Trent Horne on Sola Scriptura - apocrypha (Shorten)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Further reading on the OT Canon & the status of the apocryphal books :
ccel.org/ccel/...
greenspun.com/b...
www.liquisearch...
armenianbible.org/
rediscoveringt...
www.aomin.org/...
The Bible Only Debate - Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating vs Bill Jackson and Ron Nemec
• Video
Spent some time responding to Trent Horne’s “rebuttal” of Jeff Durbin’s sermon on sola scriptura. Was going to get to some more Jay Dyer material on the same subject, but didn’t. Hope to on the next program.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
#Catholic #books #canon
"Then he [Jesus] said to them, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms [AKA the Tanakh] must be fulfilled. " Luke 24:44
Shameless Papist damn you are ignorant. Did you even do any research?
Shameless Papist yeah you are ignorant. No objective study at all. You claim the sadducees and Pharisees had different canons aswell as the essenes? What’s your source?
The Essenes were a Jewish fringe group who had separated themselves from mainstream Judaism during the second century BC. Their writings were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. They appeared to have approved a broader category of books than the traditional twenty-two or twenty-four of the Hebrew canon, suggesting to some that the canon was not closed in Palestenian Judaism. The findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls do demonstrate there were many additional writings to the canonical Scriptures of the Hebrew Old Testament in the Essene community. However, this does not mean they held to a broader canon. The Essenes produced a significant body of pseudepigraphal apocalyptic literature, but they did not consider these to be inspired. They were highly esteemed as authoritative interpretations of the canonical books, but were not believed to be canonical Scripture. The pseudepigraphal work, Jubilees, originated with the Essenes and cites the number of canonical books to be twenty-two, the same as that given by Josephus the Pharisee. This fact undermines the theory of a broader Essene canon and leads to the conclusion that the canon of the Essenes was the same as that of Judaism in general. F.F. Bruce emphasizes there was no essential disagreement between the Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees on the nature of the canon:
It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture. There may have been some differences of opinion and practice with regard to one or two of the ‘Writings’, but the inter-party disagreements remembered in Jewish tradition have very little to do with the limits of the canon. The idea that the Sadducees (like the Samaritans) acknowledged the Pentateuch only as holy scripture is based on a misunderstanding: when Josephus, for example, says that the Sadducees ‘admit no observance at all apart from the laws’, he means not the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the Prophets and the Writings but the written law (of the Pentateuch) to the exclusion of the oral law (the Pharisaic interpretation and application of the written law, which, like the written law itself, was held in theory to have been received and handed down by Moses).F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 40-41.
Shameless Papist bullshit. You are not a scholar and have not studied as such. When numerous scholars say the opposite to your claims, then I am inclined to believe them over you. Especially when they cite original sources and material which I can read for myself.
and jesus never recognized aprocryphal books either
I was going to add a thoughtful response here, until I saw the thoughtless responses, but do not wish to be lumped in with these.
Not trying to be a jerk here..... but some Catholic doctrines derive from the gnostic books (which even the catholic church doesn't consider scripture). Other Catholic doctrines come from popes whose fruits were disturbingly rotten. One more thing, look at the pope today.... the man believes you don't need Jesus to be with God. LIKE WHAT!? This was what happens when you favor mans idea's over God's word.
@croatiangambler8059Marion Dogma
4 years later and I still have not heard a Catholic/Orthodox represent Sola Sciptora correctly. Even after being corrected in previous debate.
Even early authors recognise that they are good and can edify believers but not inspired.
Now I know why church history is so important 😆🙏🚀
Stay away from sham shamoun....
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 he’s also good at the basics of Christianity
But when it gets to the deeper matters he’s all over the map
All I know is that James White is going to hell . . . for wearing that sweater.
Just kidding. I love Dr. White. But that sweater, though.
That sweater looks fly I'd wear it for sure.
The sweater commands respect
I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help.
Jesus quotes from Enoch, that doesn’t mean it’s scripture. The apocrypha isn’t scripture. You can get value and historical insight, but it shouldn’t be a foundational tool for ANY doctrinal development.
Cool James White glitch art @ 10:06
I laughed out loud when you said, "But he [Benedict] ain't dead, yet!"
I watched Dr. White and Trent Horn's debat. Horn has a lot of inconsistencies in his theology.
Like what? From this angle, Trent destroys White's 30 year old rehash.
@@stevenhazel4445 Trent is inconsistent lols. Watch their debate. Btw, Trent Horn teaches a lot of false teachings. Roman Catholics has a lot of false teachings.
Ex-Catholic Exposes the TWISTED Teachings of the Catholic Church | Mike Gendron:
ruclips.net/video/jdlczbO5Csc/видео.html
I would simplify this issue and say there is great value in some apocryphal books, though they're not canonical. Clearly Peter, Paul, and Judah thought so as well.
Their history, context, and relationship to the tiny bits of scripture that use them is very important.
Not really
Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20.
'Men judged according to their works' is a quote from Sirach.
Paul and Peter quoted the apocrypha?
@@craigime Yes, Hebrews quotes Wisdom, Jude quotes Enoch and a lost book, Peter alludes to Enoch, Paul quotes Sirach, Jesus quotes Esdras in Matthew and Luke.
This is not debatable any longer due to linguistic study.
Most of the old testament quotes found in the new testament are sourced from the Septuagint.
The only people denying this any longer are those who haven't done the research, those with an agenda, or those who don't know any better.
I wish the Evangelical solution to the apocrypha problem wasn't just to ignore those books altogether. They're great reads even though they're not inspired. I use an ESV with the Apocrypha. The Book of Wisdom has been a great resource for me.
It defeats the purpose to not have it in the first place
That's because it's an inspired book.
What's your "solution" then?
@@stevenhazel4445it’s not though. But nice try.
Self-authenticating scripture.
As a Catholic, globally the Christian Faith, my job is praise. And so I sing psalms and canticles in praise of God daily and I'll leave those who think our prayerbook is a sword to those God chooses for that. Blessings and I pray the Holy Spirit brings us into full Faith and Truth. Jesus and the Apostles used the full Bible as scripture, not the version used since the 1890s by Protestants that cuts the Deuterocannon/Apocrapha (whatever you want to call them). God saved some Saducees despite them only using 5 books, and saves Jews without the full book, and Protestants with their 8th Century Jewish OT. There's enough there for Jesus to work into your heart. Don't forget to praise.
The apocrypha has never been considered scripture by the Jewish people, which include Jesus and the Apostles.
An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient... He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. [Titus 1:6, 9 NIV]
the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach... They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. [1 Timothy 3:2, 9 NIV]
What? Horne isn't even historically accurate. We had the final canon around 200 AD, but Catholics later added to it.
Hint: the Apocrypha isn't included.
Athanasius himself wrote the list. If you don't recognize his name it is a BIG deal.
@@JeansiByxan Read the Council of Rome. It lists all the books of Scripture, however not in a way as if the Canon was closed.
James White to the rescue
Trent Horne's arguments are so bad they are an embarrassment to Christians of any creed.
Which one?
Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20:
12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant.[a] 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him.
Do you just go around spamming this?
@@RomanPaganChurch I found a similar translation of those "scriptures". That would explain how the RCC decided to deal w/ people they deemed as heretics or apostates back in the day. Yikes.
That’s such a beautiful Messianic prophecy, thanks for sharing!
There are many different Jewish groups, but they all have the same Hebrew, and Aramaic canon. That settles it.
Flatly false. The Sadducees rejected many of the books which Jesus and his apostles quoted, and the Essenes had several books which are now considered apocryphal. And the LXX which the Apostles used in writing the NT included these books also. So don't fall into Mr. White's manmade traditions.
@@stevenhazel4445 Since the Sadducees no longer exist, we can't falsify your assertion, but we do have Jewish groups all over the world that overwhelmingly have the same canon. Paul says we get the Oracles of God from the Jews, so we have an objective standard. Peace.
The Essene Hebrew-language Tobit scroll is older than almost any existing part of the Jewish cannon, which was set in the 8th Century. The proper use of scripture is praise. Daily. God can work on your soul if you pray, even without the full scripture Jesus used. Protestant Bibles included all 73 books until the 1890s. Only now do the publish sans-deuterocanon/apocryphal.
@@Shevock Twp Talmuds, and many Jewish sects, but overwhelmingly only one Tanakh Q.E.D.
James ' sweaters aren't biblical😅
Recommended reading for OT?
Genesis the Ezekiel.
Actually, my bad. Genesis to Malachi.
He still never answers the question about knowing how you got those books in the Boble that Trent originally asked. Very clever way to completely dance around a question.lol
We received the Jewish books from the Jews and a bunch of Gentiles who lost connections with the Jewish roots of their faith got confused. That's a pretty good summary of why the Apocrypha was incorrectly accepted by some.
@@aGoyforJesus after the septuigant most scrolls where in greek... the oldest Hebrew text is newer then the oldest Greek texts. Jesus and the apostles read and spoke Greek. Only Paul would have known the Hebrew.
Jesus quoted them, and he celebrated Hanukkah....
Understand there wasn't a Jewish text. There where different collections based on the different regions and sects of Judaisms. A pharasee in Rome had a different cannon the a sadusee in Carthage...etc
@@grantguikema9821 There wasn't a different Saducee canon and there was no Alexandrian canon. Furthermore, saying the word "Septuagint" also doesn't give one a particular canon.
The Greek translations were just that. Translations. They were dependent on the Hebrew and there were various Greek translations over time of varying quality.
@@aGoyforJesus then why does the all the earliest septuigants have different cannons? Look at recent study of 2nd temple Judaism. The evidence is there if you want to look at it.
See the problem is Sola Scriptura. Canon means more to protestants because they put all their authority in it. If you read Jesus he doesn't give authority to a book but to the apostles and to his church.
@@grantguikema9821 //then why does the all the earliest septuigants have different cannons? Look at recent study of 2nd temple Judaism. The evidence is there if you want to look at it. //
The earliest extant collections of the Septuagints are Christian in origin and they have differences with one another and they're from the 4th century AD. So they have no good evidential value on earlier ideas about the canon. Also, just because people put religious books in a collection doesn't mean we know that they viewed all the books in a collection as Scripture.
I'm not sure how looking to 2nd Temple Judaism helps you. We have Jesus' comments on "Abel to Zechariah" confirming the traditional canon (go to my channel and do a search for 'Abel' and a bunch of videos and a playlist will come up... the main presentation is about 20 minutes or so if you're interested). We have Josephus confirming the traditional Jewish canon, saying those were the books the Jews held. We have a barriata affirming the traditional Jewish canon, reflecting this tradition as well.
//See the problem is Sola Scriptura. Canon means more to protestants because they put all their authority in it.//
This is just standard Roman Catholic apologetic boilerplate that's been responded to over and over again and it's frankly not a good representation of the argument. Not even sure where you're going with "canon means more to Protestants..." Given that Catholics don't really base their doctrines on God's self-revelation but rely primarily on church authority I guess that's true.
//If you read Jesus he doesn't give authority to a book but to the apostles and to his church.//
The Holy Spirit is God.
If only they had a NKJV of the apocrypha.
That is a horrible sweater...
Ad Hom?
It's based.
James White vs The Early Church canon. I'll go with the early church, thanks. Jesus and His Apostles quoted the LXX which did include most of the apocryphal books.
That's a fallacy. Even if they were utilizing Greek translations of the tanakh, we don't even know if the apocryoha were attached to them at this point, and regardless, there is no evidence that the Palestinian Jews considered them canon at this time. Many early collections of the New Testament include the Epistle of Barnabas and Sheperd of Hermas, but Catholics don't consider those canon.
The apocrypha may be alluded to in the NT, but they are not quoted as Scripture. That's just a fact.
There's also no evidence that Palestinian Jews of Jesus's time thought of "canon" as we do today. But the LXX did include most of the books that Protestants call apocryphal.
@@stevenhazel4445 Considering the reference to the law, prophets, and psalms in Luke 24:44, and the references to these distinctions within the apocrypha themselves, I would say the Jews absolutely had a concept of canon and rabbinical Judaism would say the same thing. There was also no singular, bound edition of "the LXX", so the presence of apocryphal books in latter Septuagint collections bears absolutely no relevance on their canonicity.
@@tiptupjr.9073 Rabbinic Judaism didn't address the canon until after the Christian era, and partially in response to it. My statement was that they didn't think of canon AS WE DO TODAY. There were certainly books that weren't questioned like the Torah, and prophets, and there were also the Writings portion of the Tanakh, which was the least defined among sections of the Torah, and this is where the so-called apocryphal books were found. If there's no good evidence that the so-called apocryphal books were added to the LXX, then your last comment is just special pleading. They are a part of the received LXX.
@@stevenhazel4445 You should look up the Kneset ha-Gedola, or Great Assembly. The Jews teach they finalized the canon around 450 BC. They would laugh you out of a room if you suggested there was no set canon. Also, there is no such thing as a "received LXX". Are you Catholic or Orthodox? Rome has never used such language. Jerome said the Septuagint went through at least six bottlenecks of recension and editing, Origen's hexapla being a major one, before taking its late fourth century form. We have no idea what it looked like in the time of Christ.
Man, what a misleading man. He spends less time listening to Trent's argument than he does going on a tirade about titles and considerations, which were rebutted and mentioned in Trent's video.
The books of what the Protestants call Deutero-canonical were categorized differently, and SO WERE THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS SEPARATE FROM THE MOSAIC LAW. It's just categorization
Okay. No. They weren’t considered canon by the Jews, therefore, they’re remanded to the Roman Bible.
@@KristiLEvans1 You are being anachronistic, since the word "canon" was never used by the Jews of that time. They spoke of things being "inspired", which was a term the early church used for other books which we now don't consider canonical. The Jews certainly did not agree on what was inspired and we need to look to church history for this, not Jew history.
@@stevenhazel4445 oh my gosh, Steven. I don’t speak Hebrew. I’m not trying to say what they *called* “canon”, as a word. I’m trying to refer to the books they laid up in the temple as Scripture - then and now. The books Rome added were never answered are not considered Scripture by the Jews.
@@KristiLEvans1 there was more than one Jewish opinion on what was inspired. The sadducees only accepted the Torah while the Pharisees accepted the Torah, prophets and writings. The Essenes accepted all of these and also most of the “apocryphal” books. The Septuagint Greek translation which Jesus and his apostles quoted from also included these books. There was never an agreed upon collection (canon) as it’s portrayed nowadays.
@@stevenhazel4445 as any Jew alive today, then.
😂😂
There we go again, Dr James letting his beard grow and claiming to he the wisest apologetic, theologian, historian and we are the barbarians. Therefore he is the one with the answers hence we need to listen to him.
He never said that but apparently thats your conclusion
apparently, you're not enlightened enough to see the truth in people you dont like.
@@FeyAccion8523 clearly, you're the kind of person who sees things black and white. when an enemy said the sky is blue, youd still say that's false. blinded by anger. Smart people are objective. clearly you're an idiot. hahaha study more fool.
@@askingwhyisfree7436 haha even how you answer the question they will not listen because they only listen on what catholic apologists says. And when the question is refuted they still proud that the opponent didn't answer it correctly and it goes round and round. Eventhough how wrong they was they still believe and proud of it as long as the mouth is in the catholic
Guys, I'm not Catholic, neither am I Baptist, I love the word of G-d, and I truly enjoy really good arguments. I wish you would understand how messed up this is; having "Dr James" trying to explain what his disciple/Jeff meant, when a man that beat Dr James fair and square, rebukes his disciple. This is absurd.
The bible says NO! to Sola Scriptura. "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth"
How do you test that a person is being lead by the Holy Spirit if not by the Word?
@@douglasmcnay644 I agree with this statement. Because it takes 2 witnesses . Spirit and Word
@@douglasmcnay644 without an infallible authority outside of the Bible, you can't. Spoiler.
And if the YOU meant each believer individually, then this would be proven false, as many believers claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet they do not all agree. So either the Spirit does NOT lead people individually or He does and we have no way of knowing whether we have been led correctly (since we disagree with so many other Christians who also claim to be led by the same Spirit). In Protestantism, you can't KNOW any interpretation to be true.
@@xneutralgodx Still not SOLA Scriptura.