose of Christ.
@@JC-li8kk not sure how you declared they don't care about the gospel, when their Mass reads the ENTIRE Bible daily over 3 years, the gospel is read daily in mass, the morning and evening prayers are scripture, the meditative prayers (rosary) is entirely meditating visualizing / entering scenes of the gospel, everyone stands in reverence while the gospel - Jesus's words are read in church, and many many many practicing catholics read the Bible daily at home. A strong practicing catholic is ready to die for the gospel, as evidenced by yearly persections around the world.
@@contemplatingchrist Good, then you believe you are saved by faith in Christ. I’m happy to have met 2 Catholics now who understand the purpose of Christ. Spread the good news to other Catholics.
The King James Bible translation contained the Apocrypha as part of Martin Luther's practice.
At some point it started to be printed without the Apocrypha. My dictum is that everyone should read the Apocrypha once. The books are beautiful and meaningful and deserve to be read. Apart from anything they bear witness to the inter-testamental period.
The practice of doubting the validity of the Apocrypha goes back to St Jerome and in fact the constitution of the canon of Scripture is a historical process of recognition, validation and doubt for both Jews and Christians.
Notably there are important books that aren't 'in' like the Book of Enoch and some generally accepted books have doubts even today.
There is a difference of worth one can all recognise. The gospel of St John is more important than Revelation or Ecclesiastes for instance.
Once the position is taken to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew (St Jerome) then the Apocrypha will get relegated.
The term Apocrypha is probably not correct. Deutero-canonical sounds too technical. I prefer the title 'books translated from Greek manuscripts written between the Old and New Testaments'.
Whatever they're called I like them very much and would never buy a Bible without them.
Get this, when publishers such as Cambridge and Thomas Nelson include the "Apocryphal" books in some of their Bible editions, some people actually believe the publishers are "adding" books (not using the correct term "restoring"). Hilarity ensues by reading product reviews, but it's good that English speakers get educated on how bibles were before 1804 when the British and Foreign Bible Society stopped printing the "Apocrypha" to save money.
From "The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation" by Alister McGrath pg 330 (in ebook version):
"The dominant forms of Christianity in the United States at this time were sympathetic to the exclusion of these works, and Aitken saw no difficulty in responding accordingly...the resulting work would be easier and less costly to produce on account of this omission."
From Cambridge dictionary:
o-mis-sion
noun
the act of not including something or someone that should have been included, or something or someone that has not been included that should have been:
> "should have been included"
@@realFrankyBaby the 1804 decision was controversial and also very regrettable. Few people are aware of the role of the Bible Society in determining the form our Bible takes.
@@cpnlsn88unfortunate indeed, yes. The silver lining is that notable publishers are now realizing the desire and void in the market for bibles that include the deuterocanonical/"Apocryphal" books, albeit and usually in separate sections.
The resistance is strong in America, evident when the American version of the 1885/95 RV deliberately omitted the Apocrypha. To which now the TRADITION *tongue in cheek* continues with the more modern NASB77/95/2020 and it's derivative the LSB (whew). I guess we Americans just know what's best for everyone 🙂
@@realFrankyBaby Different versions do different things. In the Protestant world many have no awareness of these books and would be troubled to find them there. The first King James Bible had the Apocrypha in a separate section and also of course also the Martin Luther translation at the outset. It is better to include them and explain what they are and each faith tradition can explain them to their members.
Love this video, but only problem is why would the Holy Spirit tell Catholics to pray to and worship Mary and carved images? The scriptures don’t say to do that at all, and one of the commandments is to not worship any carved images. Also, if the Ruach gave Catholics the authority to make decisions like that, then where is that in scripture? Or what sign was there to prove that? Wouldn’t that make man like God, just because someone said trust me the Holy Spirit told me? None of this makes sense when u read the Bible. Shalom brother
Shalom. Years ago, I thought the same things. Turns out almost all I “knew” about Catholicism was based on lies, misconceptions and false information. All I knee about Catholicism came from anti-Catholic sources. It took me time to see through the lies and it actually happened while I was trying to “debunk the Church”.
But let me give you sources that will help: 1) Catholic.com 2) The Catechism of the Catholic Church 3) the Didache 4) “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary” by Dr. Brant Pitre 5) “Behold Your Mother” by Tim Staples 6) “Upon This Rock” by Steve Ray 7) my channel
I know you may think, “I don’t need all that. All I need it the Bible”. But all of these use Scriptures, history, theological reasoning, logic and even archeology as the basis for proof. You wont regret it.
I think the disconnect is that protestants think praying and singing is worshipping God and it's not. It's only communication. Catholics worship God at the liturgical sacrificial Mass. From conception the “Church” was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Judaism and Catholicism were born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope.
Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.
The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and beit-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol.
Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was.
The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.
Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier of the Davidic Kingdoms. The Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the Davidic kings were away the steward/vizier was in charge and he wore the keys the King gave him so the citizens knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The keys were then passed onto a successor when that steward died/removed. (Isaiah 22 v15-25)
The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. Jesus gave all the Apostles special gifts but He only gave Peter the keys to Temple and governance.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history.
Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, His mother is Gebirah, Peter/successor Popes are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium.
Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and continues to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Jewish priests who followed Jesus brought the temple rituals over: we kept the priests, the altar, the eternal sacrifice, the holy incense, the shewbread, the tabernacle, the sanctuary etc, etc, etc
Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new.
Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood (which pre-exists the Aaronic priesthood). This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker I've recently begun to suspect Catholicism and Judaism as being two sides of the same coin based on sporadic research and deep but narrow study over the past several years of Judaism and Christianity more broadly. This comment provides some much needed context and clarity that couldn't have come at a better time. It is encouraging to see to say the least.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworkeri knew part of what you wrote, but the depth you have on jewish sources has astounded me!
Thank you!
Could I have your advice on books or sources I could read on this topic of the continuation of the church? It may be in english, spanish, french and portuguese.
Actually God entrusted the Jews - not the Church - with the OT canon (the oracles of God)(Romans 3:2). Anytime you want to discuss this, I have debated Gary Michuta and Trent Horn on this and wrote a book about it.
There was no set canon. As a matter of fact the whole idea of a canon is a Catholic idea. I wrote no books but this is common knowledge amongst Jews. But thanks for invitation.
Then we wouldn't have a New Testament since Jews reject ALL 27 books of the New Testament. 86% of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament come from the Septugint the Apostolic Church used. Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint in all 27 New Testament books.
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).
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]).
Would Jewish leaders possess the authority to make a decision binding upon the Christian Church? Those Jews who had accepted Christ had already become Christians. The remainder had no authority to decide anything about divine truth, as that authority had passed to those filled with the Holy Spirit (i.e., the apostles). The same goes for the opinions of Josephus and Philo. The Jews did not have the authority to decide the canon. The Church did.
I prefer the Catholic Jewish person
You can be a Jew and "be" Catholic.
The proper question is:
Did the Sanhedrin of Yavneh create Catholicism or did it create Rabbinical Judaism as a new religion?
Our Rabbi Yeshua haNotzri was calling believers back to a more primitive Judaism, the Messianic Judaism of Moshe' the prophet[peace be on his name]. This Judaism was primitive [primitive = that which is pure and undiluted].
Yavneh whether or not it happened is irrelevant. The Sanhedrin of Yavneh supposedly closed the canon; it did not. It did not effect the Jews of Antioch, Alexandria; Ethiopian Jews [Fallasha] have the same canon we do.
It is my judgment that Yavneh accomplished the exact opposite of the aims of beit Shammai, and Akiva--later in 135AD. A fence was not built around Torah; rather a Wall was built around the Torah. Shammai and Akiva walled themselves and Judaism in. It is no small wonder that the Temple of the Catholic church became less and less Jewish and more and increasingly more Gentile. Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin, Treblinka, Auschwitz, BergenBelsen, Dachau and all the others were foregone conclusions when that happened.
Catholicism is old Testamental Prophetic Messianic Judaism come to fruition with a common priesthood of the faithful as haShem said through the mouth of Moshe' the prophet[peace be on him]: "...and I shall make you a nation of priests holy to me...", and an ordained sacramental priesthood of Aaharon the first Cohan haGadol [peace be on his name].
No you cannot be a Catholic and a jew ,this man has no idea what he is talking about, and he is not able to back himself up, if you scroll to the top of the comment section you will see him failing to back up his position against my claims....... which are nothing more than the claims that God put in the Tanakh.
One can be a Jew culturally and/or ethnically and still be Catholic.
I am aware that one cannot be simultaneously reject and accept Jesus as the Messiah (Christ).
@@MohicanIncan
Wrong, do you even know how Abraham became a Jew/ Hebrew/ Israelite?
He became a Jew/ hebrew/ Israelite when he found the true God, and then he rejected his own ppl as they were not one of him because they were not under his God.......
its not about blood, its about God and becoming a son of God,
A jew walks with God and God alone.
@@yashawngray9289, similarly with Christianity.
The people of Israel are the Christians.
As they were born again in the Spirit, they become one with the Church.
@@MohicanIncan
I am sorry, i don't understand, you need to be more clear, the people of Israel are not Christians, nor are they born again, nor are they part of the church.
I see you glossed over Jerome and laid blame at the foot of Luther. Biased much? Jerome not only called those books apocrypha but also 'not in the canon.' If you have read his Prefaces you'd know that. He rejected those books outright. It wasn't that he simply had some sort of lower view of them. Luther included them in the back of the o.t. At least you were honest enough to say that. Normally catholics say he removed them altogether. Also, a contemporary of Luther, Cardinal Cajetan rejected the apocrypha too. And he did so because Jerome rejected them. There were many canons floating around in the 2nd - 5th centuries. The rcc made its first dogmatic declaration of the canon at Trent, session 4, 1546. Not before.
Jerome was wrong this is why the Pope corrected him.
@@allopez8563 Where? Cite your sources.
@@ContendingEarnestly Look it up. I can't put links.
382 AD pope Damasus I.
Jerome considered non canonical the council and the pope placed them in the Bible all the same. Even more for 1500 they were in all western Bibles in spite ot Jerome's view.
It was until the 16th century that protestants considered that Jews who lack the Grace of Jesus Christ had any authority to determine canon (since the jewish canon was stablished after Christ)
@@allopez8563 *382 AD pope Damasus I.*
You mean Rome 382 specifically. And no, it wasn't an ecumenical council. Neither was Hippo or Carthage; 393, 397 respectfully. There was no declarative statement on the canon made there. Jerome was there. If Damasus had made such a statement regarding the canon why did Jerome not too many years later say those very books are not in the canon? He included them in the Vulgate but to him they were apocryphal, not canonical.
*and the pope placed them in the Bible all the same.*
Source?
*Even more for 1500 they were in all western Bibles in spite ot Jerome's view.*
Simply being included in a bible or translation doesn't mean they were considered inspired. Jerome included them in the Vulgate. They were included in the LXX. But other translations had The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Letter to the Laodiceans. As well as 3-4 Maccabees. Those aren't canonical right?
*It was until the 16th century that protestants considered that Jews who lack the Grace of Jesus Christ had any authority to determine canon (since the jewish canon was stablished after Christ)*
You think that in the first century Jesus didn't know His own canon? Hes God, He inspired it along with the Holy Spirit and God the Father. When Jesus told the Pharisees, often, 'haven't you read the scriptures or don't you know the scriptures that He didn't know what His own inspired word was? The o.t. was given to the Jews; Romans 3. When Jesus read Isaiah when He was twelve, the scribe didn't have to go rummaging through Judith, Wisdom or Sirach to find it because the temple scrolls never had the apocypha.
@@ContendingEarnestly You claiming the Jews of the time of Jesus didn't use the LXX is just a blatant lie.
Even protestant scholars like Archer and Chirichigno list around 300 places were the Septuagint was cited, for example:
Mark 7:6-7 Jesus quoted Isaiah 29-13.
From the LXX.
The council of Rome over rule and private interpretation Jerome had.
Also rabbinic jews like Rabbi Akiva in the 2nd Century were still reading from the Deuterocanonical so you spew another lie writing down Jews didn't use them.
It was latter after Jews lost the Grace of Jesus that they completely rejected the Deuterocanonical books and protestants were happy to follow their error.
The living authority of your church declared Jesus as a sinner - what does that do to your faith? He who claims to be the Vicar of Christ has declared that everyone is going to heaven after their death while your church still sends millions of catholics to purgatory for an unspecified time to become pure. So, you think mortal sins are now venial sins if the sinner is an atheist or a Muslim?
Did you learn your Catholic theology from the back of a cereal box? In all seriousness, nothing you said is accurate or even resembling the facts. Do this, if you actually have questions, go to Catholic.com and search your questions there.
@@TheJewishCatholic You don't treat the pope Francis as the living authority then? Wow, that's new. And the average catholic don't plan to go to purgatory anymore. That is truly beautiful. I'll throw a party, soon as you confirm ofcourse. God bless you, for honouring the finished work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross.
@@alvarobarreto2286 Aaaaand, of course you are one of those. Use the source I gave you if you want to get the facts. Otherwise, you are just making yourself look silly commenting on things you are sadly uninformed in.
Romans 3:1,2 states, "Then what [a]advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God". If the Jewish Old Testament has none of the deuterocanonical books, and it doesn't, then according to God's Word neither should anyone else.
the Septuagint (LXX) does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon).
The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD:
"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.”
The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church.
The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD:
“Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse)
Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time.
The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books
"“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
Josephus wrote the Sadducees, Pharasies, Essenes all had different scripture lists. What are you talking about?
@@CPATuttle
Josephus lists only the Books in the Old Testament that are the same as found in English Bible Versions as the New King James, English Standard Version, New American, etc. At his time there were no additional books that are found in the Roman Catholic bible.
Jewish history of the Old Testament has ONLY the 22 or 24 (depending on the Book division), Books, and NO others!
@@bibletheology2889 would you at least try to look it up. That’s a Protestant myth. Josephus writes that about the Pharisees. He says the Sadducees only have the Torah 5 books. And then he says the Essenes had more books than the Pharisees. And that’s only Josephus. There was many more Jewish sects with different scriptures. Further the 22 books of the Pharasies are not listed either.. An early Christian listed 22 scripture books used and it was a different list. I’m going to look up the name. I forgot at the moment
@@bibletheology2889 Cyril of Jerusalem 22 book Old Testament list 345 AD. Look that up. You’ll see his list isn’t the Protestant Old Testament books. He actually lists the books unlike Josephus on the Pharisees sect
@@CPATuttle
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life” (William Whiston, The Complete Works of Josehpus, Against Apion Book I. Sec. 8)
“The inclusion of the so-called Apocryphal Books in the LXX version is sometimes alleged to be a proof, that the Alexandrian Jews acknowledged a wider Canon of Scripture than their Palestinian countrymen. But this is not a legitimate inference. Our copies of the LXX are derived from Christian sources; and all that can certainly be proved from the association of additional books with those of the Hebrew Canon, is that these other books found favour with the Christian community. Doubtless, they would not thus have found favour with the Christians, if they had not also enjoyed high repute among the Jews, from whom they were obtained along with the undoubted books of the Hebrew Canon. The fact, however, that, neither in the writings of Philo, nor in those of Josephus-Jews who both make use of the LXX version-have we any evidence favouring the canonicity of the Apocryphal Books, is really conclusive against their having been regarded as Scripture by Greek-speaking Jews before the second century A.D…The writings of Philo, who died about 50 A.D., do not throw very much positive light upon the history of the Canon. To him, as to other Alexandrine Jews, the Law alone was in the highest sense the Canon of Scripture, and alone partook of divine inspiration in the most absolute degree. He quotes, however, extensively from other books of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch ; and while it is probable that he shows acquaintance with Apocryphal writings, he is said never to appeal to them in support of his teaching in the way that he does to books included in the Hebrew Canon. The negative value of his testimony is therefore fairly conclusive against the canonicity of any book of the Apocrypha, or of any work not eventually included in the Hebrew Canon.” (H E Ryle; The Canon of the Old Testament, pp.146, 148-149)
Important topics of discussion but the intro music is just awful
So skip the intro lol. I’m not switching it. I LOVE the intro.
I like the music 👍
Hey I want to learn Hebrew but with the catholic interpretation, can you teach that ?
You cannot be Jewish and Catholic, that is a huge contradiction.
Oh??!! I can’t? Man. I wish I would have known. Lol. Thanks for your opinion.
@@TheJewishCatholic
Its not a opinion but you are welcome, to be a jew you must be under the commandments and the Tanakh....... or you are not a Jew , and it's just that simple.
The ways of the Catholic and the ways of the Jew are completely separate,different, and can never be considered the same.
If what I say is an opinion ((as you would call it ))) then please challenge it by describing the blueprints that you have in your mind which lead you to say as you say.
You won't be able to because you're speaking from The Stance of opinion and I'm speaking from The Stance of fact.
It is not good to mislead people.
@@yashawngray9289 mmm. You must feel so good. You got the facts. Wooo. Well done.
@@TheJewishCatholic
Lol -no, i feel normal about it, it is you who gets upset because you don't like hearing that your name is a contradiction.
I told you about it, so that you could do something about it, but instead you just want to act immature and not even express why you feel the way that you feel, you're rather Express immaturity.
you have no blueprints which would allow you to map out any logical stance on this issue because it is a contradiction.
There is no such thing as a Jewish Catholic.
@@yashawngray9289 ok bud. You done with your piece?
Absolutely incorrect. The apocryphal books are OT to begin with. The Jews are the ones who rejected those writings as well as Athanasius. If you know the Bible (66 books) and you have the Spirit of God then you when you read those books it’s obvious they are NOT God’s words. Once you know the re as l thing a counterfeit is easily spotted.
Amazing, non-facts.
History disagrees
The Jews also rejected the entire New Testament. So why would I care if a fake council in 90 AD supposedly rejected the Deuterocanonicals?
Here are some examples of Jesus referring to deuterocanon:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows
Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as
Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
Also St. Paul quotes Judith and says it was written for our correction. And Paul says elsewhere that scriptures were written for our correction. So Paul in scripture refers to Judith as scripture.
Athanasius, in 367 AD, excluded Esther and included Tobith and the letter of Jeremiah. That’s no Protestant Old Testament
it's just funny how you are describing the secret traditions :) Catholics and Orthodox are so obsessed with traditions but you both forget that those traditions were created way after Jesus's death and resurrection and have nothing to do with his life. Those traditions are man-made but the Bible is the word of god (with or without extra books) and nothing can be above that. The Apocrypha books can't be as important as the Torah and the New Testament simply because Jesus has never referred to them while he referred to other books. They exist but are less important in Judaism as well. It is just a matter of who decides what books to be added to the Bible and who they benefit. Catholics have fewer extra books than Protestants, while Orthodox have even more books than Catholics and Ethiopian Orthodox have the most books in their Bible. So the point is if church fathers can add/remove books left and right then it's just a matter of who you want to believe; Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants. I believe that with the historical facts, deuterocanonical Books aren't as important as the Old and New Testament and I believe labeling yourself as Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant is the most unchristian thing you can ever do. None of them are 100% right but there are many righteousness in all of them.
L
The Apostles and their successors, the bishops, have absolute power over the Church founded by Jesus Christ: Acts 15-28
Ok well Jesus did not refer to Esther or Song of Solomon or plenty of others…. What does that mean? They’re less important now?
The problem about your “tradition” claim what is man made and what is the tradition taught by the apostles?
@@gilberturesti338 and the Canon you have is tradition. How do you know that tradition is correct or man-made?