Joe Heschmeyer is soo underrated, he’s such a great catholic apologist
@Serquss
Жыл бұрын
Joe's channel is fire!
@zuzaninha
Жыл бұрын
He is the best! (Catholic answers' apologists are very knowledgeable, humble, charitable, unpretentious, no-nonsense... I have a crush)
@AJanae.
Жыл бұрын
I love his books! He knows how to dumb it down for us average readers 😎
@RenegadeCatholic
Жыл бұрын
Agreed. He breaks it down in a very protestant-friendly way so that it really hits home for us converts, often making glaringly obvious points that somehow get totally missed. Though, I think Trent and Jimmy do a great job at this as well.
@Theosis_and_prayer
Жыл бұрын
🙏100% Do you know how many Protestants have become Christian over the years because of Catholic Answers. It's probably thousands now. 🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦
@michaelmasztal7871
Жыл бұрын
Two of the main apologists that were greatly influential in my return to Catholicism on one show!!!
@EvilChristianity
Жыл бұрын
Why did you decide to worship cannibalism and propitiatory human sacrifice?
@michaelmasztal7871
Жыл бұрын
@@EvilChristianity Huh?
@vintage53-coversandorigina37
Жыл бұрын
If the God who spoke creation into existence by his Word, couldn’t He change bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity while keeping the appearance of bread and wine? Jesus said “Your father’s ate the bread from Heaven in the desert, but they died. I am the true bread from Heaven, those who eat this bread will never die!” A New Testament fulfillment cannot be lesser than an Old Testament type! You underestimate the Power of God by claiming He cannot perform this miracle!
@RenegadeCatholic
Жыл бұрын
@@EvilChristianity Cannibalism? So you admit that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ?
@EvilChristianity
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelmasztal7871 _"Huh?"_ Do you deny that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross thing and John 3:16... Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@TTurmDawg
Жыл бұрын
9:35 F in the chat for the defeated look on Joe's face when Trent didn't laugh at his Star Wars reference. Absolutely tore me apart.
@Americanheld
Жыл бұрын
Trent and Joe together form an incredibly formidable team to defend the faith. I’ve seen both of them dialogue and debate with Gavin Ortlund, who (I believe) is the best Protestants have to offer. They have such deep knowledge on a variety of topics and they present it in a confident, yet gracious and winsome way, it’s hard to see how anyone can walk away not convinced by them. Not to mention both are incredible authors too and I’d highly recommend their books. They truly have a unique grace from God for apologetics. Please do more content together. Keep it up, gents!
@christinemcguiness9356
Жыл бұрын
These two Apologist’s are incredible. Their knowledge blows me away and easy to listen to. God bless🙏
@fantasia55
Жыл бұрын
They are credible, not incredible.
@Theosis_and_prayer
Жыл бұрын
I'm beyond grateful that so many people are converting from Protestantism to Christianity and embracing the Eucharist and devotion to Mary.
@4jgarner
Жыл бұрын
To *catholicism. Protestantism is quality recognized as a form of Christianity.
@HerveyShmervy
Жыл бұрын
@@4jgarnerhe hasn't read Vatican II don't fault him for that 😂😂😂
@4jgarner
Жыл бұрын
@@HerveyShmervy I'm fully aware that I'm anathematized by the Catholic Church. But you're just in it to get that sweet sweet gotcha, so I don't fault you for that 😂😂😂
@HerveyShmervy
Жыл бұрын
@@4jgarner i am protestant
@HerveyShmervy
Жыл бұрын
I was just making a point about VatII
@jackieo8693
Жыл бұрын
The self authenticating argument is so illogical. Atheists would laugh at it. Glad to see two great apologists together.
@xravenx24fe
Жыл бұрын
True. I recall reading a community post where someone was suggesting that William Lane Craig should go on Joe Rogans podcast, and someone in the comments suggested Jeff Durbin should do it. I had the same reaction lol, like why would you suggest a presuppositionalist to talk to an agnostic? They'll reject their message immediately...
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@bad_covfefe
7 ай бұрын
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 because the Bible isn't a comprehensive list of all Christian doctrines.
@MouseCheese2010
Жыл бұрын
I used to love Joe, but after learning he hates cheesecake I need to reflect on this more…
@rhwinner
Жыл бұрын
True. I'm even considering converting.
@JosephHeschmeyer
Жыл бұрын
With enemies like these, who needs friends? Cheesecake is gross.
@johnmb69
Жыл бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyer Ugh. Seriously Joe, say 10 Jesus prayers & 10 Hail Marys. I'm worried about you... 😉
@domanicvaldez
8 ай бұрын
How can anyone not love cheesecake? Joe is a great apologist not a great food critique.
@enderwiggen3638
7 ай бұрын
He’s just making sure there is more on the planet for you
@andrewscotteames4718
Жыл бұрын
What convinced me of the emptiness of the idea of a self-authenticating canon was looking at other writings from the early church and reading the deuterocanonical books. When I examine writings from Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, the “lost” epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, the Didache, or the apocalypse of Peter, I can’t tell why these books are not scripture. When I read wisdom, or Judith, or the additions to Daniel, I can’t tell why they don’t belong with the Old Testament Canon but something like Esther does.
@theosophicalwanderings7696
Жыл бұрын
That’s because you’re getting your idea of self authenticating canon from Roman Catholics. Get it from a Protestant who defends it well. Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger is the best place to get it. And yes they mention him in the video but anyone who knows his works knows they didn’t even come close to target.
@andrewscotteames4718
Жыл бұрын
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I’ve read Kruger’s books the question of Canon and Canon Revisited. Do you have any other suggestions?
@sivad1025
Жыл бұрын
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Tent cites Kruger's book extensively in Case for Catholicism. How exactly is Trent misrepresenting Kruger's position?
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@theosophicalwanderings7696
Жыл бұрын
@@sivad1025 I have not read Trents book so I am not sure which book he interacts with. But going by what hes said in this video, if he thinks Krugers argument amounts to basically "I know the canon through my feelings" then he is most certainly not familiar with Krugers argument. Can you cite what Trent says in his book about Kruger? I am not wanting to buy the entire book just for that one section. But again, so far as Ive seen publicly he does a poor job interacting with his argument.
@CatholicSamurai
Жыл бұрын
The biggest nail in the coffin imo against self-attestation is the historical reality that, across the first 4 centuries AD, the canon changed wildly. Some books were originally considered part of canon, but then removed. Others were later accepted as canon that weren’t as first. Most damningly, sole books start off as accepted, are later removed from the canon, then *added again* at a later date. Seems like such a long process of conflicting positions leading to the canon doesn’t square with the canon being “so easy even a caveman could identify it”
@ancalagonyt
Жыл бұрын
The canon did not "change wildly". It took shape somewhat slowly over time, starting with the idea of a canon in the first place.
@matthewoburke7202
Жыл бұрын
I wouldn't say the cannon "changed" but rather i would say it developed over time. There was debate over which books belonged, so there really wasn't an official cannon at all at this point. There was a 22 book "cannon" of the old testament, but this cannon was meant to be a list of books that could be used to evangelize the jews, because we shared those books with the jews. It wasn't meant to be a final list of all inspired books. The final list of all books inspired by God wasn't formulated until finally 2 synods settled the issue in the late 4th century. The Council of Rome 382 A.D held by Pope Damasus The Synod of Hippo 393 A.D Both synods gave the exact same cannon we have today. Your point still stands though, that the development of the cannon of scripture flies in the face of any notion that the cannon is "self attesting."
@matthewoburke7202
Жыл бұрын
@@ancalagonytYep
@eddardgreybeard
Жыл бұрын
You can tell many Church fathers were familiar with the repose of Mary and also considered the shepherd Hermes to be scripture
@Cklert
Жыл бұрын
@@matthewoburke7202 Don't also forget to include the Council of Carthage in 397.
@johnthetenor
Жыл бұрын
Cheesecake is a custard you barbarians
@henrytucker7189
Жыл бұрын
Exactly. I’m now questioning my faith
@scrapdog2113
Жыл бұрын
You refuted a 31 minute video with just 6 simple words Lol jkjk
@sliglusamelius8578
Жыл бұрын
But we like being barbarians. If not for the German horde, what would have happened to mankind?
@Will-ge7ri
Жыл бұрын
Because a cheesecake’s filling is custard-like, it does not therefore follow that it is a custard. Using classical hermeneutical approaches with the majority texts of the culinary arts, one finds that chef scholars agree that a cheesecake is, in fact, a tart.
@Will-ge7ri
Жыл бұрын
Side note, I spent the majority of the video researching this and have no clue what the video is about😂
@deanphilipsaunders775
Жыл бұрын
Huge, huge fan of Joe. He explains everything so easily with evidence that is so relevant to these topics. Awesome work.
@PatrickInCayman
Жыл бұрын
It's great to be Catholic, you always learn things even down to tarts vs cakes.
@Alexander-fr1kk
Жыл бұрын
After being southern Baptist and Pentecostal we were brainwashed into not questioning what we were taught. When I scraped the scales off my eyes I came home. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
@Tstep45_qr
Ай бұрын
Welcome home ❤
@BeingShari
Жыл бұрын
I’m so impressed with Trent’s setup these days compared to a few years ago! Great topic
@LaserFace23
Жыл бұрын
The more I learn about these topics and listen to Protestant arguments, the more strikingly similar to Islam Protestantism presents itself. There are so many assertions that are simply based on "Well my [religious leader/parents] TOLD me so!" which obviously fails miserably as an argument to those outside of that tradition, so they're forced to fall back on "Well it's just self-evident that this is from God, who else could've written it? See how beautiful it is?" Calvin's argument is literally a Muslim argument and has the exact same amount of weight behind it (at least on its face, since they, unlike Muslims, are at least correct in their assertions). Catholicism meanwhile has such a unique structure compared to other religions and has maintained that structure since the start; truth tends to manifest itself in more unique expressions, while falsehoods (Gnosticism, Arianism, Protestantism, etc) tend to take similar forms over and over again no matter how many times you prove them wrong.
@starshipchris4518
Жыл бұрын
Indeed, I've had a similar conclusion. They also use a similar idea of abrogation of verses, except the Muslim acknowledges and has a word for it.
@sivad1025
Жыл бұрын
As a Protestant, this is very true. I learned a lot about Islam from David Wood and had a whole slew of anti-Islam arguments that I'm finding are applicable to Protestantism. Another one: the Qur'an says that Jesus' disciples were made superior over the disbelievers, yet our records of the apostles have them at odds with the Qur'an. So I've argued to Muslims that they must think Jesus and his apostles to be the most incompetent religious leaders in history who couldn't even maintain the faith for a century. But then I see Ignatius (someone who I cited to Muslims to show belief that Jesus is God in the early church) talking about the authority of the bishops and later Iraneous about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. So am I as a Protestant doing the same thing Muslims do and attributing complete incompetence to Jesus and his disciples? I've asked other Protestants and they just shrug it off as the church fathers being fallible men who universally adopted some heresy. I honestly can't see how that's any different than what Islam claims
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@jackieo8693
Жыл бұрын
Exactly 💯
@jackieo8693
Жыл бұрын
@@sivad1025 you are amazingly brave and honest!
@rootberg
Жыл бұрын
Thanks guys! Yesterday I finished reading Joe’s book ”The early church was the Catholic church”. Great read. The chapter on the four gospels dealt with some of these questions.
@cameronbyers5710
Жыл бұрын
Two of my favorite apologists teaming up! Couldn't wait to watch. 😃
@timothymcdonald7407
Жыл бұрын
Just excellent my friends. Thank God for both of you.
@treeckoniusconstantinus
Жыл бұрын
Joshua Charles on the Catholic Answers website has recently written three articles about the Calvin-LDS topic discussed early in the video. I'd recommend them.
@robertahagen6455
Жыл бұрын
Wow! What an amazing education I am getting from you two! So glad the Lord lead me to you two! Keep on keepin' on and may God bless you both!
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
u too rob,Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@VoiceOfReason_
Жыл бұрын
So St. Augustine appealed to the ordinary & universal magisterium 😎
@MrPeach1
Жыл бұрын
I love Shamelss Potpourri probably one of the best apologetic Channels on you tube. Been subbed awhile.
@fantasia55
Жыл бұрын
Popery
@irishandscottish1829
Жыл бұрын
@@fantasia55 you need to watch Joes earliest videos to get the joke… Even Joe knows the joke of ‘shameless potpourri’ and speaks of it in his earliest videos
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace peach
@MrPeach1
Жыл бұрын
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 because it had not been fully discovered until later thought about the relationship between the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was done. The Apostles taught that Jesus was God but they had not formally defined details about the relationship until later issues came up that forced them to discern some of the details. The council of nicea was a good example of that happening and it was in 300AD. So in practice the church actually was able to operate for 300 years before the need for a formal understanding and definitive teaching where hammered out. I think the word trinity is found earlier than this though. According to the internets "The first recorded use of this Latin word was by Tertullian in about 200AD,"
@fantasia55
Жыл бұрын
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Not all Christian doctrine is in the Bible
@arsenicrice9990
Жыл бұрын
Joe's series on Mormonism is so great!!!
@partydean17
Жыл бұрын
Dude knocked it out of the park. Super lucid and understandable thats a gift from god
@TheGenFem
5 ай бұрын
These two feel like they’re best friends, even outside of work. I love it!
@Forester-
Жыл бұрын
Trent (or Kyle), I'd love to see you guys engage more directly with Kruger's work. On this and Joe's earlier video on this topic many of the comments from Protestants are more concerned with Kruger than Calvin. Joe replied to a comment on his video explaining why he didn't engage Kruger but I think enough people are bringing it up that it needs to be done. Thanks
@ksink74
Жыл бұрын
That's also the same argument a Muslim would make about the Koran or a Latter Day Saint would make about the Book of Mormon. Edit: That feeling when you wait for ten minutes, and they bring up the point in your comment.
@IJN-33
Жыл бұрын
I see the comparison, but I think Latter-day Saint ideas of testimony or the reception of truth from God are a little more nuanced than they're often portrayed. While emotion is part of it, logic and consideration are also considered important in that process. Some Latter-day Saints do use a self-authenticating argument, that's not the majority of the rhetoric.
@Theosis_and_prayer
Жыл бұрын
Now we wait for Gavin Ortlund and James White and a hundred other prots to make hour long videos with multiple 'guests' responding. 😂
@TheCounselofTrent
Жыл бұрын
Can’t forget about the inevitable 4-hour responses to the response from the Catholic side. -Kyle
@MrPeach1
Жыл бұрын
thats funny I see the same comments on Gavins videos about our 3 hour long rebuttals to his videos. I really do think Catholics are producing more rebuttals then Prots are and ours are longer. So they have a good point but it only takes 1 second to spill milk but it takes a much longer time to clean it up.
@Danaluni59
Жыл бұрын
The Catholic rebuttals don’t rely upon logical fallacies.
@whathappening5323
Жыл бұрын
@@Danaluni59 It's just a tennis match with these rebuttals, is the result already determined before the match begins. Are they ranked because they look the part? or are they ranked because they have proven themselves? The real ranked player proves himself on all surfaces, Most of these players play on one surface and then claim that are the number one player. There are too many variables that have to come into play to determine the actual Victor in this game of cat and mouse.
@geoffrobinson
Жыл бұрын
how about a bunch of church fathers who affirm the self-authenticating nature of Scripture?
@kevindelcid3430
Жыл бұрын
My 2 favorite Apologists! What a treat!
@tylerrossjcl
Жыл бұрын
The question we need to be asking (and answering) as Catholics is: how did the Church come to judge what books are in the canon? What standards were used?
@crusaderACR
Жыл бұрын
The most important factor was ultimately how widely accepted those books _already were_ among the major Dioceses. This criterion wouldn't be palatable to the Reformers, however. Edit: Just to note, it wasn't completely blind either. But it was a major factor. The Didache was anonymous and probably not the best fit, but Hebrews was also anonymous and they still included it because of its wide acceptance. Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, and others are hard to argue. Clement may be because it wasn't directly about Christ, however III John would fail that. John was Apostolic though. It was tough work, took years to iron out that's for sure. And we trust the Church.
@jackneals5585
Жыл бұрын
Great discussion. Please have this man on again.
@thegoatofyoutube1787
Жыл бұрын
“Some people say debating Protestants is easy”. It’s more like convincing a blind person that sight exists but they’ve made up their mind that only four senses exist and their whole identity hinges on maintaining this belief.
@Danaluni59
Жыл бұрын
It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince him that he has been fooled.
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@jackieo8693
Жыл бұрын
Yup
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
@@jackieo8693 , ,hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&i going to preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful , O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace
@thegoatofyoutube1787
Жыл бұрын
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 you’re in the wrong comment section with that question. Catholics believe that the idea of the trinity is in the Bible but we know with confidence it is true because the apostolic church teaches it is true. What religion and interpretation are you trying to sell us?🤔 I’m always open to hear a new pitch.
@ProjectMysticApostolate
Жыл бұрын
We need more of these. I learned so much. God bless you both! 👍
@Anthony-fk2zu
Жыл бұрын
I came here to say that Joe should get his books on audible, I won’t jump on the cheesecake wagon. Yet. Really great video though, guys, keep it up!
@tonyl3762
Жыл бұрын
The canon is the Achilles heel of sola Scriptura and thus Protestantism.
@sivad1025
Жыл бұрын
Not necessarily protestantism but it is a huge blow. I personally am in the boat that God defined heresy in the early church but the magisterium doesn't have an ongoing authority. This would reconsile the canon problem. Although I concede that it's entirely arbitrary and thin. The fact that the first reformers all believed in sola scriptura has really shaken my protestantism
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@tonyl3762
Жыл бұрын
@@sivad1025 So God only preserved His Church for a certain period of time? For how long? On what basis/evidence do you hold this belief?
@tonyl3762
Жыл бұрын
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Pretty sure all three persons of the Trinity can be found in the Bible where each is identified as God. Trinity is there implicitly, but clearly the Church had to authoritatively settle the issue.
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
@@tonyl3762 ,,,as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has abducted the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity,peace
@timboslice980
Жыл бұрын
I think Calvin gets a little hippie when he talks about real presense as well.... man i watch or liste to every episode of joes podcast. That one about protestants not really worshipping god was super eye opening. Coming from a protestant background it has me questioning how much more prot baggage i still have lol.
@pattyserrano9339
Жыл бұрын
I've had Joe's books on my tbr list for months now, I'm moving them up!!
@crusaderACR
Жыл бұрын
What's tbr?
@pattyserrano9339
Жыл бұрын
@@crusaderACR to be read
@bradleytarr2482
Жыл бұрын
To paraphrase the Sci-Fi Genre: "Within every American MegaChurch lies the seeds of its own destruction."
@edwardmccarthy6422
Жыл бұрын
Both of you guys are such a blessing!! And Tim Staples, and Jimmy. Your defense is ALWAYS with charity. A model of apologetics. Anyway, this particular Protestant assertion doesn't pass the starting gate of logic. The proposition, "Scripture authenticates itself" is a "do-loop"; the conclusion is in the premise. It assumes "Scripture" as a premise, like Scripture is just sitting there, on a table, ALREADY determined TO BE Scripture, and then we come along and are asking ourselves, "is this authentic", even though it has ALREADY been determined to be Scripture by some entity NOT using this criteria to determine it. It presumes a "self" already exists that authenticates itSELF. It actually seems to be saying, "this is how I recognize what the Church has determined to be Scripture.". Or, perhaps more simply and honestly, "this is how I FEEL or REACT when I read what the Church has determined to be Sacred Scripture.".
@Theosis_and_prayer
Жыл бұрын
These great apologetics videos by these theological titans have helped so many convert from the Calvinist and Baptist religion to Christianity.
@EvilChristianity
Жыл бұрын
_"...have helped so many convert from the Calvinist and Baptist religion to Christianity."_ Because the world needs more people to worship cannibalism and propitiatory human sacrifice.
@EvilChristianity
Жыл бұрын
@robertstephenson6806 _"...the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent"_ So should a father who used one of his sons as a human sacrifice to appease himself be condemned or worshiped?
@EvilChristianity
Жыл бұрын
@robertstephenson6806 _"Then you are on the right path."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@michaelmasztal7871
Жыл бұрын
@@EvilChristianity You wrote, "Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity?" There is an error in your premise, "Human sacrifice" is not a core tenet of Christianity. Jesus was not merely human unless you subscribe to one of the early heresies in Christianity. You need to do your homework on the dual nature of Jesus.
@EvilChristianity
Жыл бұрын
@robertstephenson6806 _"Paul then spent 3 1/2 years being taught by Jesus before he began to evangelize gentiles."_ Source? Oh... Paul, right? And only Paul. You are using Paul to prove Paul. LOL
@Grace4rever
6 ай бұрын
As a protestant who holds a partial self authentication model for the cannon, I was not swayed in the least but appreciated the conversation.
@concrete3030
Жыл бұрын
At 28.10... "because scripture is the Word of God you can't use anything else to prove it or else you are putting some other authority above the word of God." I hear this all the time when prodestants can not reason their interpretations although most of them use personal interpretation or have even written bias, guided questions books that they are allowed to do but the Church Father's and the Church are not allowed to do
@perhael
11 ай бұрын
Need more of these conversations
@starshipchris4518
Жыл бұрын
Perspicuity is another idea thrown out there that's manifestly disprovable, yet unshakbly held.
@dynamic9016
Жыл бұрын
Very insightful conversation.
@joelpenley9791
Жыл бұрын
Trent: “Thank you for your podcast which is not useless banter.” Talks about cheesecake right after 🤣😂🤣
@andyfisher2403
Жыл бұрын
Love your content. I miss the 40+ minute episodes
@Ban-mw9vl
Жыл бұрын
Agreed!! Conversational episodes are superior in regard to entertainment and comprehension 🙂 .. not to say scripted content doesn’t have its place though.
@eddardgreybeard
Жыл бұрын
Nothing better than self authenticating Canon when you are your own Pope and magisterium
@billymays7958
Жыл бұрын
What exactly are you saying?
@EmberBright2077
Жыл бұрын
Not sure why you made this comment, since no one actually believes that.
@eddardgreybeard
Жыл бұрын
@@billymays7958 Are you guys Protestants or Christians?
@Matt-1926
Жыл бұрын
Joe must be a hot commodity, seems to be making the rounds to all the great podcasts.
@llla_german_ewoklll6413
Жыл бұрын
Joe is perhaps my favorite apologist on youtube (sorry trent (not sorry)).
@jonatasmachado7217
Жыл бұрын
As Augustine would say, Evangelicals, like Donatists, think, indeed, that it matters not in what communion they hold the faith of Christ; but thanks to the Lord, who wants to gather them in from a state of schism, and has taught us that it is fitting that the one God be worshipped in unity.
@concrete3030
Жыл бұрын
It's also funny how many prodestants think their interpretations of the Bible is infallible but then they criticize the Church's infallibility.. it's all so hypocritical and most of all PRIDEFUL
@EmberBright2077
Жыл бұрын
I've never met a Protestant who thinks their interpretation is infallible. Please stop speaking out of ignorance and malice.
@gnomeresearch1666
Жыл бұрын
I love these two guys.
@christopher19894
Жыл бұрын
Its hard to take someone seriously who uses a cheesecake analogy- but its even harder to take someone seriously who doesnt like cheesecake. What a weird way to start a convo 😄 🤣 😂
@LauraMonge1974
Жыл бұрын
This is the best crossover ever
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@TameMercian
Жыл бұрын
It's easy to argue which books belong in the Bible when you're working backwards from an already agreed historical Canon.
@EmberBright2077
Жыл бұрын
Is there any reason why I shouldn't just reject the canon outright then?
@Jwarrior123
Жыл бұрын
Sitting on a branch of a tree and sawing off the branch while facing the trunk. That's the self-authenticating canon!
@bradleytarr2482
Жыл бұрын
Makes me chuckle when people think that St. Jerome was going directly against the authority of the wider Catholic Church. I've seen a Protestant Apologist cherry-pick St. Augustine to try and disprove the veneration/invocation of Saints.
@Justas399
Жыл бұрын
Anyone venerate a saint in the NT?
@Anthony-fk2zu
Жыл бұрын
It is indeed strange when people try to use the Church Fathers, who were unabashedly Catholic, as a proof against Catholicism.
@bradleytarr2482
Жыл бұрын
@@Justas399 They venerated Peter's shadow, and cloths/handkerchiefs that were blessed by Peter, in the Book of Acts. So there you have veneration of a Saint themself, and relics that had been touched to them.
@Justas399
Жыл бұрын
@@bradleytarr2482 they were not venerating Peter. God used physical objects at times to do a miracle.
@Justas399
Жыл бұрын
@@Anthony-fk2zu many of the church fathers did not believe what you believe.
@turkey3gwiddle
Жыл бұрын
This idea of "Bible washes up shore on desert island and you read it" is interesting from the perspective, in my eyes, of having people with no exposure to Christianity read it and then hearing their opinions on things like the Eucharist, salvation, etc. I think it'd actually be a great experiment, because admittedly such a person truly would be unbiased. Protestants adhering to "sola scriptural" could get a feel of the conclusions an unbiased person with no inherited tradition interprets scripture alone, because it may be contrary to other Protestant beliefs.
@littledrummergirl_19
Жыл бұрын
The pastor at my parish makes a really good point similar to this topic - Let’s say we put a newspaper clipping in a time capsule, the headline reads “_____ High School baseball player ____ steals home plate in last week’s game!” Or “woman breaks glass ceiling being voted first class president of _____ High School” People 200 years in the future with no or limited knowledge of our culture would read this and say “woah they stole plates? Weird. Women broke glass ceilings? That’s a good thing? That’s so strange” because they don’t have the cultural knowledge to properly interpret the headlines without context. That context/guidance what the church is for the Bible. I’d argue that’s actually a lot of what Protestantism is, that scenario where you just pick up the Bible and try to take it at face value with no context, and limited consideration of related outside texts/traditions, though of course with some bias introduced from the early reformers. But Catholicism provides the historical context of apostolic succession and tradition so we understand the “stealing home plate” and “breaking the glass ceiling” types of cultural statements in the Bible, with the authority of the church to back up the interpretations. Anyway yeah my point is I think the Bible on the island would turn out similar to Protestantism today, but probably even more drastically so. Would be interesting though!
@robertotapia8086
Жыл бұрын
@TheCounselofTrent @Joe Heschmeyer you guys should tag team more often we learn so much from you guys please 🙏 do more content together. @Joe love your channel praying for others to SUBSCRIBE.
@jonatasmachado7217
Жыл бұрын
How can Protestants defend Sola Scriptura and claim that the Bible is self-authenticating if their own canon only came about in the XVI century?
@henrymalinowski5125
Жыл бұрын
So John Calvin relies on the old “burning in the bosom”? Got it. Edit: Watched more and they pointed it out.
@alpha4IV
Жыл бұрын
Three great videos in a row! Keep it up. May you find time to rest and keep the content fresh and at the level of quality you have been firing on lately.
@YajunYuanSDA
Жыл бұрын
Do you accept Trent Horn's speculation that Mary may have been bodily assumed after *all* of the NT books were written?
@alpha4IV
Жыл бұрын
@@YajunYuanSDA Hey buddy, haven’t heard from you in a while. The traditions of Mary’s assumption or dormition are ancient enough for me to accept as Orthodox Tradition, before we get to both the Eastern & Western Church“ratifying” the particular Tradition. Besides that, accepting the Pope & the Magisterium in my Western leanings & the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Tradition in my Eastern Leanings there are enough threads in both the councils and the church fathers late & desert, that I can string together a probable narrative of how a niche belief became a dominant capital T tradition. For my anti-apologetics stance, which I know you appreciate, that meets the bar for acceptance. I’m sure it does not for you, but for me, Trent’s case or defense of the Tradition has nothing to do with why I accept & submit to it.
@YajunYuanSDA
Жыл бұрын
@@alpha4IV "The traditions of Mary’s assumption or dormition are ancient enough for me to accept as Orthodox Tradition" Out of curiosity, what would be your approximate cut off date for when someone could no longer be plausibly apostolic?
@alpha4IV
Жыл бұрын
@@YajunYuanSDA Well, the wording there gets tricky for me. If we are talking strictly I would say anything developing after 500 without at least a seed or implication arriving before 400 I would be hard press to defend as part of the Early or Ancient Church’s collective understanding. But, and this is a big “BUT.” I don’t believe private revelation is closed, and I hold that the Bishops both Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox do have valid apostolic succession, even if the branches have been severely trimmed; and as you know, as you have watched my channel before, I accept development and refinement of Dogma as holding to Dogma, even if our current understanding doesn’t match what the human recorders/reporters of the dogma would have intended. Kind of a Framers of the constitution perspective thing I got going on when it comes to an analogy between the Bible and the Church with the Magisterium compared with the US constitution and the US with the 3 branches of government. Yet, to be clear, I don’t think private revelation, especially if rejected by the Church body as an improper understanding, can override Doctrine let alone “unchanging” Dogma. Much as how one senator or congressperson submitting a law to change the constitution doesn’t actually change anything if the People through their elected officials vote against the proposed change. I think of how probation was rejected in the US. Or how Arianism infected the Church for so long, eventually the body itself rejected it. The body Catholic (both big C & small c) has not rejected the typology that supports the Marian dogmas. If it ever does, then you might have a stronger case for the belief being an “accretion” as our dear brother Ourtland likes to put things.
@YajunYuanSDA
Жыл бұрын
@@alpha4IV Could you review my definitive video on Epiphanius statements about Mary? He fits at that 400AD mark.
@raiynepaige
Жыл бұрын
I’m sure Trent is always looking for better ways to procure content and I’d like to suggest something that I think I would be very interested in and would pay significant amount of money for due to its worth. I would love for Trent to do almost like a master class on apologetics. (His book is basically that but I mean more like a class like formation) I find that I read and watch content regarding catholic apologetics but have a hard time retaining all the information. I also think that by having something like a very slow and in depth “masterclass” it would provide the opportunity to do things like take notes and really learn all the different nuances of these apologetics. It is difficult to do this from scattered videos across KZitem even in just one KZitem account. I would go even farther to say that I would pay tuition like prices to learn from someone like Trent one on one to answer any questions and teach me directly. Or even for something like a weekly hour long call. I hope Trent sees this and considers some of this because it would be a huge gift for some of us and would serve Gods Church and at the same time it is a financial opportunity for Trent.
@IG88AAA
Жыл бұрын
Catholic answers has a school of apologetics!
@TruthHasSpoken
Жыл бұрын
" a master class on apologetics" Read the bible ... over and over. IMO, pick a Catholic protestant debate and make an outline of all the points. Picking the same subject, watch another debate doing the same. You've now probably covered 99% of protestant apologetic points. Offer now to teach a class at your parish on the topic. As Mitch Pacwa has said, paraphrasing, you learn the most when you teach. I always ask protestants to cite who in history taught their interpretation of scripture on : - Faith alone - Bible alone (and always, where is the table of contents in the bible?; if not in the bible, who first listed the New Testament and what did they say about the Old Testament?) - Eternal Security, Once Saved Always Saved. - Symbolic only Baptism, Eucharist - Baptism delayed to the age of reason - Rejection of intercessory prayer - That Mary gave birth to children other than Jesus and that she sinned The burden is on them to prove that they are right, as they hold beliefs not found in Christianity for 1500+ years.
@whathappening5323
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthHasSpoken You wouldn't know the truth if you heard it from the Lord himself. You start with the preconceived notion you are right. The CC History you don't read shows you something not right about the way it handles those that didn't agree with it Dogma. Now if you want to read some of that History try looking at this ## Project Gutenberg from the first century until 1830## then let us know if you have understood anything about Christianity. Remember this is irrefutable evidence of how the CC Dogma kept the people in the slave camp. Those who had the audacity to say no didn't get the brotherly Love of turning the other cheek.
@daviddabrowski01
Жыл бұрын
What’s the spiritual equivalent of lactose intolerance? 🤣🤣🤣kidding of course. Love this duo. The oneness Pentecostal video had me 😭😭
@travispelletier3352
Жыл бұрын
It would have been really nice if you guys had focused on Kruger's actual model in some detail. You spent a lot of time talking about Calvin, and then dismiss Kruger by saying that it's basically "the Catholic Model", But then you contradict yourselves by arguing that Kruger's model doesn't work. So which is it? Is Kruger's model just the Catholic model? Or is it the John Calvin fuzzy feelings model that doesn't work? Having read Kruger, I know that it's not the latter, and I know that his view contradicts the Catholic model. So neither of your two contradictory summations of him actually fit his perspective. It would have been worthwhile for you both to work through his view in detail before you straw man and dismiss it.
@jhoughjr1
Жыл бұрын
Yeah I’ve been listening to his podcasts lately
@aosidh
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for tackling this! I've always been puzzled how anyone can start with a book. If anything, the bible disavows itself without the help of dogma - the emperor IS naked!
@aosidh
Жыл бұрын
@trollpatrol7215 exactly! You have to decide for yourself, even if you are deciding to trust authority figures. To me, the particular book is sort of irrelevant (but you should still probably find a more accurate translation than KJV!!)
@aosidh
Жыл бұрын
@trollpatrol7215 I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you've thought about this before
@aosidh
Жыл бұрын
@trollpatrol7215 aaaah, the Catholic RE didn't take for me, and god didn't bother to intervene. It's supposed to be a spiritual thing, right? The intellectual side does not work, no matter how many heretics Rome burnt. Listen, I didn't bring up murderers, but let's talk about conscience. The bible depicts the slaughter of children as a moral imperative on many occasions. My conscience tells me that that is wrong. Whoops!! Am I being convicted by a different spirit?
@DanyTV79
Жыл бұрын
Great video!
@richvestal767
Жыл бұрын
The ideological bias that says that the Bible is "self-authenticating" is literally no different than the ideological bias that says that something like the scientific article "Drag Queen Story Time" is "self-authenticating" for Queer Theory. There's literally no means of falsification for this belief either.
@cinnamondan4984
Жыл бұрын
What I find interesting about the LDS Bible is that it designates one of the OT books at not canonical: Song or Solomon.
@hacker4chn841
Жыл бұрын
This issue sounds a lot like how Muslims will argue the Koran is so beautiful, it's a miracle and therefore proves Mohammad was a prophet.
@EmberBright2077
Жыл бұрын
Which is fine by me, since I've never heard a Protestant actually make this argument.
@hacker4chn841
Жыл бұрын
@@EmberBright2077 I've heard very similar arguments. It's generally hard-line calvinists making this type of claim in my experience.
@albertoascari2542
Жыл бұрын
If your in a Church that denies post Appostolic Miracles how would explain the Miracle of God Hearing and Answering Prayers.
@ToddJambon
Жыл бұрын
Joe will be the referee for the Horn/Marshall fight card. One day only at the Catholic University of Steubenville.
@chrishiles8524
Жыл бұрын
I just read "Forty Reasons I am a Catholic" by Peter Kreeft and I like what he says, If I believe the Bible is infallible then the Catholic Church must be infallible. The Bible did not cause itself to come into being, it was brought into being by the Church. The infallible is always greater than the fallible, and no Effect can be greater than its Cause. So either The Church is fallible or infallible. If The Church is fallible then the Bible is fallible. If The Church is infallible then the Bible is infallible. The Church cannot produce something She is not. (I paraphrased a little)
@timrichardson4018
Жыл бұрын
Whether cheescake is a tart or custart, i know not. But it is most certainly disordered to not like cheesecake, and rejection of it a sin. Joe, I say this as a concerned Christian brother. You should take this to confession.
@IG88AAA
Жыл бұрын
This should be grounds for excommunication
@craigsherman4480
Жыл бұрын
18:42 In Kruger’s book “Canon Revisited” Kruger compares the Catholic revelation of Scripture as we are serving the messenger or mailman instead of God. That we believe the gospels came from the Church and not God.
@pete8684
Жыл бұрын
It is only by the account of God using human instruments that His word can be fully understood. Even as Moses is appointed as an authority to teach and govern God’s people, Aaron is placed under Moses. In Ex 4:16 we see the first fruits of hierarchical obedience whereby Aaron will speak on behalf of Moses and he (Moses) will be as if he were a God to him (Aaron). It is clear in OT that a hierarchical authority is gifted to men from God and not to sacred scripture. Sacred scripture is the storage of God’s truth given to us by God’s servants. Moses didn’t pass on his authority of the people of Israel to only obey scripture. The laying of hands was the passing on of authority but also the gift of God to teach. In much the same way, the same concept is evident in the NT when Paul states that Titus received the “Gift of God’ by laying off the hands. Not only that, but Paul also advises him to teach, exhort and reprove with all authority. (2 Tit 1:15). This is also noted in (1 Tim:4:14). Timothy and Titus are neither apostles nor successors of apostles yet are given the gift to teach with authority by laying of the hands. It is evident that in the history of Israel and the Catholic Church, authority was always, without exception, either passed on through the existing hierarchy (the Levitical priesthood in the Old, the succession from the Apostles in the New by laying of the hands). If there was a break outside of the hierarchy, that person always without exception, came bearing “miracles” to verify that their extraordinary ministry was truly from God. Martin Luther broke away from the Church that he was ordained in. Given that he performed no miracles to testify that his new teachings were from God, his teachings can only be considered heretical to the authentic Catholic Church. Even if you are not convinced by the authority of the Catholic Church, you are then by default accepting a doctrine promulgated by fallible men from the 16th century who could not prove that any authority was granted to them by God to teach His Church.
@EmberBright2077
Жыл бұрын
If you can prove the Catholic Church is infallible, you might have a point.
@pete8684
Жыл бұрын
@@EmberBright2077 What if an atheist asks to prove the existence of God and that the bible wasn't just written by men without any inspiration from God? If you’re an atheist, please disregard as we would have to back it up even further. I just proved to you the existence of hierarchical authority as established by God. It is not that men speak infallibly on their own accord but by the gift of God provided it is within the authority of God's people (google the Hebrew word “qahal” or Greek “ekklesia” which now translates to church). On what grounds do you exalt and lean on your own understanding rather than the Church? For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itchy ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2Tim 4:3-4). Sound teaching is not something Scripture leaves to our itching ears to determine. We do not hear our Shepherd if our obedience is rendered finally to own judgment. Rather, it’s the Church who is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1Tim.3:15). To know the truth of Christ, one must know the Church. Faith is trusting the teaching authority that God has given us. Do you think that he is unable to protect this authority even when given to sinners? The amount of times that Christ said, “what little faith you have”. Christ himself gives instructions to obey those sitting in the seat of Moses (Matt 23:2). He nevertheless criticizes the men for their hypocrisy in their acts but he doesn’t rebuke them of their teaching authority. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true, why didn't Christ rebuke them entirely of their authority and refer God's people to live their lives only according to scripture? Consider yourself in the times of Moses… It was on the account of his prophecies coming true and also by the “miracles'' performed by God that he truly was recognised as an agent of God. You would have thought that It would have been difficult for anyone to challenge Moses and prove that he actually wasn’t an Agent of God? Yet, it is revealed that a large part of the Israelites constantly complained and doubted God during each stage of their Exodus and thereafter. If men argued and complained against an agent of God whilst God was actively performing miracles and speaking his word through Moses, then how much more would it be difficult to accept the teachings of God with no divine guidance other than text which can be interpreted into many different ways i.e Sola Scriptura. It is typically considered that Moses is a prefiguration of Christ. We must ask ourselves then, does Christ delegate any authority in a similar way as Moses? It would seem hard to argue that he didn’t dispense with any authority when scripture affirms He gave His apostles power not only to cast out evil spirits and heal people but he also gave them a power, never given to anyone before, to forgive sins. What is even more important is revealed in Matt 16:16-19 where Christ first declares Peter the Rock on which he will build his Church. Some want to argue that based on the Greek translation, the word petra and petros have different meanings (this only differs because of language constructs using masculine-feminine noun classification). This can simply be refuted by Christ calling Peter ‘Kephas’ in Jn 1:42 which is Aramaic for rock. Even Paul calls Peter the rock ‘Kephas’' numerous times. Now Christ goes on to say that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The significance of this is seen in the typology of the OT Davidic empire. The king appointed a prime minister who was second in authority only to the king. He was also given the keys in a similar way to open and shut the doors to the kingdom (Is22:22). Analogous to the OT, Christ is the new and everlasting King whilst Peter is the first of many successive prime ministers. If it were to be argued that Peter’s appointment is not successive, then how are the keys of the kingdom exercised after his earthly tenure? A further subordinate authority is also given to the apostles by Christ but in a collective/joint capacity (the concept of the Magisterium) (Matt:18:15-20). It is evident that Christ not only gives them power to bind and loose but instructs those refusing to listen to them to be taken to the Church? Many protestant denominations describe an invisible church but how can a church discipline if it's invisible and hasn't got any authority? It is commonly said that the biggest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing mankind that he doesn't exist. In my opinion, the next would have to be the illusion that Christ doesn't have a church which requires obedience to His authority given to men on earth. One of the first examples of authority being exercised was when we see the apostles making the first type of extraordinary magisterial judgement regarding circumcision of gentile followers and Peter making the final decision. Does the succession of apostles' authority cease with them only. If it does then why was Judas replaced? Does the same logic not apply to other apostles when each apostle finishes his earthly tenure. Christ tells his apostles to teach mankind to obey everything and that he also will be with “them” until the end of time (Matt 28:18-20). He is addressing the apostles so then how can he be with them until the end of time when their time in the world is short. Also consider that after Christ's resurrection He breathed onto his apostles the power to forgive sins, how does one assert that they can be forgiven of their sins without the apostles being with us? This also begs the question whether repentance inwardly alone is sufficient for sins to be forgiven without the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation (confession). Simply making an assertion that apostolic succession isn’t true seems baseless when there is evidence that strongly weighs more towards it then the non-existent evidence against it. The devil himself used words from scripture to twist and promote false beliefs/teachings with Christ in the desert. Whilst it is easy to take the side of Christ in such instances, the devil is far more intelligent than any man. Without God helping us by his teaching authority, you fall victim to your own prideful nature which is one of many different interpretations of scripture seeking to divide the one truth of Christ. Why do I submit to the belief that the Catholic Church has the authority to teach infallibly rather than believe in Sola Scriptura? (Jonn 17:21) “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one, as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me”. If Christ's will is for those who believe in him to be united, then I trust that he has provided the means to do so. If He hasn’t then what hope do we all have to be united as one in Christ. As Christ said, a kingdom divided against itself will not stand. So what is causing division? God Bless
@IJN-33
Жыл бұрын
I appreciate the book of Mormon being quoted, but i don't think most Latter-day Saints would take that interpretation of Moroni 10:4. I see it as something of a reference to Galatians 5 and the fruit of the spirit. Furthermore, Latter-day Saint Scripture also talks about knowing in your mind and heart (Doctrine and covenants 8:2). The idea of being chosen to receive isn't really a part of it at all. It takes the sysnce that you can ask God if it is true and he will tell you yes or no. I think it's fair enough to be skeptical of trusting the method of knowing, but its a little more fleshed out than just a burning in the bosom.
@galaxyn3214
Жыл бұрын
Sola scriptura = Sola circularis ratio
@lolobabes8653
Жыл бұрын
great work guys
@ultron3693
Жыл бұрын
Hey Trent, can you address the claims and arguments made by a tiktoker/youtuber named "Dan Mcclellan"?
@keksteig387
Жыл бұрын
Yes, please! I even thought he's an atheist, but apparently he's a believing Mormon.
@holyromanemperor420
Жыл бұрын
@@keksteig387 Yeah, I too was shocked to learn that
@memememe843
Жыл бұрын
I like Trent a lot. But there is an important place for those who are both sincerely faithful and earnestly calling out church corruption. They are critical of the human failings in the church, and not the church itself. This is important. Protecting the flock and the church may be second only to embracing the church and seeking a deeper understanding of it, which is Trents much appreciated specialty. Or so it seems to me.
@TheChurchofBreadandCheese
Жыл бұрын
I feel the fact that most scholars including catholic scholars (Fr Brown, Mark s smith etc) believe the gospels were original anonymous is enough to destroy sola scriptura.
@jackdaw6359
Жыл бұрын
But they would be wrong unfortunately. Brant Pitre demolishes this idea. However, the fact that they definitely were not anonymous does not discount Holy tradition
@dylanschweitzer18
Жыл бұрын
Disagree, we can affirm traditional authorship and reject Sola Scriptura
@Forester-
Жыл бұрын
I think Paul's lost letters pretty much cripple the argument about apostolic authorship. Its a pretty big deal if we have two lost books of the New Testament. Not to mention Hebrews.
@TheChurchofBreadandCheese
Жыл бұрын
@@jackdaw6359 interesting I haven't read his scholarly work but his book case for Jesus certainly doesn't do anything to help traditional authorship what other book of his do you recommend?
@jackdaw6359
Жыл бұрын
@@TheChurchofBreadandCheese interesting, what would you say was faulty about his argument that none of the earliest copies were anonymous? Pure argument from silence? Or how about the fact that the names all match always. (No copies worldwide were named differently)
@MW-eg4gu
Жыл бұрын
The other day I thought of something so simple it might be thought a no-brainer, so why bring it up? What I mean is everytime a Protestant (or whatever they call themselves, Restorationist. etc.) says the seemingly innocent, "My Bible tells me ..." or "I read in my Bible that ..." or "When I began to read the Bible I realized I had to leave the Catholic Church ..." or the myraid times Billy Graham said, "The Bible says ..." (that voice of his, I must admit, did sound like the Voice of Authority), everytime, they expose themselves. Because it is always Me, Myself, and I figuring out what the Bible is saying. Their very words tell us Catholics how for 500 years they have replaced individual interpretations - and thus created a myraid of differing denominations - with Catholic Church authority. What should be said, especially if you are Catholic and know what you are doing, is - "The Church tells us this scripture passage means ..." or the even stronger - "Holy Mother Church tells us this means ..." or "the Church Fathers say this is about ..." The moment you express this reminder it is Church authority first a whole lot of Protestants are hit with this "foreign" concept. They are so used to approaching the Bible with individualistic authority they are taken aback. Of course, seconds later get ready for a lecture.
@travispelletier3352
Жыл бұрын
Only five minutes in and, Oof, these misrepresentations are pretty bad. 1) Calvin never called Baruch scripture, nor did he cite it as inspired scripture. He called Baruch a prophet, and of course, held to the canonicity of the book of Jeremiah (which Baruch arguably scribed for Jeremiah). But he never called the book of Baruch scripture. 2) Martin Luther never argued that any of the canonical books be removed from the New Testament. That's a common myth. He argued for a 2-tier system of scripture by which to distinguish books which were more or less valuable in their teachings, and he was critical of James in comparison to the rest, but all of them were included in his German translation of the NT, with the less valuable books placed at the end. I hope that Joe will correct these statements since they're simply historically false. I was a little surprised to hear him repeat these falsehoods.
@fooberdooge3103
Жыл бұрын
Regardless, Luther still wanted to lower the level of those books for the fact they disagreed with his theology. Not sure about Calvin, I’m from a Lutheran background, so I’m more familiar with him.
@travispelletier3352
Жыл бұрын
@@fooberdooge3103 "regardless . . . etc" I mean, Joe's repeated statements are that Luther said we should throw these books out of the canon. That's just false. If he had said, "Luther agreed that these were scripture but didn't hold them in as high esteem as other scriptural books," then I wouldn't have commented because his statement would have been accurate.
@gentlecatholic
Жыл бұрын
Joshua Charles recently published a series of articles on this very topic on Catholic Answers. Im surprised you guys didn't mention him :) "John Calvin, the gnostic Protestant?"
@lufhopespeacefully2037
Жыл бұрын
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,
@KevinDay
Жыл бұрын
This is why I think Anglicans are better at defending the Canon... We are fine admitting the Church testifies to the Canon, we don't think it has to be infallible to do that.
@nathanp.claiborne8276
Жыл бұрын
So Anglicans believe that their church body can infallibly define sacred scriptures without being infallible themselves? Or am I misreading this?
@KevinDay
Жыл бұрын
@@nathanp.claiborne8276 Some Anglo-Catholics might put it that way, but most of the more reformed-leaning Anglicans I've heard would rather say we just don't need the Canon list to be infallible in order for the contents of Scripture to be infallible. We don't need epistemic certainty on exactly which books are Scripture and which are not. We're comfortable having just a reasonably high level of confidence.
@nathanp.claiborne8276
Жыл бұрын
@@KevinDay Doesn't seem a very comfortable position to be in
@KevinDay
Жыл бұрын
@@nathanp.claiborne8276 Do you personally infallibly know that the Roman Magisterium is infallible? If so, wouldn't that make you the magisterium? If not, then you admit you don't have to be infallible to recognize something as infallible.
@MrPeach1
Жыл бұрын
@@KevinDay If the church fallibly testifies the Cannon then I guess you still have an open Cannon. Maybe the book of mormon is still in play for you guys.
@roseg1333
Жыл бұрын
Ooo that event takes place on my 5th wedding anniversary 😃 September 21st
@mj6493
Жыл бұрын
I really hate to be the troll here, but I could hardly watch this video for all the distortion and misinformation of Protestantism. Self-authentication, doesn't mean that we don't need the Church. The Church, including the councils, collectively recognizes the unique character of the scriptures, but it's the Holy Spirit actively working through them that ultimately asserts the scripture's authority. It's the Word of God in action that matters, just like when "God said" at Creation. Calvin wasn't wrong that individuals can also recognize in the scriptures their unique character, but that in no way is an infallible guide to determine the canon. During the Reformation era, opinions varied on the canon, even among notable Catholics. And, sure, Martin Luther felt that parts of the NT didn't proclaim the gospel with the same clarity as, say, Romans or Galatians, but he never removed them. Just look at his German translation. It's all there. From Martin Luther's Small Catechism: The Eighth Commandment You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbor, betray him, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way.
@johnyang1420
Жыл бұрын
Jesus started Catholic church. Join
@AuroraB-74
Жыл бұрын
Loved the Star Wars reference
@anglicanaesthetics
Жыл бұрын
I really think this badly, badly misrepresents Calvin's position and, frankly, just has a number of blatant falsehoods. Response coming soon
@popemon7608
Жыл бұрын
On Cheesecake: Cheesecake is actually a type of custard, as you use cream cheese, sugar, egg, sweetened condensed milk, something acidic, and whatever flavors to make a custard base, and you cook it in a waterbath in a low temperature oven, usually for hours. (This is real Cheesecake btw, not that cheater recipe with the cream cheese and lemon juice 🤮) It's called Cheesecake because it has the texture of cake, specifically a cream cake (most cakes are cream cakes). A cream cake is any cake made using the creaming method, whereby you whip sugar into some solid, high-fat, butter-like substance, whether it's lard, butter, shortening, etc. This is known as creaming (that's why we say you "creamed" him in a fight; it means you hit him over and over again until soft). In the case of Cheesecake, you cream Cream Cheese with sugar, and then proceed to make an otherwise normal custard. Also, while Cheesecake can be a tart, it rarely is one; a tart is any dessert baked in pastry with an uncovered top. But Cheesecakes are usually made with graham cracker crusts, or something like it; I've never even heard of anyone making it in pastry! Technically though, there's nothing stopping you from putting one in a pie crust, but I don't think it would be very good...
@EmberBright2077
Жыл бұрын
Fun fact. Martin Luther didn't want to throw out James for not agreeing with him, that is a misconception. He didn't see it as strong as some of the other works, but never wanted to remove ut, and describes it in very high regard.
@mikelopez8564
Жыл бұрын
He did not remove it and he did, at least on one occasion, acknowledge it as scripture BUT he also attacked it because he thought it did not jive with the gospel and said he’d like to burn it and he would not have it in his Bible. In fact there is also evidence he was going to leave it out but friends told him that would be going too far. He also didn’t like Hebrews and Revelation among others.
@R.C.425
Жыл бұрын
Thank you
@davidgamboa9567
Жыл бұрын
Catholic Seth Rogen. Joe is great!
@josh39684
Жыл бұрын
Haven't officially converted to catholicism yet but will be doing so once I move out of my parents house. Your videos have opened my eyes on catholicism truly is. Which is the church of early Christian and the one Jesus established. The other day I was giving my mom a history of how we got the biblical cannon and how it is different than the Bible she uses (NASB and I have been using the 1611 KJV) after I told her she said "doesn't this devalue the word of God?" Not sure how to respond to that. Also is the 1611 KJV Bible a good translation to use? Thanks
@mikelopez8564
Жыл бұрын
Great questions. God inspired scripture, we all agree. All the Church did was discern what writings were inspired; they made the table of contents. I do not think that in any way diminishes scripture. If mom is consistent then when the British and Foreign Bible Society removed books in the early 1800’s, she would have to think that diminishes scripture as well. But it really doesn’t, as scripture is scripture and it is of God. The RSV Catholic Edition seems to be the fave for Catholic apologists. If you really dig your old time KJV, there is the Douay Rheims Bible. It is a word for word translation. Ignatius Press is where I got mine; love it. The NAB is what they read at mass. Best wishes to you
@spottedstars4521
Жыл бұрын
Sweet episode! 🥧
@studiooriginals
18 күн бұрын
7:00 holy shit ive literally used that analogy as a derogatory description of protestantism, i cant believe anyone would unironically defend that
Пікірлер: 934