#6. 1551AD- Protestantism came into being-7 Catholic doctrinal books were removed from OUR bible ,as well as changing of words-and now they call it their own and state that we don't follow the bible. I would define this as lying & stealing,along with misleading others,to wroingly believe falacies about our Roman Catholic faith.Check out the historical facts.
Search and you will find the fullness of truth & beauty that lies within our church.
FACT #1. RC Church est. 33 AD-Pentecost. #2. RC Church did compiled bible as in video. #3. The ONLY true Christian Church to exist first 1551 yrs.was CATHOLIC. #4. Only church to have Apostalic Succession-Catholic Chuurch. #5. The Church will always remain true to it's teachings/doctrine, as promised by Christ.despite some of it's fallen away members who we pray for.
I have done much research & this video is most accurate, Perhaps those opposing it should do likewise. Research objectively on your own in any library,without listening to your Anti-Catholic leaders & you will find all the truths depicted in this video & thensome. Sorry to disappointed those that are sadly misguilded. I hope this helps. Read the letters of the Ante-Nicene Fathers ,read the inscriptions on the tombs in the catacombs in & around Rome.Archeology & history reveals these truths.
You are extremely mistaken. A religion can not be biblical. Especially if it was created before the Bible. The Bible is Christian. And there was a meeting of the higher members of the Catholic Church and they determined which books made it into the bible by a few rules. 1. They had to have an apolostic orgin and 2. They must have been inspired by God and fufill Catholic teaching.
Ooops! Forgot to mention that the Orthdox Jew & expert on Judaism, Torah and Radio/Talk Show host is none other than Dennis Prager. Google him--terrific intellect.
According to Orthodox Jew & radio/talk show host (&Torah lecturer), he says that protesantism stands alone among the world's religions, in that it is soley Book-based. Judaism & Roman Catholicism are wound tightly together in Sacred Scripture AND oral tradition, handed down before the printing press, canon of the New Testament, etc..so, really, protestantism counts solely on a Catholic Book, thank you very much to the Catholic hierarchy, the Holy Spirit and Magisterium. I hear no thanks thoough.
Seriously, do some actual research into this without relying on a biased source. You have to be objective not brainwashed. The Protestant version of the Bible is heretical as it has chunked entire original sections. Now they try and justify these actions. I want all of God's word, not just what some members of Parliament decided I should have. Learn about for yourselves.
The original Christians, the Orthodoxy were responsible for writing the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They don't "interpret" the Bible. They explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author, and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase. At least the Catholics and Orthodox don't interpret it 50,000 different ways and then argue with each other about what it means.
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isnt canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.
Your comparison of the Church and the supreme court was an excellent way of putting things into perspective. Why is it that we accept the 27 books of the New Testament as Sacred Scripture in the first place? In no chapter of any of those books are all 27 listed canonically, so then by what divine authority do we regard the validity of these texts as such?
Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as
@martlut Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority.
the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture
And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote:
When I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33)
Who put the Bible together? And why would that institution contradict its contents? Your brand of theology is pure innovation. The personal misinterpretation you apply to the scriptures has left you far from the Traditions of the early Christians and their Church. Shed your affinity for the anti-Catholic "conspiracy" websites and delve into real history and you might end up converting to the True Faith as I did. Peace be with you!.
the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
@MrJamesthecatholic I will do one better. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Revelation 15:4 says, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy." Romans 3:10 says, There is none righteous, no, not one." Luke2:22,24 proves she needed purification from sin. Now, can YOU show ME a verse that says mary was sinless?
"Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.""
Oh so Jesus must have been a sinner too. He was man and according to your interpretation He must have sinned too. Either that or your interpretation is plain wrong. Show us which one.
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isnt canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.
In his Prologus Galeatus to the Vulgate, is listed the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the thirty-nine books are grouped as twenty-two) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”
@JosherForder St. Jerome's opinion regarding the 7 deuterocanonical books is irrelevant. He was commissioned by the pope to translate all 46 Old Testament books into Latin - the common language of that era and region. Obedient as he was to the pope, he fulfilled his duties with flying colors. And you must realize that the verse you offered applies to the "revelation" John had received from God - not the collection of scripture that wouldn't be discerned and compiled until 3 centuries later.
@BrianSquiers Sorry but I believe the Bible existed in the First Century. Don't you believe "the Apostles and the older men" in Jerusalem approved it's final canon under God's holy spirit? Surely if you would ask any Faithful Christian in the First century which scrolls were part of the Bible canon I am sure they would tell you.
@eltigreoso Many early Christians considered the Didache, the Shepard, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians and dozens of other works to be sacred as well. If the Bible is your sole rule of Faith it should concern you that these were excluded. How do we know for sure? The Bible is not self-authenticating. Just as an outside authority (the Church) is required for interpretation that same authority was required to establish the Bible's form (until Protestants removed 7 books centuries later).
@BrianSquiers I understand the expression found in Revelation 22:18, 19 "...If anyone makes an addition to these things,..." to mean alleged new prophecies or any supposed new gospel in light with these scriptures (Galatians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 13:8; 1 John 4:1-3) What I am trying to say is the 4th Century Roman Catholic Church did acknowledge but not establish the Bible canon. Best wishes.
@BrianSquiers Obedient Jerome, is also the one described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church; took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings.
Actually, the Bible did existed during the time of the Apostles in the First Century. The Bible existed long before the forth century! See: Revelation 22:18, 19... Interesting, none of the Bible writers were Gentile Roman Latin speaking Roman Catholics.
Without offence, the Cor'an is the word of God to mankind after both the Torah and the Bible were distorted by certain people to their interests. Please read what the Cor;an says about the previous holy books. Just, read with an oppen mind and see by yourselves.
Thanks for the positive feedback. The list of New Testament books was established by papal decree at the Council of Rome in 382 and reaffirmed in 393, 397 and 419 at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage 3 and 4.
Good video, looks like I'm one of the first to see it. Excellent work. It's funny because I was just doing up a video on the same theme as this. I'm also Catholic and agree with everything you say in this video. I have a question though. In my research, I found the official canon was ratified at the Synod of Hippo in 393, however you date it to 382. Can you help me with this discrepancy? Thanks.
#6. 1551AD- Protestantism came into being-7 Catholic doctrinal books were removed from OUR bible ,as well as changing of words-and now they call it their own and state that we don't follow the bible. I would define this as lying & stealing,along with misleading others,to wroingly believe falacies about our Roman Catholic faith.Check out the historical facts.
Search and you will find the fullness of truth & beauty that lies within our church.
winter1936 2 months ago
FACT #1. RC Church est. 33 AD-Pentecost. #2. RC Church did compiled bible as in video. #3. The ONLY true Christian Church to exist first 1551 yrs.was CATHOLIC. #4. Only church to have Apostalic Succession-Catholic Chuurch. #5. The Church will always remain true to it's teachings/doctrine, as promised by Christ.despite some of it's fallen away members who we pray for.
winter1936 2 months ago
I have done much research & this video is most accurate, Perhaps those opposing it should do likewise. Research objectively on your own in any library,without listening to your Anti-Catholic leaders & you will find all the truths depicted in this video & thensome. Sorry to disappointed those that are sadly misguilded. I hope this helps. Read the letters of the Ante-Nicene Fathers ,read the inscriptions on the tombs in the catacombs in & around Rome.Archeology & history reveals these truths.
winter1936 2 months ago
"IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BIBLICAL?"
If Jesus intent was to spread the gospel's globally, then yes the Catholic Church is biblical.
"Extra books added to Bible?"
All 46 books in the Old Testament have been around before the reformation.
"Scripture + Tradition?"
More like oral AND Sacred Tradition. That's how the message was spread. The bible wasn't bound til about 1500 years after Christ's death.
Council of Trent met to finalize all the books as canons as is, in respone to Luther.
anrmenchaca74 3 months ago
You are extremely mistaken. A religion can not be biblical. Especially if it was created before the Bible. The Bible is Christian. And there was a meeting of the higher members of the Catholic Church and they determined which books made it into the bible by a few rules. 1. They had to have an apolostic orgin and 2. They must have been inspired by God and fufill Catholic teaching.
BenIsabeastBen 6 months ago
@BenIsabeastBen Who's video are you responding to? Try actually checking out a video's content before commenting on it. ;-)
BrianSquiers 6 months ago
Ooops! Forgot to mention that the Orthdox Jew & expert on Judaism, Torah and Radio/Talk Show host is none other than Dennis Prager. Google him--terrific intellect.
BigBingFan 6 months ago
According to Orthodox Jew & radio/talk show host (&Torah lecturer), he says that protesantism stands alone among the world's religions, in that it is soley Book-based. Judaism & Roman Catholicism are wound tightly together in Sacred Scripture AND oral tradition, handed down before the printing press, canon of the New Testament, etc..so, really, protestantism counts solely on a Catholic Book, thank you very much to the Catholic hierarchy, the Holy Spirit and Magisterium. I hear no thanks thoough.
BigBingFan 6 months ago
Seriously, do some actual research into this without relying on a biased source. You have to be objective not brainwashed. The Protestant version of the Bible is heretical as it has chunked entire original sections. Now they try and justify these actions. I want all of God's word, not just what some members of Parliament decided I should have. Learn about for yourselves.
zoeyjusko 10 months ago
The original Christians, the Orthodoxy were responsible for writing the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They don't "interpret" the Bible. They explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author, and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase. At least the Catholics and Orthodox don't interpret it 50,000 different ways and then argue with each other about what it means.
zoeyjusko 10 months ago
Your leaders have handed you their own "interpretation" of history. You need to use the brain God gave you and do some research.
zoeyjusko 10 months ago
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isnt canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
Your comparison of the Church and the supreme court was an excellent way of putting things into perspective. Why is it that we accept the 27 books of the New Testament as Sacred Scripture in the first place? In no chapter of any of those books are all 27 listed canonically, so then by what divine authority do we regard the validity of these texts as such?
mitchkramah 11 months ago
Great video!
Ave Maria!
redbaron998 11 months ago
Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as
martlut 11 months ago
@martlut Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 sorry your delusional I proved you wrong
martlut 11 months ago
the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture
martlut 11 months ago
And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote:
martlut 11 months ago
When I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33)
martlut 11 months ago
Who put the Bible together? And why would that institution contradict its contents? Your brand of theology is pure innovation. The personal misinterpretation you apply to the scriptures has left you far from the Traditions of the early Christians and their Church. Shed your affinity for the anti-Catholic "conspiracy" websites and delve into real history and you might end up converting to the True Faith as I did. Peace be with you!.
BrianSquiers 1 year ago 4
the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009
"the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible."
Please show us the verse from the Bible which says Mary sinned.
MrJamesthecatholic 11 months ago
@MrJamesthecatholic I will do one better. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Revelation 15:4 says, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy." Romans 3:10 says, There is none righteous, no, not one." Luke2:22,24 proves she needed purification from sin. Now, can YOU show ME a verse that says mary was sinless?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiwichristian2009
Lets take the first one:
"Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.""
Oh so Jesus must have been a sinner too. He was man and according to your interpretation He must have sinned too. Either that or your interpretation is plain wrong. Show us which one.
MrJamesthecatholic 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 so show me where she sinned
martlut 11 months ago
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isnt canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
In his Prologus Galeatus to the Vulgate, is listed the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the thirty-nine books are grouped as twenty-two) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”
JosherForder 1 year ago
@JosherForder St. Jerome's opinion regarding the 7 deuterocanonical books is irrelevant. He was commissioned by the pope to translate all 46 Old Testament books into Latin - the common language of that era and region. Obedient as he was to the pope, he fulfilled his duties with flying colors. And you must realize that the verse you offered applies to the "revelation" John had received from God - not the collection of scripture that wouldn't be discerned and compiled until 3 centuries later.
BrianSquiers 1 year ago
@BrianSquiers Sorry but I believe the Bible existed in the First Century. Don't you believe "the Apostles and the older men" in Jerusalem approved it's final canon under God's holy spirit? Surely if you would ask any Faithful Christian in the First century which scrolls were part of the Bible canon I am sure they would tell you.
eltigreoso 1 year ago
@eltigreoso Many early Christians considered the Didache, the Shepard, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians and dozens of other works to be sacred as well. If the Bible is your sole rule of Faith it should concern you that these were excluded. How do we know for sure? The Bible is not self-authenticating. Just as an outside authority (the Church) is required for interpretation that same authority was required to establish the Bible's form (until Protestants removed 7 books centuries later).
BrianSquiers 1 year ago
Comment removed
mitchkramah 11 months ago
@BrianSquiers I understand the expression found in Revelation 22:18, 19 "...If anyone makes an addition to these things,..." to mean alleged new prophecies or any supposed new gospel in light with these scriptures (Galatians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 13:8; 1 John 4:1-3) What I am trying to say is the 4th Century Roman Catholic Church did acknowledge but not establish the Bible canon. Best wishes.
eltigreoso 1 year ago
@BrianSquiers Obedient Jerome, is also the one described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church; took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings.
eltigreoso 1 year ago
Actually, the Bible did existed during the time of the Apostles in the First Century. The Bible existed long before the forth century! See: Revelation 22:18, 19... Interesting, none of the Bible writers were Gentile Roman Latin speaking Roman Catholics.
JosherForder 1 year ago
Without offence, the Cor'an is the word of God to mankind after both the Torah and the Bible were distorted by certain people to their interests. Please read what the Cor;an says about the previous holy books. Just, read with an oppen mind and see by yourselves.
brahimg72 1 year ago
Thanks for the positive feedback. The list of New Testament books was established by papal decree at the Council of Rome in 382 and reaffirmed in 393, 397 and 419 at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage 3 and 4.
BrianSquiers 1 year ago
Good video, looks like I'm one of the first to see it. Excellent work. It's funny because I was just doing up a video on the same theme as this. I'm also Catholic and agree with everything you say in this video. I have a question though. In my research, I found the official canon was ratified at the Synod of Hippo in 393, however you date it to 382. Can you help me with this discrepancy? Thanks.
phil8888 1 year ago