Joe's channel is fire!

He is the best! (Catholic answers' apologists are very knowledgeable, humble, charitable, unpretentious, no-nonsense... I have a crush)

I love his books! He knows how to dumb it down for us average readers 😎

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.

🙏100% Do you know how many Protestants have become Christian over the years because of Catholic Answers. It's probably thousands now. 🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

To *catholicism. Protestantism is quality recognized as a form of Christianity.

​@@4jgarnerhe hasn't read Vatican II don't fault him for that 😂😂😂

@@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 😂😂😂

@@4jgarner i am protestant

I was just making a point about VatII

True. I'm even considering converting.

With enemies like these, who needs friends? Cheesecake is gross.

@@JosephHeschmeyer Ugh. Seriously Joe, say 10 Jesus prayers & 10 Hail Marys. I'm worried about you... 😉

How can anyone not love cheesecake? Joe is a great apologist not a great food critique.

He’s just making sure there is more on the planet for you

Why did you decide to worship cannibalism and propitiatory human sacrifice?

@@twitherspoon8954 Huh?

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!

@@twitherspoon8954 Cannibalism? So you admit that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ?

@@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."

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...

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

​@@lufhopespeacefully2037 because the Bible isn't a comprehensive list of all Christian doctrines.

They are credible, not incredible.

The canon did not "change wildly". It took shape somewhat slowly over time, starting with the idea of a canon in the first place.

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."

​@@ancalagonytYep

You can tell many Church fathers were familiar with the repose of Mary and also considered the shepherd Hermes to be scripture

@@matthewoburke7202 Don't also forget to include the Council of Carthage in 397.

Can’t forget about the inevitable 4-hour responses to the response from the Catholic side. -Kyle

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.

The Catholic rebuttals don’t rely upon logical fallacies.

@@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.

how about a bunch of church fathers who affirm the self-authenticating nature of Scripture?

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.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I’ve read Kruger’s books the question of Canon and Canon Revisited. Do you have any other suggestions?

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Tent cites Kruger's book extensively in Case for Catholicism. How exactly is Trent misrepresenting Kruger's position?

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

@@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.

Exactly. I’m now questioning my faith

You refuted a 31 minute video with just 6 simple words Lol jkjk

But we like being barbarians. If not for the German horde, what would have happened to mankind?

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.

Side note, I spent the majority of the video researching this and have no clue what the video is about😂

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.

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

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

Exactly 💯

@@sivad1025 you are amazingly brave and honest!

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

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

@@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?

@@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.

@@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

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.

Popery

@@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

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace peach

@@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,"

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Not all Christian doctrine is in the Bible

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.

_"...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.

@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?

@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."

@@twitherspoon8954 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.

@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

It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince him that he has been fooled.

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

Yup

@@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

@@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.

u too rob,Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

What's tbr?

@@alonsoACR to be read

Agreed!! Conversational episodes are superior in regard to entertainment and comprehension 🙂 .. not to say scripted content doesn’t have its place though.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't just reject the canon outright then?

I've never met a Protestant who thinks their interpretation is infallible. Please stop speaking out of ignorance and malice.

What exactly are you saying?

Not sure why you made this comment, since no one actually believes that.

@@billymays7958 Are you guys Protestants or Christians?

Anyone venerate a saint in the NT?

It is indeed strange when people try to use the Church Fathers, who were unabashedly Catholic, as a proof against Catholicism.

@@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.

@@bradleytarr2482 they were not venerating Peter. God used physical objects at times to do a miracle.

@@Anthony-fk2zu many of the church fathers did not believe what you believe.

Catholic answers has a school of apologetics!

" 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.

@@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.

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

Do you accept Trent Horn's speculation that Mary may have been bodily assumed after *all* of the NT books were written?

@@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.

@@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?

@@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.

@@alpha4IV Could you review my definitive video on Epiphanius statements about Mary? He fits at that 400AD mark.

@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!!)

@trollpatrol7215 I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you've thought about this before

@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?

This should be grounds for excommunication

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!

If you can prove the Catholic Church is infallible, you might have a point.

@@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

@hacker4chn841 - Muslins say that the bible has to be rejected because it contradicts the bible.. What!!! Wait!!! But how can that be since the bible came first. I asked that question to a Muslin once in a forum many years ago and there was silence.

Which is fine by me, since I've never heard a Protestant actually make this argument.

@@EmberBright2077 I've heard very similar arguments. It's generally hard-line calvinists making this type of claim in my experience.

Yes, please! I even thought he's an atheist, but apparently he's a believing Mormon.

@@keksteig387 Yeah, I too was shocked to learn that

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

Disagree, we can affirm traditional authorship and reject Sola Scriptura

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.

@@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?

@@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)

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.

​@@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.

So Anglicans believe that their church body can infallibly define sacred scriptures without being infallible themselves? Or am I misreading this?

@@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.

@@KevinDay Doesn't seem a very comfortable position to be in

@@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.

@@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.

Jesus started Catholic church. Join

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

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