Even if you don’t consider it scripture, the books of the Maccabees are definitely worth reading they bridge the gap of time between the Old and New Testament a lot
@christineperez7562
3 жыл бұрын
Who is he to say it is not he does not have that authority?
@bulbul6011
3 жыл бұрын
@@christineperez7562 Martin Luther (1483-1546) moved seven Old Testament books (Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch) into a section he called the "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read
@is6998
3 жыл бұрын
And who is Martin Luther. This wasn’t a white mans book to take any thing out… Remember they gave us the slave Bible.
@Yahuah222
2 жыл бұрын
@@christineperez7562 Isaiah 5:20
@1celenamesa
2 жыл бұрын
@john li but in some peoples perspective it IS racial if you can understand that there are historical reasons to believe the true Hebrews were Black and that history was re written to change that to have people believe they were like the Jews in Israel are now. I highly recommend watching the series Whited Out on YT. Even if you dont think this could be true, it is worth watching
@NathanH83
4 жыл бұрын
The early church said that it's part of the Bible.
@DelmyTreeCutter
4 жыл бұрын
Right
@grahamcovin
4 жыл бұрын
It was part of the Bible up until the 1611 King James. Interesting this fact was omitted from this video.
@sovereignmind6822
3 жыл бұрын
False. The "early church" and the Catholic Church are NOT the same, and they are very different from one another in almost every aspect. The early church was a very small, freeform movement with little top-down authority while the Catholic and Orthodox Churches operated more similarly to the Pharisees that Jesus preached against, with stringent top-down authority and a huge emphasis on man-made rules and religious institutions which doubled as governments, its like almost completely antithetical to everything Christ taught about the church. The early church was considered a sect of Judaism for centuries, and the Apocryphal texts never were and still aren't viewed as part of the canonical Jewish scriptures. It wasn't until 382 AD, almost 400 years after Jesus' death that the Catholic Church decided those texts WERE canon all of a sudden. the Orthodox Church also adopted these texts, but then every denomination of Protestantism went on to deny their canon just as they were considered by the Christians/Jews prior to the Catholic Church. If Christianity evolved from the Jewish traditions and prophecies, why would we all of a sudden be including books that predate Christ that the Jews themselves didn't even recognize as canon?
@drewwilson6639
3 жыл бұрын
@@sovereignmind6822 Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself
@RadioactiveMan487
3 жыл бұрын
@@sovereignmind6822 protestantism is literally traditions of men.
@nathanmiranda4485
4 жыл бұрын
A simple google search will show you all of the wonderful passages from books like Tobit, Maccabes, Sirach, etc. that are referenced & quoted in the New Testament. Since Jesus referenced the words of these books that is enough for me to believe in them.
@virgilvandoorn4733
4 жыл бұрын
But Jesus isn't his name that means earth pig in greek its Yeshua in Hebrew look it up 🙏🏾
@joachimjustinmorgan4851
4 жыл бұрын
@@virgilvandoorn4733 First off "earth pig" from JE SUS only occurs in Latin, no Greek. Greek doesn't even have a "J" sound, so that's just silly. Secondly, there is no recording in any text of scripture where Jesus of Nazareth is ever called Yeshua (ישוע). Maybe there was a Gospel in the early centuries written in Hebrew, but His Apostles chose to write the Gospels and letters to the churches in a language that they understood, Greek, and they wrote His name as Ιησούς (Iisoús). This was originally written in English as Jesus because the letter "J" in English made a "Y" sound and was a phonetic attempt to replicate the Greek. There is no "J" sound in Hebrew or Greek. You're using Latin to come to your "earth pig" theory which is silly because 1. the Vulgate is a translation that also simply attempts to replicate the phonetic equivalent of the Greek. And 2. it didn't even record "Jesus" in Latin, it recorded the Latin "IESVS." So it wasn't until the 16th century (1524) that "J" in English took on its current phonetic sound by people that didn't even speak Latin which is the only language where someone could derive "earth pig" from. And lastly, the closest to "Yeshua" you could get would be the Peshitta translation which is an Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament and records His name as Yeshu (ישו). Ultimately though, if the Apostles wrote His name as Ιησούς then that is the record we have to work with.
@navagatingthroughthebeasts2908
4 жыл бұрын
Enoch too yes
@colmwhateveryoulike3240
4 жыл бұрын
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 Would He have been called Yeshua in Hebrew or Aramaic at the time?
@joachimjustinmorgan4851
4 жыл бұрын
Colm Whateveryoulike In the Mediterranean world in the first century people were not typically monolingual unless they were extremely rich. In the temple it is likely Hebrew was a common tongue, but outside the temple and most certainly outside Jerusalem that didn’t seem to be the case. Greek was the common tongue of the empire which is why all of the writings of the New Testament are in Greek. The New Testament itself mentions both Hebrew and Aramaic though. Peter wrote in Greek, but for well versed Koine Greek readers he seemed to have not been a very articulate writer which may be because he actually was an uneducated fisherman, or it could be that he was just less familiar with Greek. The rest of the Nee Testament seems to be pretty articulate though owing to Greek being a very prominent and common language for Jews, Greeks, and Romans of the first century. In Aramaic he would not have been called Yeshua though because the Aramaic writings in Syriac write “Yeshu.” I do not have a Syriac keyboard, but in Hebrew script this would be written (ישו) as opposed to the Hebrew (ישוע). The most likely scenario though is that he may have been called Yeshua, Yeshu, and Ιησούς depending on whom he was speaking and what language they were using. This was done in scripture in other cases where Paul (Παύλος/Pavlos) is also known as Saul (שאול/Shaul) depending on whom he was speaking. In the Orthodox Church today in America Baptismal names are given where someone from Russia or Greece may choose a Russian or Greek (or other country) version of a saint name in America, or they may use an Anglicized version. Ex: Elijah/Elias, Katherine/Katerina, Joachim/ioachim, etc... I think Americans in particular struggle with these things because we typically only speak one language. In the last 2000 years these debates about the pronunciation of the name have not really been something Christians gave much thought to and at least part of that is because they were accustomed to being poly-lingual and using different pronunciations of names depending on the language has been the norm.
@lisarossiter9809
3 жыл бұрын
I am currently holding a bible published by E J McDevitt Company (Washington Blvd, Detroit, MI) in 1948. It contains "The First Book of Machabees" and "The Second Book of Machabees." It is approved by Francis Cardinal Spellman (Archbishop of New York) and it states..."The original Hebrew text of the first book has been lost. The book has come down to us in the Greek Septuagint Version, the Bible of the primitive Christian Church. Although the Jews today and Protestants following them, do not regard these books as Sacred Scripture, they have always been so regarded by the Church, who has authoritatively and infallibly declared that they belong to the canon of the inspired and sacred writings."
@Ricksblitz4
Жыл бұрын
Please don’t ever go with the infallibility of the church while defending anything biblical. Authority comes from Jesus and the word.
@gordon2945
Жыл бұрын
Anything approved by any catholic would be false
@kardzYT
Жыл бұрын
@@Ricksblitz4 Is the church not the body of Christ? Or do you think that the bible just dropped out of thin air instead of where it actually came from, the Church who assembled it.
@Ricksblitz4
Жыл бұрын
@@kardzYT the church is “the bride of Christ”, never to be confused with Christ. We are in Fellowship with each other and are very flawed; never infallible.
@kardzYT
Жыл бұрын
@@Ricksblitz4 body of christ. Jesus is the head of the church, if the church is fallible then that would make Jesus, the head of the Church, also fallible. The church as a whole is infallible yes, your opinion on biblically observed doctrine is irrelevant to the truth.
@fireballxl-5748
2 жыл бұрын
You failed to mention the contradictions between those books and the bible.
@newparadigm7444
9 күн бұрын
Protestants removed Maccabees as it debunks their heretical denial of purgatory
@Snoopy0310
2 жыл бұрын
1 Maccabees is historical but 2 Maccabees is a mixed theologies & confliction against 1 maccabees
@54V4
Жыл бұрын
What a bunch of crap... Just replay the video and listen to your own contradiction son... @0:43 - just because someone decided some otherwise included books would not be considered SCRIPTURES vs the word of God (your claim, not mine) doesn't make it so. Should I go on with the wisdom of Solomon? Esther? - that's even leaving from the premesys of the veracity of the bible to begin with. - I want to be proven wrong (again).
@innominatusambrosius7103
3 жыл бұрын
Some of the different Minhagim(Jewish Sects) have slightly different versions of the Miqra(Bible). For example the Miqra used by the Romaniote Minhag, which Christianity was born of, still to this day uses the Septuagint which according to Traditional Judaism is a divinely inspired translation. Now having said that, after the rise of Christianity as separate from Judaism, the Masoretes changed the Miqra, order to give the Mashiach 2000 more years to be born. Hence why the genealogy in Genesis was changed, and why the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint both agree against the Masoretic Text
@angelaryanrnbsn2764
4 жыл бұрын
Paul and the rest of the disciples were always referring to the Tanach. The Books of Maccabees was a historical liturgy as well as Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher all very important pieces of history.
@RaphaEl-pn8ue
4 жыл бұрын
Amen. I agree. Was macccabees quoted in scripture. I know Enoch and jasher was. Never thought about Maccabees tho
@TheRealBuddyB
4 жыл бұрын
@@RaphaEl-pn8ue I don't think the books of Maccabess are quoted, but lately I've been finding that a lot of the events in Maccabees are amazingly relevant to scripture. There's a lot of significant prophetic elements to it. For instance, Daniel prophesied the events that occur in Maccabees (the one-horned goat in his vision is the Kingdom of Greece led by Alexander the Great). And the term "Abomination of Desolation" first came from Antiochus Epiphanes setting up a statue of Zeus and sacrificing a pig in the temple, which led to the Maccabean revolt. And of course in the Gospel of John Chapter 10, Jesus goes to the temple on the Feast of Dedication/Hanukkah where he basically announces that he is Messiah. Can you imagine a better time to announce that He was the "Light of the World" than during the Festival of Lights? And without the Maccabees's triumph over Antiochus, there would have been no Jews for Christ to walk among. Heck, we never even would have gotten the Bible. I learn all this stuff and can't help but think "Ok, well...maybe the writing's not INSPIRED by God, but it sure seems like it should still be required reading for Believers!" I feel the same way about Enoch, 2nd Baruch, 4th Esdras... All of those texts strengthened my faith, not hurt it. I feel like every Bible you purchase should come with a little Apocrypha book in the package because they expand your understanding.
@RaphaEl-pn8ue
4 жыл бұрын
TheRealBuddyB and I agree with u on this matter. Maybe they are inspired and were taken out for some reason. The enemy has always been trying to hide the truth. I believe this is one of those instances
@justchilling704
4 жыл бұрын
The Ryan Clan Finally someone who gets it.
@angelaryanrnbsn2764
4 жыл бұрын
@@justchilling704 😏
@justlikeEzra
4 жыл бұрын
The original 1611 kjv had 80 books. Including the Maccabees. 14 books were removed by westcott and hort in the 1880s
@justlikeEzra
4 жыл бұрын
@@ExperienceEric ok. And?
@justlikeEzra
4 жыл бұрын
@@unam9931 I don't know a whole lot of what the church fathers believed to be scripture to argue with him about it. I know it was in the Septuagint. Jesus quoted from esdra. I understand there's some odd stuff in there (Tobit especially) but also some really interesting reading too.
@justlikeEzra
4 жыл бұрын
@@ExperienceEric your point? I'm glad that you think you know everything. Maybe one day you will...
@justlikeEzra
4 жыл бұрын
@@ExperienceEric anger? Insults? Ok
@michaeljames5881
4 жыл бұрын
Westcott and Hort has nothing to do with removing the Apocrypha from the KJB. They were removed back in the 1600. And we’re only added for historical purposes.
@leechristopher9307
2 жыл бұрын
This guy has some serious explaining to do. Why was the book of Enoch removed if it wasn’t apart of the Bible then? There are things in Enoch that the wicked did not want people to know. Genesis 5:24 24 And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD: and he was not; for God TOOK him. Hebrews 11:5 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he SHOULD NOT SEE DEATH; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation HE HAD THIS TESTIMONY, that he pleased God. JUDE 1:14&15 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, PROPHESIED of these, SAYING, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
@stevensonrf
9 ай бұрын
Sadly, you are misleading people. Martin Luther and the protestant reformers removed those seven books from the the canon scripture. They had no authority to do that! That’s the truth.
@tammylynne5702
3 жыл бұрын
You are incorrect in your "interpretation" of 2 Timothy 3:16. You altered the words. The TRUE bible and verse reads: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, (to express disapproval), to correct, to instruct in justice. In other words we are to question everything including God's very existence however we are NOT permitted to alter ONE word of scripture. Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall NOT add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it; keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
@lalagordo
3 жыл бұрын
So basically you didn’t answer the question.
@adrianacortez9064
Жыл бұрын
They’re in the Bible just not certain bibles
@kevinpfaff2301
Жыл бұрын
These books are in the Catholic Bible.
@Kurogane_Shin_
2 жыл бұрын
The Bible need to have the Alexandrian Canon because the Apostles had used the LXX during their preaching
@taghaza3816
3 жыл бұрын
The Jews didn't speak Greek at that time. Remember Act 21:37-38 when Paul was mistaken for an Egyptian.......they were suprised that he spoke Greek.
@stevecross9159
2 жыл бұрын
Who are the real Hebrews???
@andrewbrann6231
7 ай бұрын
Praying for the dead is blasphemy
@uchennanwogu2142
7 ай бұрын
how?
@andrewbrann6231
7 ай бұрын
@@uchennanwogu2142 how? You must be f******ignorant AF
@angelthman1659
10 ай бұрын
You're talking so fast that it's difficult to understand.
@crystalfourton4325
4 жыл бұрын
I have a 1560 & a 1876 & both of those have the macabee's. So my question is why in the 1900's was it removed?
@michaellawlor5625
4 жыл бұрын
The first printed bible had them in it.
@cmiller9800
4 жыл бұрын
I didn't even bother watching the video, the true nitty gritty is in this comment section!
@SharkAcademy
3 жыл бұрын
I’m sure there is a specific subset of people who know the names of these books and do KZitem search on it. I had no idea about these books until I saw a chart with history and what books cover what and saw these.
@terrysigmon3119
4 жыл бұрын
Macabees was in the original 1611 KJV but was removed by The American and British Bible Institute in 1885.
@tvbnine793
3 жыл бұрын
I have the New American Bible and the books of Maccabees are in between the book of Esther and Job. I've heard some say my Bible is corrupted because of this
@terrysigmon3119
3 жыл бұрын
@@tvbnine793 The old Ethiopian Bibles have Macabees and Enoch in it.
@leeveronie7850
3 жыл бұрын
@@tvbnine793 Not True ... You happen to have an original Bible designed with 73 books for the Catholic church, who originally put these 73 books around the year 360, together selected from a list of over 300 scrolls (books) ... Terry above was right, the Protestants took the 7 books out of the Catholic Bible in the late 1800's ... The NAB Book you have is a Catholic Bible that goes all the way back to the Vulgate Bible, early 300's .... Trust me it's a great Bible if you have all 73 books ... hope this helps you, God Loves You !!!
@tvbnine793
3 жыл бұрын
@@leeveronie7850 Thanks! History is fascinating. God bless you too :D
@kimsingleton7630
3 жыл бұрын
@SNES Nes Just go online and type in 1611 KJV bible and the extra books should show up.
@GR65330
4 жыл бұрын
1 & 2 Maccabees have been in my bible since the councils of Hippo and Carthage when the canon of scripture was determined. By what authority did the reformers determine they aren't inspired? It all comes down to authority, so by who's authority does Dr Brown claim they're not scripture?
@justchilling704
4 жыл бұрын
gwademan2 Those councils weren’t given Devine authority, The apocrypha is never referenced in scripture is historical documentation that’s it, no different than Enoch Jesus didn’t consider it scripture and Neither did the rest of the Jewish just bc because 2 councils say they think it’s OK does it mean it is, but if it makes you feel better certain versions of the king James Bible has the apocrypha in it, I have one.
@GR65330
4 жыл бұрын
@@justchilling704 it is still a question of authority. How do you know those councils did not have authority? After the resurrection, Jesus gave his authority to his apostles to bind and loose, to make decisions regarding doctrine as we see at the Council of Jerusalem. If the Church had authority to decide the question of circumcision, then why wouldn't the Church have authority to determine the canon of scripture? Who has the authority?
@interpretingscripture8068
4 жыл бұрын
@@GR65330 1500 after Christ all of a sudden they became part of the canon of scripture when neither the Jews before Christ or the Apostles of Christ or Jesus himself nor the church for 1500 years considered them as scripture.....but suddenly The Catholic church more than 1000 years after Christ decides they are scripture?
@GR65330
4 жыл бұрын
@@interpretingscripture8068 the Canon of scripture was set in the 4th century so I don't know where you're getting 1500 years from.
@interpretingscripture8068
4 жыл бұрын
@@GR65330 what council in the 4th century determined the canon of scripture? To my knowledge Catholics didnt decide the canon of scripture until after 1000 years my friend
@Yesica1993
4 жыл бұрын
How bizarre to see an ad for LDS before this video.
@streetgospel133
4 жыл бұрын
Hahaa
@DrLove911
4 жыл бұрын
It's not bizzare they did the same thing Bloomterd did and spent millions on bogus adds to promote their bullshit 😂🤣🤣
@suem6004
4 жыл бұрын
Unknown Soldier Dont comment on what you are ignorant about. You despise Christ
@tvbnine793
3 жыл бұрын
I got an ad for the Yahweh's Restoration Ministry before the video hehe
@colefriel3171
3 жыл бұрын
If the Maccabees (and Sirach, Tobit, etc.) aren’t in the Bible, you’re reading the wrong version of the Bible
@claytonbenignus4688
3 жыл бұрын
Evidence of Bible Tampering.
@tammylynne5702
3 жыл бұрын
You're spelling it incorrectly. It's Machabees
@Angenga
2 жыл бұрын
Sirach is a beautiful book and one of my favourites
@ifeanyichukwu3644
2 жыл бұрын
Nah, it is the other way around
@lloydfrancis9149
2 жыл бұрын
rubbish the most important thing is the Gospel of Jesus Christ
@leeumm694
3 жыл бұрын
I think it makes it difficult to interpret some scriptures in Daniel without Maccabees. With this reason explained, then wouldnt you have to take out all Chronicles and Kings? They are just historical accounts. In turn you could argue most of the old testament be thrown out, since it's not all inspired, but documents of history.
@dominikdurkovsky8318
3 ай бұрын
The same with the book of Acts .
@mariatereza9721
2 жыл бұрын
I'm catholic and my bible has the maccabees, I read all the chapters and I think it is one of the most important events of the bible along with the exodus
@anthonybeckford7295
2 жыл бұрын
Which bible?
@Anteater23
2 жыл бұрын
It’s not God’s Word though.
@renefernandez9963
2 жыл бұрын
@@Anteater23 What bible version do you read?
@ifeanyichukwu3644
2 жыл бұрын
@@jamesquinton7070 The Hebrew Bible + The New Testament
@vichoelcatolico
2 жыл бұрын
@@Anteater23 proof?
@GokuTheHusky
4 жыл бұрын
The first thing i read was 2 Maccabees. It was a great story. What i read first when i opened the bible.
@andrewturnbull5897
4 жыл бұрын
No. The Council of Rome, 382 CE, determined the canon for the Christian church which was exclusively Catholic. These books were in the canon. It was Luther who excluded these texts based on the error that they had not been originally in Hebrew. Then came the Dead Sea Scrolls. Catholic canon is completely vindicated. Dr. brant Pitre is the expert here.
@kynesilagan2676
2 жыл бұрын
That's the word. Vindicated. Catholic Church never base her teachings and precepts with science, events, political status and culture of whenever current year it, was & will be. Catholic uses faith & reason to discern what is the truth. Plus of course, Dogmas which are divine revelations. Man..i thank God he gifted me to understand such; it doesn't mean i will not be irritated, not be discomforted, et al. Obeying to a divine authority is a wonderful gift. Brings a whole lot new meaning to 'Martyrdom' turning my around my concept of it.
@MB-gd6be
2 жыл бұрын
Did the Dead Sea Scrolls have the books he mentioned in this video Maccabees etc?
@kynesilagan2676
2 жыл бұрын
@@MB-gd6be AFAIK. Dead sea scrolls have many information that supports Catholic theology. Where before discovery, the Church stood firm on its Morals through time. Where doubters including the reformationists are hurling Catholic Church the 'burdens of proof' left and right. One example in the discovery of scrolls. That, there is no Canon of scriptures among Jews. And no identified above all authority among them[jewish sects]
@kynesilagan2676
2 жыл бұрын
The Jewish religions are divided. Some branch only has the pentateuch. Some has more Some has with greek Case in point, Lutheran reasons[this video] of throwing those books got debunked in late 1900s by dead sea scrolls.
@fireballxl-5748
2 жыл бұрын
Roman Catholicism is pagan to the core.
@josephfuentes2251
4 жыл бұрын
You just gave scripture saying all scriptures are inspired by God! So why is this not, considered "good enough to be in the Bible"? Unreal!
@illuminatethepath404
4 жыл бұрын
I ask the same
@mr.molina8008
4 жыл бұрын
It is in the bible
@AJrelox
4 жыл бұрын
That's why it is not claimed as " scripture" because it lacks evidence of divine inspiration. 😊
@lonelyberg1808
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah
@sovereignmind6822
3 жыл бұрын
well considering the Old Testament is basically just the recounting of Jewish history and the prophesies which foretold the coming of Christ of which the Jews held sacred even before Christianity, I think the fact that the Jewish people prior to the Catholic Church and all the way up to the current day, have NEVER considered these books as part of their scripture is pretty solid evidence that these books are not canonical. He was quoting scripture stated by Paul, which is Christian scripture that was considered canonical since day one, i.e. the day Paul said it, he and the disciples considered that to be the divine word of God, while simultaneously Paul and the disciples did NOT consider the book of Maccabees to be the divine word of god, as they were Jews and the Jewish tradition along with every other Christian denomination EXCEPT Catholcism and Orthodox Christianity, does NOT and never has considered the Apocryphal texts to be canon. That's why.
@DelmyTreeCutter
4 жыл бұрын
People need to learn the difference between prescriptive writing and descriptive writing. If they were consistent in their approach of the apocryphal books they would not make much of the accusations they make against them. The accusations are from repeating what others said about the books most of the time and not from a personal reading, I believe. Much of what we read in the apocryphal books are descriptive language and not prescriptive. That is, it is not telling what to do, but what was done by whoever the writer is writing about. I do not see people saying Jacob was doing witchcraft when he put the sticks in front of the herd to have them have different coloured offspring, why? Because they understand it to be a description of what Jacob did and not a prescription on how to have speckled goats. Also, there are things done in both the apocryphal books and the other canonical books that are things meant to be done only in such occasion and not to be taken as a prescription on how to do things everytime. Remember when Aaron made atonement with the incense? But we all know atonement is made with blood. So why incense that time? Because that is how it had to be done that one time. Remember when Phynehas killed the man and woman sinning and it says he made atonement by killing them? Should we falsely accuse him of offering human sacrifice? Or should we understand it the right way that it was necessary for only that one time to atone with the death of the two? Why falsely accuse the book of Tobit of witchcraft when we see Tobias did not even burn the part of the fish the angle had to him to, and that the devil was not cast out by the smoke itself but by an angel? Description of what was done once and prescription on how to always do. To say there is no Thus saith the LORD in the apocrypha is to show that the person making the accusation has not read the books, for second Esdras has many times Thus saith the Lord. If Thus saith the Lord is necessary, then let us stop reading Esther. But we will not stop reading it, because we trust it is inspired by God even though there is no Thus saith the Lord in it, making clear the requisite is not the book having Thus saith the Lord or it is an evil book. Also, those that say Nebuchdrezzar was not king of the Assyrians as the book of Judith saith he was, are wrong, for not only was he king of the Assyrians after he conquered their capital city Ninevah ruling over them, but he was also the king of the whole world being the head of gold in the in his dream ruling over the whole world. He was even the king of the Israelites for he ruled over them when he was used of God to judge them for their disobedience to God. When the books of Macabbees talk about people praying for the dead, it is a description of what they did and not a prescription to be followed, much like those that Paul wrote about baptizing for the dead. It was a description of the ones baptizing for the dead and not a prescription telling us we must baptize for the dead. Paul was using them as an ensample of the hope for the resurrection just like whoever wrote the Macabbees is using what they did for the dead as to show they had hope of the resurrection. Neither one is saying go do likewise. Also those that say Antiochus died three different deaths three different times in the books Macabbees have not read it attentively for there are about five different men called Antiochus in the books. One was the father of Epiphanes, the other was the son of Epiphanes, and the the other was the grandson of Epiphanes' father. That is father, son and grandson all had the same name, and the other two Antiochuses one is an Israelite and the other I do not remember.
@marecof864
4 жыл бұрын
This is great observation I had the same opinion bro !
@DelmyTreeCutter
4 жыл бұрын
@@marecof864 Amen
@DelmyTreeCutter
4 жыл бұрын
The church in the first centuries read the septuagint which contains the books
@marecof864
4 жыл бұрын
Evangelist Aspiring Arborist yes and it contained the so called Apocrypha and the Essenes had copy’s of Enoch and Jubilees which it’s conspectus that Luke uses the genealogy of Jubilees account instead of Genesis’s
@marecof864
4 жыл бұрын
Evangelist Aspiring Arborist The church at the time where conspiring against the Catholics due to there excuses of using certain passages in scripture out of contexts to justify there service and worship The Geneva Bible of the 15th century also includes the Apocrypha it self contained foot notes justifying that the pope is the Anti Christ It’s the same thing as the Samaritans only using the Torah and not other writings and prophets, where not in interest to them and they changed things in the Torah to justify there traditions and worship
@jepoymeneses
4 жыл бұрын
It should be in the Bible. Luther just removed it.
@jepoymeneses
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman He didn't. Jerome voiced out his opinion but obeyed the council in the end.
@jepoymeneses
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman uhm, you call it obedience. Religious people do have a vow for it.. anyway, the council was proven right when the dead sea scrolls were discovered.
@jepoymeneses
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman well your problem is this: the Jews don't have a canon themselves. The Sadducees believed only in the first 5 books, the Pharisees included the prophets and the Essenes have more books than both. What is more definitive is the Septuagint that the Jews in the diaspora used that contains exactly the 46 books that Catholics have. Pope Gregory wasn't a Pope when he said Those words and he isn't making an infallible statement at that time.
@jepoymeneses
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman you are speaking more on emotions rather than intellect and reason. Who hurt your feelings bro?
@jepoymeneses
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman how can I answer a non-sensical statement? You are merely expressing your opinion and gave 0 sources.
@seanmcmullen9524
2 жыл бұрын
Part of the Bible...yes. The Catholic Bible that pre-dates the other Christian Bibles you talk about has it. New age Christians took it out. Also if it wasn't for Catholics keeping it holy through God modern day Jews would have no knowledge of Hanukkah.
@tankgainagrip4951
3 жыл бұрын
It’s definitely scripture. The feast of dedication ordained by the priests in Judas maccabeus’s time was celebrated and observed by Christ. What more verification we need?
@michaeljdixon1
3 жыл бұрын
That's Right !!! and what about the rest of the Book of Esther found in the Apocrypha, somebody should tell Master Brown, that that some of his slaves have escaped the plantation , and we can read for ourselves
@tankgainagrip4951
3 жыл бұрын
@@michaeljdixon1 💯💪🏾
@michaeljdixon1
3 жыл бұрын
But unto the wicked God saith , What hast thou to do to declare my statutes , or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Psalm 50 :16,,,,,, A message to Master Brown
@Rolando_Cueva
Ай бұрын
@michaeljdixon1 you're absolutely right, my brotha!!
@lawrencemora2862
3 жыл бұрын
Protestant apologists continue to hang onto Luther's erroneous assumption about 2nd temple Judaism and first century Christianity. He felt that only only the books of the Tanakh written in Hebrew should be part of Canon. But in reality, the books of the apocrypha like Maccabees and Tobit, are part of the Jewish Greek Bible known as the Septuagint. It was written in Greek as more Jews spoke Greek than Hebrew in that time period as a result of Jews breaking their covenant with God, in which God allowed the Assyrians and Babylonians to invade and destroy Israel and scatter the Jewish people throughout the known world at that time. In fact they were part of the 1611 King James Bible until they removed by Protestant denominations in the 1800s. C'mon people, its time to double check the words of people claiming to speak for God, look where they have lead us as a nation?
@thursoberwick1948
Жыл бұрын
Martin Luther retained the two books of Maccabees in his Bible.
@armoredapologetics8623
4 жыл бұрын
Now, Dr. Brown, I do think that the inclusion of legitimate, gentile canon can be one of importance. At least the cannon of the early church. The Masoretic text, while not malicious by any means, was assembled under the assumption that the Gentiles were not grafted in through Jesus. The book of Jubilees, for example, is a book in the Ethiopian church that is based on a conversation between Moses and God on the Mount that discussed that God knew that the First Temple would fall from rebellion. I do believe that the spirit works through all Christians, differently but ultimately The Spirit keeps us one in mind with legitimate Love of God. They all have a Jewish backbone to them, for sure. But I do believe that God raises community akin to the tribes of Israel. Different, each having their issues, but only really united by their love of God.
@cloveetabertram3902
3 жыл бұрын
Enoch to me is a very important book and yet was left out of the scriptures we have today. It should've been included. And as for the Maccabees it is a lesson in itself of how making alliances with many can cause downfalls when our alliance should only be with The Almighty. A very important book also left out ! I understand exactly what you're saying, but these books should've been included. I'm studying all the one's left out at the moment, as should everyone. To see with the help and guidance of Our Creator/Father upon His Throne will show the truth in them as well. There is so much more that was taken away from the books that were given to us. We have to search for the complete truth on our own. And That Is What I Am Doing. !
@unclebob2792
2 жыл бұрын
please give me a list of all these books taken out of the bible we have today.
@ifeanyichukwu3644
2 жыл бұрын
key word "to you" it isn't important to scripture though
@iloveYAHUAHiloveYAHUSHUAH
2 жыл бұрын
I agree, I read Enoch and it was Biblically aligned, and yes, Enoch should have been included. First, it was quoted in the epistle of Jude; and second, it was also directing to Jesus as The Messiah.
@DreamcastFarm
Жыл бұрын
We don't have the original Enoch. We have three forgeries.
@eagleclan75
Жыл бұрын
@@ifeanyichukwu3644 to you
@Double-John
Ай бұрын
You are mistaken. The Maccabees indeed are in the Bible.
@kathleenwharton2139
4 жыл бұрын
We are Here to Obey Gods Laws..Which are explained by Jesus Very Well in Matthew 5 6 7. Everthing else is Commentary and pretty useless..especially if you substitute it For Gods Laws. People spend their time and energy on mans laws and don't even Know What Gods Laws Are!
@hillstrong715
4 жыл бұрын
Pray tell, how does one obey God's (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Laws? For man (or woman) this is impossible. We see this by the example God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) has givenus of the people He had chosen in the time of Moses and the following generations. They had God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) directly and visibly in their faces and they still could not keep this Law. Without the incredible, magnificent, profoundly wonderful, absolutely unique Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah), we would never be able to do this. The Pure, Holy and Perfect Man who chose when He died and yet whom all of us killed. We each have partaken in the death of the Only Pure Innocent Man and we crucified Him. Blessed be God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that it is the Son who gave up all to be a man like us in every way except sin and praise unto Him forevermore that it is He Alone who is Worthy to be the Lamb of God sent for our salvation. It is only the Holy Spirit living His Life in us do we see this obedience out working in our individual lives. The Holy Spirit is the Most Magnificent Gentleman and will do so only if we submit our entirety of ourselves to the One and Only Holy, Pure, Glorious God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We can do nothing of ourselves and yet you call upon people to live by the Law? As is often seen, we fail to submit to Him and we decide what we want to do as it seems good to us and not at all by what is good in the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ has promised that He and the Father would take up residence in us if we allow this.
@Yesica1993
4 жыл бұрын
@@hillstrong715 This Kathleen Wharton person trolls many Christian videos posting bizarre things and also spewing slander towards people like John Piper. She's a troll. Nothing more. It's incredible that people have nothing better to do in life!
@kathleenwharton2139
4 жыл бұрын
+Hill Strong.. It is You who Have Failed to Submit to God. God Gave us Laws to Obey..and Jesus to Tell us What they Are and To Help us Obey Them. And one of HIS Laws is Forgiveness..a grace period..in which to Obey His Laws. His Laws Can Be Obeyed! You are believing a lie from Hell. Who do you think Woud want you to believe that?! Satan..for sure! You Need to Start Reading Gods Words..instead of the many Man-made laws in your bible. And you Need to Start Seeking God in your life..instead of Men. You are idol seeking Here! If you are Too Proud to Do What God Ask You..To Teach and Obey HIS Laws...that is your First Sin..right There!
@kathleenwharton2139
4 жыл бұрын
+Yesica 1993.. You Do Not Teach and Obey Gods Laws. You worship Idols and support false teachers. Who are you suppose to Obey? God or mr. piper?
@redcolt777
4 жыл бұрын
Oh look....another Judaizing nut case who thinks she 'obeys Gods laws'
@phoenix21studios
4 ай бұрын
Catholics NEED maccabees to be canon because it says to pray for the dead [in purgatory] so they will cling onto it forever and not be open to change. Strangely Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John, Jude, James never mention this, you think they would, it sounds important if correct ! In fact Paul literally says don't worry about the dead, they are asleep in Christ.
@rhuttner12
Ай бұрын
Are Elijah and Moses asleep in Christ? Because they seemed to be alive with Christ…
@phoenix21studios
Ай бұрын
@@rhuttner12 Ask Paul. Elijah never died, Moses did.
@randyroebauch1466
4 күн бұрын
Correction, that why Protestants had to remove it from the Bible because they “protested” the teachings, it’s what you are masters of , twisting and removing what you don’t like. Council of Trent reaffirmed the books are canonical they didn’t add them there either. It was a response to Luther removing them.
@phoenix21studios
3 күн бұрын
@@randyroebauch1466 they. were. not. in. the. Tanakh. Council of Trent confirmed CATHOLIC canon. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
@Justhumbleme
Ай бұрын
Maccabees is in my bible. Its not hidden from me.
@dustinberes6401
2 жыл бұрын
This is not clear. Dr. Brown is usually very clear. This explanation is vague and doesn’t really answer the question.
@totallynotthebio-lizard7631
3 ай бұрын
And like that, you lost any credibility…
@snapfinger1
2 жыл бұрын
Paul was a Johnny Come Lately & usurped nascent Christianity.
@seekingGODs-YHWHsTruth144K
3 жыл бұрын
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Isreal; After those days, saith YAH, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim and they shall be my people. 🗡📖💯♥️☝️
@RDCFemmes
2 жыл бұрын
Does their absence stop us from understand the message of the gospel? NO. So it is not important to salvation to history but not Salvation, Jesus didn't mention them
@eew8060
4 жыл бұрын
Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1 both use portions of the book of Wisdom (Ecclesiasticas).. And Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses.
@nthdegree1269
4 жыл бұрын
Correct
@eew8060
4 жыл бұрын
@@nthdegree1269 Hey Nth Degree! Whats up? You left our Rev 22:12,13 discussion...
@nthdegree1269
4 жыл бұрын
@@eew8060 I wrote was it not in your notifications?
@eew8060
4 жыл бұрын
@@nthdegree1269 I just looked at it.. Your last response was 6 days ago. My reply was 3 days ago. That's on my end anyway..
@nthdegree1269
4 жыл бұрын
@@eew8060 ok will look at it later . thanks
@martinmoran4101
6 ай бұрын
Read the bible. The catholic bible.
@sovereignmind6822
3 жыл бұрын
Catholics and Orthodox people seemed to be confused because they have all these added books in their Bible. We know that YOUR version of the Bible has these books, what you seem to be confused on is that the TANAKH, the Jewish holy books including the Torah, that predate the Christian bible, do NOT have those books. This means that Jesus would not have considered those books canon as he was a Jew and Jews of the time, just like today, did NOT consider books like Macabees to be a canonical part of their holy scripture. Its not to say that these books aren't true, they just arent considered to be inspired by god and therefore are not Biblical canon by anyone EXCEPT the Catholics and Othodox Christians. So people saying that Paul considered them canon, that is just completely false, these books weren't considered canon until the official canonization of the Catholic Bible which happened in the late 4th century, hundreds of years after Jesus died. The Protestant Old Testament has the EXACT same books as the Torah and the Tanakh, no more no less, and the Christian New Testament is identical in every major denomination. Its only the Catholics and Orthodox that consider the Apocryphal texts canon, just like the Catholics are the odd ones out when its comes to all the rules separating the clergy from the rest of congregation (more or less one of the main issues Jesus had with the ruling Pharisees), having a Pope and cardinals that dictate doctrine (they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. - Mark 7:7), I mean you literally have your Pope making apologetics for homosexuality, which is literally nothing more than lust, A SIN. And lets not even get into the Catholic Church throughout history, who murdered so many heretics and apostates which is completely anti-Christian and goes against everything Jesus taught about evangelizing non-believers. Just because Catholicism is old doesn't automatically make it right
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
As Saint Paul said whoever preaches a false gospel let them be cursed, so you my friend have new teachings
@sovereignmind6822
3 жыл бұрын
@@jesusrosary9067 Not sure what point youre trying to make, I dont know if you are agreeing or disagreeing. My only point was that when Paul was saying that the scriptures were divinely inspired, he was referring to the Tanakh, which does not include the apocryphal texts. I was addressing the people that seem to be confused because the guy in the video is "quoting scripture to justify the validity of scripture" so in their minds they are wondering why the "scripture" of Maccabees is not included. Well, the answer is simple: because according to Paul and every other Jew and Christian prior to the Roman Council of 382, the book of Maccabees is NOT scripture, and this is obvious to anyone except Catholics and Orthodox Christians because they arent aware that they are literally the ONLY people on the planet that consider the apocryphal texts to be canon. So its really quite clear to people with a valid understanding of the Bible, untainted by Catholicism. Paul was obviously not referring to the Apocryphal texts because with a proper understanding of historical context we know that the Jews never have and still dont consider the Apocryphal texts canon, which means that without a doubt, neither did Jesus or Paul.
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@@sovereignmind6822 I understand what you're saying. the New Testament was not scripture until the Catholic church compiled it, the kingdom of God was taken from the Jewish authorities and given to the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Catholic Church and the Maccabees are scripture because the Catholic church was founded by Christ
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@@sovereignmind6822 correct me if I'm wrong but did the sadducees only accept the books of Moses, so where does that leave the rest of the Old Testament
@sovereignmind6822
3 жыл бұрын
@@jesusrosary9067 the books of Moses are the Torah which is the first five books of the Tanakh which is the entire Hebrew Bible and encompasses Genesis to Chronicles. Not sure exactly, but I always thought the Sadducees only considered the Tanakh to be the word of God (the entire Hebrew Bible, not just the Torah) while the Pharisees held oral tradition at a higher level than the written scripture (oral tradition is is now called the Talmud). In regards to the Catholic Church, only the Catholics consider themselves to be the progenitors of the Apostles. The New Testament is the same in virtually all Christian Churches, all that differs is the Old Testament. The New Testament was added obviously because it encompasses the life and death of Christ and the teaching of the Apostles, but it doesnt exactly make sense to retroactively add books to the Old Testament that weren't considered scripture by the Jews prior to Jesus and including Jesus himself. Seeing as they were never part of Jewish holy scripture, its almost like you could compare the Catholic Church to the Pharisees in that they are considering the words of men, and not scripture to be the holy word of God.
@marcocortes9968
4 ай бұрын
I see a lot of catholics here denying what he says but dont adress the points he mentions like: it isnt quoted in the NT, earliest manuscripts are greek not hebrew
@randyroebauch1466
4 күн бұрын
Don’t be Protestant and closed minded. Open your mind and think. When the apostles said that baptism now replaces circumcision did they quote the OT to show that replacement? The Bereans were noble minded for they accepted new revelation to them. Quoting the old testament in the new is not proof of inspiration. Then we can disregard the 99% not re quoted
@mansamusa8175
Жыл бұрын
Jews & Jewish people aren’t the same
@repairsea
2 жыл бұрын
The Scottish bible publisher removed the 7 books in the 1800s. Prior the KJV still had the 7 books. St Jerome translated in the 300s the Vulgate which is still used today. Read the council of Rome.
@remnantsaved144
3 жыл бұрын
where do we read of the jews in greek captivity without maccabees? Daniel prophesied of exactly what happens in Maccabees... its scripture
@carolusaugustussanctorum
3 жыл бұрын
All Bibles in existence had 73 books until Luther took 7 of them out. And a german rebel monk isn't someone to mutilate God's word.
@lucdiniz3226
3 жыл бұрын
Not true. The Jews centuries before Luther decide which book is good according to the Torah and which isn't.
@carolusaugustussanctorum
3 жыл бұрын
@@lucdiniz3226 The jews also rejected all the books of the New Testament. The Church compilated those, alongside those 7 books Luther mutilated 1500 years later.
@lucdiniz3226
3 жыл бұрын
@@carolusaugustussanctorum Also not true. The Jewish rabbis, the christian jews of the 1st century and some of the church fathers decide which book is canonic and which isn't.
@carolusaugustussanctorum
3 жыл бұрын
@@lucdiniz3226 Lol, you just contradicted yourself. The canon decided by the Church in the compilation of the Bible, had all of those books. Until a german rebel monk decided to mutilate them out of the Holy Scriptures' canon; all bibles had 73 books, for more than a millennia, until Luther took them out in the 16th century.
@j-mshistorycorner6932
3 жыл бұрын
Although he rejected them, Luther nonetheless included the deuterocanon in his Bible, in a separate section. It wasn't until either the 17th or 19th century (depending on who you ask) that the first 66-book Bibles were printed.
@umpqua-4freedom966
3 жыл бұрын
I learned that the Ethiopians have a version of the bible that is 800 years older than the Catholic manuscripts. We need to find and publish their bible.
@tadesetesfie3943
9 ай бұрын
I am an Ethiopian orthodoxy yea you are right we have ancient manscripte
@kylebrogmus8847
3 жыл бұрын
“When the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the water.” Jesus Christ
@toneyam3643
3 жыл бұрын
You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that but, after listening to you and being in agreement with you the past 15 years or more, I have to disagree with you. Nevertheless you are still one of my big brother heroes in Christ Jesus.
@MarkProffitt
4 жыл бұрын
If Jesus was born during Sukkot then Mary conceived around Hanukkah. The miracle of lights is when the light of the world entered.
@mj2519
3 жыл бұрын
The world of Israel
@Hebrew42Day
2 жыл бұрын
Because the protestants kicked the books out, without prayer and without fasting
@ArmMilitia
4 жыл бұрын
classic cringe worthy explanation
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
The book of Maccabees are in my Bible so it must be scripture, it all comes down to authority, whoever put the Bible together should have the last say
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman i only listen to what the true church has to say. The holy roman Catholic Church
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman no one Catholic is greater than the church
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman 😂
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman if your brother sins against you go and talk to him and if he does not listen to you then take it to the witness's and if he does not listen to them then take him to the church and if he does not listen to the church then treat him like a tax collector, so why was the witnesses not the church
@jesusrosary9067
3 жыл бұрын
@Phillip Hickman its mostly non Catholic Christian who call a building church , we as catholics say we are going to holy mass. the church is the body and Christians are part of the body and the head of the body is in heaven, the church has bishop priest and deacon
@SimonSyd
2 жыл бұрын
The rabbinic Jews don't decide the Canon. The Jews didn't have a definitive canon until after the time of Jesus. So why should we take the decisions of rabbinic Jews over the early Christian church?
@randyroebauch1466
4 күн бұрын
They had to restructure Judaism after the messiah in fear they would lose people. They determined their canon over 125 years after Jesus at the council of Jamnia . It was all inspired text to them prior. They rejected the book that explains how Hanukkah happened lol Macaabees. So if it’s truly not inspired , then they have no holiday. They pulled a Protestant thing by removing what didn’t fit their narrative
@Hboogie182
Жыл бұрын
You are WRONG. The book of maccabees was an important biblical book used for the first 1500 years. It's only until the Protestant reformation that they started rejecting certain books because it didn't align with their doctrines. Protestant churches omitted it from their bible in the 1800s. Who are you to tell us it's not scripture?
@user-dy7ce2bb9d
4 жыл бұрын
Wrong buddy, the Apocryphal Scriptures are quoted throughout the New Testament many times. Any ear that can hear can clearly see this.
@watchman001
4 жыл бұрын
Jesus Christ by His Own Actions confirmed Himself as The Man from the sea; 2 esdras 13, mark 6:49-50
@ldens6694
3 жыл бұрын
No: Maccabees isn't in the bible since the protestant reformation; Martin Luther decided they didn't belong and took them out.
@justmemories6323
3 жыл бұрын
Thats not even factual. The 1560-1599 Geneva Bible and 1611 King James Bible all had the Apocrypha. It was left out later.
@ldens6694
3 жыл бұрын
@@justmemories6323 I rechecked - you are quite correct, I may have confused it with the protestant reformation. They were in the KJV for a relatively short time after; placed between the Old and New Testaments. then in 1646 they were removed by the English Church. They were first selected as canonical (authoritative scripture) books in the council of Rome in the 4th century. That council determined which were canonical and which were not. Not that the other books were not historical or accurate; they just didn't meet the parameters set down for inclusion into the official collection of books/letters we now call the bible. Some of those excluded books are still available to read. Until that point, the books of the bible were separate and each church taught out of the separate written books/letters they had.
@DarthTwilight
Ай бұрын
Without the maccabean accounts, and this is coming from somebody who's neither Protestant nor Catholic, it's very difficult to understand how the Romans got involved, as well as the significance of Bethlehem of Judea. Kenneth Bailey exposits this quite well in his book Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes. If you want to get technical, Esther is considered pseudographia.
@Heath580
Ай бұрын
As i understand it, the Maccabees aren't necessarily wrong, historically. They just aren't scripture. A WWII book can be correct in information but obviously not inspired
@dmm3124
Ай бұрын
The Maccabees are in my bible. Both books are there. These books explain why the True Church is in Rome. His argument is incorrect because St. Jerome put together the bible from Hebrew and Greek sources of scripture. When the bible was put together, circa 382, the Jewish Christians were no longer around. They had become the body of the Church and no longer identified as Jews. His thinking is just protestant error. A heretic that will suffer in Hell for eternity.
@Naham00
2 ай бұрын
Man im learning bible through a protestant pastor,then i learn they dont have all the books in their bible while also preaching do not tamper the bible 😭 Its weird seeing protestants saying the catholic church has no authority and therefore shouldnt be followed of their books selection,and yet they follow martin luther's? I still thank the cavalry church for teaching and getting me into the bible.But i think catholic church has more authority since if its between thousand of years of council vs martin luther's word? Id take the thousand years of council words
@shoshonnaissachar5927
3 жыл бұрын
Macabees was in the Bible and is a direct fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of the the desolation. It is also a pattern of what will happen with the end time anti Christ. Could be the adversary had a reason for having it removed???? Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. It is critical!
@shomerephraimonop9612
Жыл бұрын
This is how u prove a matter..copy and paste straight from the Bible dictionary. The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22). The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isa. 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh. The Book of Mormon makes reference to writings of Old Testament times and connection that are not found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or in any other known source. These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3-17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4-22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24-26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of brass spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10-13).
@quesostuff1009
Ай бұрын
So in essence these books were not in the original Hebrew version but at some point they were thrown or added to the Greek version. And when the Bible was first canonized they used the Greek translation. As id imagine the language was popular at that time But then when the reformation happened. There was a desire to return to the original cannon established in the Hebrew Bible and thus the omittion of these books ? It’s not that complicated. Folks act like the orthodox or Coptic Ethiopian church don’t have their own expanded cannon
@carchang4843
2 ай бұрын
Let me know if I'm missing something: So the early church included these books in the Bible originally, but the Jews who did not believe in Jesus didn't include it, so that's why it's not part of the Protestant Bible?
@Richard-kp3sz
Ай бұрын
All scriptures are inspired by God (That just means the people that wrote the Bible loved God so much that it inspired them to write about God and all that God stood for). 🕊️
@cowboyfan-fr3ze
5 ай бұрын
Ok so some counterpoints here. The reason why 1 & 2 Maccabees is not in the Jewish Hebrew bible is because they didn't want to glorify the aftermath of the revolt, so the absence of it was completely political, there was later manuscripts found of Maccabees that were in Hebrew. Secondly, there were other books in the OT scripture recognized by protestants and Catholics that didn't appear in the NT, for example the books of Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah are not referenced in the NT so are those not recognized books by your logic? In fact there is actually new testament teachings in 1 Maccabees 2:49-61 of getting power from God in times of struggles, and that people of this world will have amount to dust as it is said in the NT in the book of St. Matthew 6:19-21. Hope this helps : )
@Ghe608
8 ай бұрын
The Missing 88 books of the most complete Bible orthodox Tewahedo 🇪🇹 Ethiopian bible thats Where in the Bible western/European white peoples Bible and the Torah come from African wtitings Pseudepigraphic Work = *** Apocryphal Work = # Books * Book of Enoch ( African /Hebrew Ḥanok later Enoc) 1, Book of Enoch 2 / The Secrets of Enoch - ***, and Enoch 3 - # * Book of Esdras 1 and 2 * Book of Maccabees 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 * Book of Tobit * Book of Jasher * Book of Judith * Book of Esther - Missing sections * Book of Ecclesiasticus / Sirach * Book of Jubilees * Book of Baruch 1, 2, and 3 - *** (Only Baruch 2 and 3 are pseudepigraphic) * Book of The Shepherd of Hermas * Book of Wisdom / Wisdom of Solomon * Book of The Psalms of Solomon - # * Book of The Odes of Solomon * Book of Giants - # * Book of Adam and Eve 1 and 2 / The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan Gospels * The Gospel of James / The Protevangelion * The Gospel of Peter - *** * The Gospel of Thomas * The Gospel of Nicodemus / Acts of Pilate - # * The Syriac Infancy Gospel / Infancy of Jesus Christ - # Epistles * The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa * The Epistles of Clement * The Epistle of Barnabas * The Epistle of Aristeas - *** * The Epistle of Jeremiah * The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans * The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca * The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians * The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians * The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians * The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans * The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians * The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans * The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp * The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians * The Epistle of Herod to Pilate the Governor * The Epistle of Pilate to Herod Others - Chapters, pieces, special works * Assumption of Moses - # / *** * Apocalypse of Moses - # * Testament of Abraham - *** * Apocalypse of Abraham - *** * Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - # * The Acts of Paul - *** * The Acts of Paul and Thecla - # * The Apostles Creed * Psalm 151 - Missing chapter in the Book of Psalms * Story of Susanna - Missing chapter in the Book of Daniel (Chapter 13) * Story of Bel and The Dragon - Missing chapter in the Book of Daniel (Chapter 14) * Story of Ahikar * The Prayer of Azariah and the Songs of the Three Holy Children - Missing piece in Chapter 3 in the Book of Daniel * Prayer of Manasseh - Missing piece in Chapter 33 in the Book of Chronicles 2 Here you’ll find all of the books of the Ethiopian Bible! Here is a list of the books found in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church's Bible,also known as the Ethiopian Bible or the Ge'ez Bible: That the wests Christian Bible and the Torah comes from. Old Testament (81 books): 1. Genesis 2. Exodus 3. Leviticus 4. Numbers 5. Deuteronomy 6. Joshua 7. Judges 8. Ruth 9. 1 Samuel 10. 2 Samuel 11. 1 Kings 12. 2 Kings 13. 1 Chronicles 14. 2 Chronicles 15. Jubilees (Book of Jubilees) 16. 1 Enoch (Book of Enoch) 17. Tobit 18. Judith 19. Esther (including the sections not present in the Western Christian Bible) 20. The Rest of the Words of Baruch 21. 3 Books of the Covenant (Ethiopian Sinodos) 22. 1 Meqabyan (Book of Meqabyan or 1 Ethiopic Maccabees) 23. 2 Meqabyan (Book of Meqabyan or 2 Ethiopic Maccabees) 24. 3 Meqabyan (Book of Meqabyan or 3 Ethiopic Maccabees) 25. Job 26. Psalms 27. Proverbs 28. Ecclesiastes 29. The Song of Solomon 30. Wisdom of Solomon 31. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 32. Isaiah 33. Jeremiah 34. Lamentations 35. Baruch (including the 4th Book of Baruch not found in the Western Christian Bible) 36. Ezekiel 37. Daniel (including the sections of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon) 38. Hosea 39. Joel 40. Amos 41. Obadiah 42. Jonah 43. Micah 44. Nahum 45. Habakkuk 46. Zephaniah 47. Haggai 48. Zechariah 49. Malachi 50. 1 Ezra (Book of Ezra) 51. 2 Ezra (Book of Nehemiah) 52. 3 Ezra (Book of 1 Esdras, which is different from the Western Christian Bible) 53. 4 Ezra (Book of 2 Esdras, which is different from the Western Christian Bible) 54. 1 Maccabees 55. 2 Maccabees 56. 3 Maccabees 57. 4 Maccabees 58. The Book of Josippon (also known as the Josippon or the Sefer Yosippon) New Testament (27 books): 1. The Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) 2. Acts of the Apostles 3. Romans 4. 1 Corinthians 5. 2 Corinthians 6. Galatians 7. Ephesians 8. Philippians 9. Colossians 10. 1 Thessalonians 11. 2 Thessalonians 12. 1 Timothy 13. 2 Timothy 14. Titus 15. Philemon 16. Hebrews 17. James 18. 1 Peter 19. 2 Peter 20. 1 John 21. 2 John 22. 3 John 23. Jude 24. Revelation (Apocalypse) The reason why the books were left out of the western Bible The reason why the Western Bible (the European version of the original Ethiopian African Bible) includes 66 books from the Ethiopian Bible rather than all the 108 books (the Ethiopian Bible, the original most complete Bible on earth actually has 81 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament )so many books of the Ethiopian (Orthodox Tewahedo Bible) are not included in the standard Western Christian Bible used by most Christian denominations and can be attributed to the process of canonization. The canonization of the Bible refers to the process through which religious authorities determined which books should be considered authoritative and included in the biblical canon. This process took place over several centuries, and different Christian communities and denominations had varying criteria for including or excluding certain texts. In the case of the Western Christian Bible, which is the most commonly used by various Christian denominations today, the canon was largely established by the 4th century CE. During this time, various councils and church leaders decided on the list of books to be included in the Old and New Testaments. The books that were eventually included in the Western Christian Bible were generally those that had widespread acceptance, were considered to have apostolic authority, and were consistent with the doctrines and teachings of the early Christian communities. The additional books found in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church's Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and others, were not included in the Western Christian Bible's canonization process. The reasons for their exclusion can vary and may be due to factors such as regional differences, theological considerations, and the particular historical context in which the canonization took place. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has its own religious tradition and history,and its Bible reflects its specific theological beliefs and practices. The religion Europeans came up with and named Christianity use these only 66 of these text to support the newly made religion of Christianity back, then .The entire Bible of Ethiopians was practiced in Im places In Africa.. The decision to include or exclude certain books in the biblical canon was not without debate or controversy in early Christian history. Different Christian communities and regions had different views on which texts should be considered authoritative, leading to variations in the canons of different Christian traditions. , the formation of the Western biblical canon was a complex and multifaceted process, shaped by historical, theological, and cultural factors. The Western Christian Bible must give credit to the original Ethiopian Geez Bible text that Europeans were able to translate and share this information that came out of Africa and had already been using throughout history with the world. It’s unfortunate. They use the same text to colonize and enslave the world when they brought it back to Africa wrapped in something called Christianity..
@Sam-fp8zm
6 ай бұрын
1 Maccabees 2: 52 onwards has a list of OT people that had great faith just like in Hebrews 11 there is a list of such people. There are prophecies from about five OT books that are fulfilled in Maccabees. I will make a list in the future at some point but here is one I realized last night. Micah 4 Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the Lord Almighty has spoken. 5 All the nations may walk in the name of their gods, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever. 1 Maccabees 14 8 Then did they till their ground in peace, and the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the field their fruit. 9 The ancient men sat all in the streets, com- muning together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. 10 He provided victuals for the cities, and set in them all manner of munition, so that his hon- ourable name was renowned unto the end of the world. 11 He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: 12 For every man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to fray them: 13 Neither was there any left in the land to fight against them: yea, the kings themselves were overthrown in those days 14 Moreover he strengthened all those of his people that were brought low: the law he searched out; and every contemner of the law and wicked person he took away. 15 He beautified the sanctuary, and multiplied vessels of the temple
@chesthoIe
6 күн бұрын
How is Matthew 15:21-28 profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, there Paul?
@aprilwhite1794
4 ай бұрын
These books would have made a big difference in the lives of so many people. The book of Ecclesiasticus addresses so many issues that we deal with today, a really big one being mental health. The Wisdom book speaks on the topic of giving, for example, we should only give what we can afford. These books are wonderful, I'm working my way through them and I count them as part of the Bible because so far there is nothing in them that goes against anything that I have read in the Bibles that don't include them. Peace 🕊️
@ahayahshouse5344
Жыл бұрын
2 Mac 4:10-20 explains who the "Antiochians" are and why Paul stated that "there is no difference between Jews and Greeks"...They are the same ethic people...
@carrieandretti
7 ай бұрын
We are *not* above God. Yet, after the Protestant Reformation, Europes 1500’s, the KJV was printed without books, prayers & songs. God is the *author* of the Holy Bibles scripture. Regardless how we personally feel about scripture in the Holy Bible it is *never* to be removed, blotted out, or wiped away.
@freakylocz14
7 ай бұрын
Maccabees tells us the story and origin of Hanukkah. 'Tis the inspired Word of God. I love how Protestants argue portions of God's Word must be rejected just because the Jews reject them. According to Protestant logic, we should also reject JESUS CHRIST because the Jews reject Him too!
@wesleyhunt7599
5 ай бұрын
If I'm reading the Bible, I want the full Monty. I treat the Deuterocanon as novellas.
@Annie-vs3xl
7 ай бұрын
So with all do respect when John says in chapter 10:22-23 about the festival of dedication and talks which by the way is still celebrated even today in Israel do you think that it was supposed to be taken out? Sorry but l dont except this.Hanukkah is one of the important festivals because they cleansed the temple 25 of December 165Bc Thank God we have the Septuagint bible and everything is there!
@BillyBob-ec5ox
Жыл бұрын
“It’s not actually part of the Bible.” NOT TRUE. The OFFICIAL Bible was put together at the Council of Trent around 360 A.D. THIS was the process that determined what would make up what we now know as the “Bible”. And it consisted of 73 books, including Maccabees.....which were determined by the Bishops to be inspired by God. Sorry Dr, but you’re simply wrong. Maccabees is, in fact, a part of the legit 73 book version of the Bible.
@brian.louis107
10 ай бұрын
This may seem like a meager point to most Protestants, but I don't believe God would choose to have 66 books in His bible. 73 books seems more appropriate being that 7 is the number of completeness and perfection and 3 is the number symbolizing the Trinity. Moreover, if you take away "7" books from the bible, you end up with 66; 6 being the number of incompleteness and imperfection and also, the number of man who was created on the 6th day. (Just one 6 shy of the mark of the beast, btw). This isn't just a coincidence. Numbers are of significance in the bible and nothing is of chance. The Devil loves to mock in subtle ways, and this matter has his fingerprints all over it.
@adrianacortez9064
21 күн бұрын
This book is very important and I can see why the enemy wanted it out of our scriptures
@amazingmazur6752
2 ай бұрын
His smile is rather smug and diabolical. I don't trust him. Therefore, I disagree.
@rhuttner12
Ай бұрын
There’s a lot of books in the Old Testament, not quoted by the New Testament; Should we now just throw out all of these books too?
@michaelcarpenter7068
8 ай бұрын
Yes let’s let unbelievers decide for us what is scripture. Also, the phrase “the Word of God” is speaking of Jesus not scriptures. Now, God breathed doesn’t mean something out the X-Files either
@snclemmons
Жыл бұрын
Jude 14-15 refers to Enoch as prohesy: "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Is this not a reference of OT Scripture in the NT? How is this different than saying, "as it is written."? To me this is Jude holding Enoch as Scripture.
@aware75able
Жыл бұрын
Your commentary makes no sense. First The book of Maccabees was part of the Holy Scripture until being translated Then It Was REMOVED!!!
@BklynLife
3 жыл бұрын
I thought it was because if you start the reading carefully ....You'd start to realize something 😏
@garysibio4195
Жыл бұрын
I was very disappointed with this video. Dr. Brown assumes, falsely, that whether or not a work is quoted in the New Testament determines its canonity. I assume that he believes in Sola scriptura but this teaching appears nowhere in the Bible. In addition it neglects the fact that Esther, which he accepts as canonical, is never quoted in the New Testament while 1 Enoch and the Ascension of Isaiah, which no one accepts, are quoted in the letter of Jude. Also Paul quotes from several Greek pagan poets. Are they to be considered canonical? I don't think so. I usually enjoy listening to Dr Brown but I expect better of him.
@chucktautkus4822
10 ай бұрын
Who is Dr Brown to decide which books belong in the Bible? What makes him the authority? Where did he get this authority? Maybe because he is educated and knows a lot of languages - perhaps this is why he can decide which books belong in the Bible. Does he realize there were many books that people thought were sacred scripture that the Catholic church tossed out? Does he know that people were put to death because they wouldn't surrender writings they believed were sacred scripture? The Church later declared some of those writings to not be inspired sacred scripture? So some people died for writings that were tossed out. Who decided which books belonged to the canon of the new testament? I like Dr Brown, and I admire his defense of Christianity, but many former Protestant ministers have become catholic over this issue -
@briangdozier
4 ай бұрын
In order to understand the prophecies of Daniel you need to use the Book of Maccabees. Or otherwise you have to depend on secular history. . .
@Kings0375
Жыл бұрын
these books were accepted by the Jews originally, even at the time Jesus was living on earth. After the fall of the temple, Jews made changes (and additional books such as the Talmud) and at that time they removed any books from the Greek sect of Judaism. The Catholic Church retained the original books the Hebrews celebrated before the fall of the temple.
Пікірлер: 847