This was one of the reasons I became Catholic. I had no actual knowledge as to why or where the Bible came from. When I started looking into it you have no choice but to accept the Catholic Bible and everything else starts falling into place with Catholic teaching.

A Bible without Wisdom is a Bible without wisdom.

I’m a cradle Catholic but I’ve had a lot of journeying with Protestants, namely my wife (who will be received into the church next month, pray for her and us if you please), so I have love and respect for Protestant people, but man, the more I learn about Protestant origins, the more angry and disgusted I get. Outright lies about Christ’s church, theologies of self masquerading as presupposed “biblical” teaching. The more I hear of Luther, the more unhinged and unwell he seems to be; Calvin seemingly a wrathful dictator. Praying for unity becomes so taxing in light of all this, but I’ll keep at it. Thanks for your work Joe, this was a great explainer of the historical data, I definitely learned a few things!

I've had this discussion with protestants several times before. When I point out that the Eastern Orthodox canon contains these books while schisming centuries before Trent, I'm usually just met with "what's an orthodox?" People need to read more. Search engines are amazing things.

This was so well done! Wouldn't it be nice if that protestant Todd fellow actually gave Catholics a fair shake on the matter. It's not even the 'Catholic' viewpoint, it's just simply the historical chain of events that 100% vindicate the Catholic viewpoint. Thank you Joe for your work.

I'm Orthodox and find the Protestant lies about the Catholic church, the general Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry, very annoying, very offensive. And very ugly. The most absurd consequence of this bigotry is the habit, universal among the Evangelicals, of referring to themselves as Christians and calling all other Christians something else.

My family are old school methodists.... I was baptized in that denomination and I remember my grandfather had a really old methodist Bible. It was amazing the size of it. The deuterocanon was there as well but had all been moved to the back of the book. I asked my grandad about them... he said they're real Bible stories but fell out of popularity. I'm like how does anything sacred just fall out of popularity? He never told me catholics still keep them, why we had moved them to the back, or why they became unpopular. For me it was just another bread crumb on the trail to rome.

I know a person who converted from Calvinism to Christianity after studying the Early Church Fathers.

Recent revert to Catholicism here - I've heard every take from here to Sunday about this topic, very interested in what lies in store!

This channel is quickly becoming my favorite among all of the Catholic channels I am subscribed to. Keep up the good work! 🇻🇦 ❤

I'd love to hear Todd Friel tell us what else he agrees with Jerome on.

Wow, as a Christian/Lutheran who has been seeking to know about the Catholic religion for the past 7 months; EVERY thing has unraveled in my theology of the non denominational/Lutheran faith. Started reading the early church fathers and then listening to the Catholic apologists on KZfaq; I’m totally convinced that the Catholic Church is right. I even bought myself a new bible 7 months ago with the catholic books that aren’t in my bible before. Amazing how it all flows now.

Your channel is just awesome. The approach you make on church history and apologetics is different: Take Protestant claims and follow them to their logical conclusions…. I love it

Pretty tough to get around the Christological prophecy in Wisdom chapter 2. Good episode Joe.

Well usually when someone is scared of you, they will accuse you of doing something when it's actually THEY are to blame.

I bought a facsimile copy of the original 1611 KJV. It includes the 7 missing books in later printings of the KJV. The introduction leaves no doubt it's a protestant bible by it's anti papist comments. When I ask protestants who has the authority to remove those books given their bible alone position. It's a show stopper.

This may sound judgmental, and I apologize, but I do not get a good feeling watching that Wretched guy.

Let's just say it: most Protestant apologists have to by force of their worldview be dishonest or myopic about history.

What a huge death knell for Protestantism and sola Scriptura specifically, if more people knew this history.

If I was a Protestant I would still accept the deuterocanon as scripture. Also, I guess the Orthodox Churches liked Trent so much they decided to canonize them too😂

My wife and I have been reading through Sirach, and we have LOVED it!

This whole topic is like when someone claims that JRR Tolkien was ripping off JK Rowling. And you realize that their "facts" are totally backward. 😂

I think I can sum this up in one sentence: No, the Church didn't add books, and even if they did, they have that authority:). Now that the pot has been stirred, I say good day to you all:). God Bless,

It’s so interesting to me… which of these groups was attempting to make theological changes and which was attempting to maintain the historic practices? It seems more consistent that the group attempting to change doctrine would also be more willing to change their basis of authority, which the Protestants were clearly willing to do.

It is frustrating when these Protestants lie about the church founded by Jesus Christ. More frustrating, is that followers sheepishly believe such claims.

Thank You Bro for your work....of exposing the lies of Protestanism. God Bless You.🙏🏻

Hi Joe! Great video. It was hilarious that Todd legitimately thinks Catholics include the deuterocanon in the New Testament rather than the Old. I think it would have been good to devote a little bit more time to the canonical lists that don’t include the entire deuterocanon. Protestants can quickly list several fathers who don’t list those books and therefore claim they didn’t view them as inspired, it deserves a larger response in my opinion.

What I don't hear mentioned is the obvious point that if we are following the Jewish canon, we would also reject the entire New Testament as Scripture as well! 🙄

This was interesting to watch, and it is a great example of why you shouldn't necessarily seek information from the group you belong to. You end up with confirmation bias. I've learned that in a lot of ways I was given false information on the Catholic church because I was always listening to fellow Protestants rather than going to knowledgable Catholic sources. This goes both ways of course, and I think we are always best served by being willing to hear out both sides in a respectful manner.

Todd Friel was completely incoherent. He’s an actor trying to convince with his voice dictation, enthusiasm, etc…he was bouncing all over the place. I literally found myself chuckling at various points…that was hilarious!

The gaul of that guy to get in front of a camera and edit the entire video all without checking to see if he was arguing against the correct critique shows how little he actually cares about the truth, and how little he actually cares about us. He isn't trying to bring us to the truth, he's trying to keep those who agree with him from wandering away, even if they would be wandering towards the truth

As a Protestant, I really WOULD like to know what the Catholic Church did with my other three legs!!!

Mr. Friel reminds me of someone I'd see on TBN at 3:00 AM... I love your channel, and look forward to your videos!

I know this is a little afield of the topic, but a major protestant misunderstanding of Catholic theology is the assumption that all doctrine must be solely based on scripture (sola scriptura). Because this is such a strong presupposition, any doctrines, especially well developed ones, that aren't clearly articulated or strongly implied within scripture are highly suspected as being later accretions onto the original pure faith. They cannot imagine that there was more to the faith than what is laid out in scripture, that Christians believed and practiced things before the new testament was written, and that these traditions were passed on and can be found attested to in the historical record. What finally tipped me over the edge to become Catholic was recognizing in scripture that Jesus didn't write a book and distribute it for people to read and interpret on their own. He founded a church by calling apostles whom he gave authority to do the same works he did (and greater), as well as teach, defend, and pass on his teachings. The new testament is a product of the Church that Jesus founded. You cannot separate the Bible from the Church as if it stands by itself. We can say it has primacy in it's spiritual authority, but we can't say it is the only spiritual authority by itself.

My husband and I went on a quest to personally place eyes on several pre-18th c. Bibles and Bible manuscripts--both in universities and libraries across the US and in Europe--to verify that they contained the 7 books in question. It was a lot of time and money spent, but we wanted to make certain Catholics were telling us the truth that these books REALLY were in the Bibles. We got permission to go into library archives and see originals. We spoke to various librarians when the manuscripts were unavailable to the public for various reasons. I became satisfied that even the codexes from the 4th century included at least some of the Deuterocanonicals. None were the same as the current Protestant Old Testaments. It was quite a discovery that eventually led us to Catholicism. One thing I am curious about. Many Protestant canon scholars do report that there were many books that claimed authority but that the 4/5th century Catholics scholars rejected them based on several reasons. The Shepherd of Hermas and the first book of Clement WERE considered canonical in some Christian regions and were discarded from the canon. St. Augustine and Jerome have letters they exchanged arguing what books were canonical. I've read them. I got the impression that you believed that the church did not reject certain books--as if that was a Protestant myth. But I listened twice and still wasn't sure if that is what you were saying.

"This alone will make you not protestant." Man that protestant canon is clearly an accretion, lol.

Yes! I love this topic. Can't wait to listen to what you have to say.

Thank you, Joe, this was a very important topic, for all Christians.

Keep going with this, my man; your intro is like a soothing brook to chapped ears!

I am a Protestant from England and found this very edifying, even though I am not yet persuaded my Protestant Bible is wrong. But thank you. I am not overly-familiar with Wretched: I have heard of it but not watched it: (stylistically I found it forced but that may be my English sensitivity showing.) Nonetheless, on content, I agree that the Wretched channel in this example did not cover itself with glory to say the least. Thanks for the evidence you cited. The early Church clearly did have these 7 books in the Bible from what you cite from the Council of Carthage 397 and Augustine and Jerome. I appreciated what you quoted from Ben Witherington III that the Jews did not accept them as canonical but there was an acceptance that they were deutero-canonical. (Something to ponder: why the Jews have their own view of purgatory yet reject 2 Maccabees as canonical?) My understanding of why the Protestants have the Bible we do is that it was on the basis of what the Jews accepted as canonical OT, so later Reformers (quite late by what you say, 1825!) subsequently 'standardized' the removal of the apocrypha from the Church's canon, where the word 'standardized' indicates a long-held unease regarding them. On the specifics of the letter to the Hebrews, I can accept that the author of Hebrews is aware of 1 and 2 Maccabees and his own hall of faith would definitely have echoed with their hall of deeds. But I don't think the last reference (Hebs. 11:35) necessarily has to imply that he thought 1 and 2 Maccabees were canonical just because all his other quotes were canonical, since on that argument, Jude would have to consider Enoch canonical which Catholics and Protestants don't (seemingly only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does). On the KJV originally including the apocrypha (the 7 OT books), you are correct - seemingly included right up to 1885, even later than 1825, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY WHERE IN THE BIBLE THEY WERE INCLUDED , namely between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT, so even in the day, they were still not regarded as being quite the same as the rest of Scripture. I understand that 1 and 2 Maccabees have been VARIOUSLY PLACED IN CATHOLIC BIBLES (though always with the latter immediately following the former) again indicative of the fact that EVEN IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION, they are considered not quite the same as the rest of Scripture. I have not been able to find yet where they were included in the Geneva Bible, though it seems the Puritans removed the apocrypha from the Geneva Bible around 1600 on the basis of them being deutero-canonical BUT even when they were included, it seems that, from on-line information, "the preface always noted these might be read for edification but did not have the authority of Scripture" (source Geneva Bible at Houston Christian University - hc.edu/). (Tyndale did not live long enough to complete the OT so we do not know what he would have done with the apocrypha). Nonetheless, thank you again. I did enjoy learning (being reminded?) that Nicaea itself didn't tell us what its canon was (insofar as having a direct record of it) but we do have Jerome 75 or so years later saying what he believed was included. I also appreciated you citing Jerome's unease in having to translate the apocrypha and his later reference to it as Scripture.

Hey Joe Gary Michuta has done excellent work on the bible canon.

@Joe Hechmeyer thanks for another great teaching easy to understand and research all whom you quoted from. Appreciate all your studies and hard work for the Kingdom of GOD.

One of the best I’ve ever heard in the subject. Thank you.

Great video. Very clear, easy to understand and well researched. Thank you for your work.

Odd. Many Protestants do not confront Orthodox Christians: their denomination has the most books in their Old Testament. Catholics are in the middle while Protestants have the least. Good video.

Sad thing... even though the Wretched channel has comments turned on in all the videos I checked out randomly, the particular video explored today has comments turned off.

Hebrews 11 is one of my favorite chapters of the NT. It was that chapter that convinced me that the "faith alone" doctrine is incorrect, well before I ever became a Catholic. In chronicling the OT saints, Hebrews shows us that their faith was always followed by righteous action.

I am not a Christian yet but very curious about the historical aspects and differences between belief systems. I've attended protestant churches but certain things have felt off to me, so I was very interested in learning more about these additional books. Thank you for putting together this informative video

73 books, a holy number 7 and 3 while the prots have 66, number of man twice. Jesus taught us to look at numbers, i.e. the beast which has 3 6's

Thanks for defending the true faith

Hallelujah to the Lord my God, for healing my heart during a heart attack! On March 26th 2022, just past midnight, I was laying restless in bed, and I had a heart attack. My arms and legs became tingly and numb, then my chest got tighter, and then my heart felt like it was being crushed. So I sang out to God and Jesus, about my pain, my feelings, my faults and my inabilities. As I sang, I began to feel like a river, and a hand was on my back, it's fingers where skimming the surface, separating the waters, causing ripples through my body. Then the hand reached inside my chest, lit my heart on fire, and the heat moved like waves through my body. When I was done singing, all the pain was gone, and I looked at the clock, it was past 1am, I had been singing near an hour. Then the voice of my guardian angel called my name from above, and there was a hymn of energy in the air, the same hymn I hear in my dreams of God. Hallelujah to the Lord my God for healing my heart! Hallelujah for His son Jesus for saving my soul! Hallelujah for every day! Hallelujah for every breath! The Lord is Faithful and true! May the Lord Bless your hearts!

You're my favorite Catholic KZfaqr, hands down.

An excellent exposition - thank you! I might add, stimulated by your comments relating Hebrews and 2 Maccabees, that all the NT authors knew Maccabees well. They knew the scriptures of their time well - their scriptures were the Septuagint. Jesus and the authors of the NT made frequent references showing their familiarity with the Septuagint as their scriptures.

Love all your work Joe. One thing. I don’t think it goes near far enough to say (41:22) to say that Protestants gave themselves the authority to remove the seven books. It was the Bible Society - best I can tell this was a company who printed Bibles. And I think I read they made the final decision not based on principle but to save money on printing and shipping! So there was no “protestant church council” that got together to take this action. It was done without any authority at all. For those that want to be “biblically based” they should see this for the outrage and affront to God’s word that it is. And oh by the way, what are they going to do when someone decides to print a new Bible and add or remove more books. How about one that doesn’t include the “clobber verses”. Thank you LORD for giving us a Church to keep us from such blasphemy and ruining the Christian witness.

This is the reason why I keep a PDF scan one of the original 1611 King James Bibles, it's available online, and just the mention of it practically breaks the brain of Protestants and their offshoots. I love them dearly but they have been unfortunately deceived about scripture, which is even more unfair because they are attempting to put scripture first, but because of this issue they don't have the whole thing.

This is a well researched presentation all the way to the British and Foreign Bible Society’s influence on Protestant Bibles. It is difficult running these facts to ground as I found out when researching. Around 1700, some Protestant Bible publishers did begin removing the Deuterocanon, but the marginal cross references to those books were not removed, at least for two more editions later. For example, as Joe pointed out, the KJV 1611 had the Deuterocanon AND there were 102 cross references to Deuterocanon books; 11 of them are New Testament cross references to the Deuterocanon. Later editions that dropped the Deuterocanon still had these cross references to the dropped books in the margins and eventually later editions dropped these as well.

Where was the church for 1500 years before Luther ?

I love you Joe but please put batteries in your smoke alarms! 😂😂

Excellent! Thank you!

The Catholic Church did not add 7 books to the Bible. The Catholic Church added 27 books to the Bible. They're called the New Testament.

Thank You Thank You Thank You !!!

Great explanation!

Can I like this video twice? Thanks Joe for what you are doing. Please continue defending the Church. On a side note, it seems to me the Todd guy came off as one of those guys from in some suspect infomercials...

Lmao the guy turned off comments in the original video. Probably sick of being called out. Great breakdown in this video!

My sister who had converted from Catholic to Evangelical Protestantism, enrolled me in a Evangelical 'boot camp'. This was during a recent separation from my wife. The 5 instructors were all ex Catholics. They explained that the reason the 7 books were removed because the Jews removed them. It follows then the Jews would know better. What they neglected to say the Jews removed it after the death of Jesus. As it many of the verses were about predictions about the coming of the Christ. The Protestants were not exactly lying but they were disingenuous in not saying the truth that during Jesus's ministry, all books were included during his time. There were so many lies propagated, and I left the bootcamp immediately. Be careful of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Struggling with trying to explain this stuff to my daughters father as we speak. Wont even acknowledge this stuff, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t frustrating. Not asking he accept it, just asking he acknowledge the history. Thank you for this

I think the most illogical reasoning is when Protestants say, “these books aren’t biblical”, as if the apostles handed out a table of contents of what should be in the Bible. To be “biblical” means to be physically in the bible. Physically in the canon of scripture. To use a really outlandish example, if we put willy wonka and the chocolate factory in the Bible, it would technically be biblical. What Protestants mean by biblical is that the books don’t jive with Protestant theology so hence they’re not “biblical” We were prob very close to the epistle of james not being “biblical” either if Luther had his way. And I quote, “an epistle of straw”

Really appreciate this video.

This presentation, once and for all, lays that silly Protestant contention to rest. Protestants, who are generally good people, are badly led astray and embarrass themselves with this absurd contention. Thank you Joe for your research, thought, logic, common sense and preparation that you brought to your wonderful presentation here.

In the Biblia del Oso (1569) by Casiodoro de la Reina, the first protestant bible translated in Spanish from hebrew and greek (the catholic Políglota Complutense is older: 1520) the seven deuterocanonical books are presented without any diferentiation with the other 39 books of the OT. In fact there are presence of another books (non deuterocanonical like the Prayer of Manasseh) and they are calified as apocrypha but not the deuterocanonical.

The Catholic canon was established at the Council of Rome (under Pope Damasus I in 382). To address the changes made by Martin Luther to the Bible, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible.

Our “wretched” friend is unaware of the Council of Rome in 382 AD. But, in actuality, the “list” was first exacted from the Easter letter of Athanasius in around 354-5 AD.

I'm a Protestant. The video you showed is the most embarrassing pro-Protestant view of the Old Testament Canon I have ever seen lol I made a video on my channel explaining why I think Catholics are right about the Canon.

The Bible is a Catholic book... Thank you

I found this video very informative. Growing up in heavily protestant areas, I had never realized that Catholics only have two legs. The front, back, and top legs are so crucial. I can only imagine what an impoverished life the papist must lead.

EXCELLENT!! THANK YOU

Seems creepy that they happened to remove 7 books, and ended up with 66 books.

Protestants Jesus asked for one universal church he didn't say go out and make many different churches with different teachings

Thank you and bless you.

Thanks for this video

The canon is a losing issue for Protestants when you get into the history. And that's a major problem for sola scriptura because you can't both claim scripture is your sole authority while also coming from a tradition that changed the canon of scripture. So like Friel does here, Protestants get really squirrelly when it comes to canon history.

What I don't understand is why Protestants call the Deuterocanon Apocrypha when they weren't called that in church history. Early Christian writings were very specific about what they call Apocrypha. Even Protestants recognize the Church Fathers didn't call the Deuterocanon Apocrypha. Taking them out is one thing. Calling them Apocrypha when they were not labeled that way is another.

Great work!

The two most widely accepted collections of Old Testament writings at that time were: The Septuagint was an early Greek translation of the Old Testament. It contained 46 books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. Another collection of the Old Testament in Hebrew contained just 39 books. It omits Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. It also omits chapters 10-16 of Esther, and three sections of Daniel: Daniel 3:24-90, Daniel 13, and Daniel 14. These books & chapters are called the deuterocanonical books, meaning "second canon." Although Hebrew-speaking Jews at the time of Jesus would have used the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek-speaking world around them used the Septuagint.

I think one of the craziest things to think about is the imputed justification and not needing to go to purgatory. Because by many Protestants' definitions of imputed righteousness is that they are still a sinner and only clothed with the righteousness of Christ not inwardly cleaned. So that inturned goes against the book of Revelation 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

This is an excellent video

Thank you Joe.

Im a nonCatholic, but like listening to you talk about Biblical issues.

Two things. First, I have been subscribed to Wretched for years & have watched this particular video by Todd more than once & have never caught that he keeps saying New Testament as the part of the Bible protestants think Catholics added to (I always thought he was just deflecting from the facts; & not making this big of an error). Second, do some protestants actually preach or teach that Maccabees is part of the New Testament in Catholic Canon? If so who has actually said this?

Thank you for this thorough refutation and for exposing Todd Fiel as a liar! Can you tell us which church council settled the books our current cannon, both old and NT?

Would an argument showing the eastern orthodox use of the 7 books be a useful argument at all. ie. If the catholic church inserted these at the reformation, how do you explain eastern churches (in schism) having them?

Friel knew what was being asked...he's just utterly and pathetically dishonest. He's deliberately dodging the issue

so, why isn't he a Lutherean then if luther did such a great job?

Thank you!!

How can there be so many bible believing Christians be going around reading and believing using a bible that is missing books?

Jesus quoted from the Septuagint which had the detueralcanonical books. Protestants took them out. Luther added the word faith "alone"in the German translation. If you left it up to Luther, the book of James would be gone, calling it an Epistle of straw and how he wanted to throw it in his fireplace. Along with several chapters of Revelation.

Todd the con artist hollywood style, better of getting your info from history channel lol.

Dear lord. Protastants removed 7 books. This is basic history.

I am Orthodox so an outsider on this, Catholics were right in this case

Thank you.