"My Apologies" Claims to Defend Infallible Scripture As Somehow Accessible Without Infallible Church

My Apologies Leaves Out Parts of the Argument He Pretends to Refute · Dialogue under My Apologies' Video : was already 382 infallible? · "My Apologies" Claims to Defend Infallible Scripture As Somehow Accessible Without Infallible Church · No Deception, Your Apologies, Just a Thing You Hadn't Learned to Read : an Implication

"My Apologies" Claims to Defend Infallible Scripture As Somehow Accessible Without Infallible Church · Continuing with Joyce Greer and Ayden Trevaskis

My debate challenge against Robert Barron obviously stands, see this post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html

Again, it is not coming on this blog, it's going by mail, then getting published here:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/

Now, Barron may have prayed I came across a Protestant to refute. This is what this post is about. Here is the video by the Protestant:

The Canon DESTROYS Sola Scriptura!
My Apologies | 10 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gGWduX8rDw

Barron might count on using the talking points about Protestantism as talking points about Pope Michael II. If that is so, I look forward to him trying to explicitate this, and making a fool of himself. As he has a sense of humour I hope he wouldn't mind that part too much.

But meanwhile, here is my refutation of a Protestant, no sweat ...

1:10 I absolutely need to stick around for the bonus.

I was as a child often enough walking the cannon towers of Malmöhus (translates roughly as House of Malmowe, castles of "governors" being typically referred to as NN-hus / house of NN in Swedish). As I later converted, I learned that the castle walls I had so loved were from stones made from Catholic churches that had been destroyed to build it, I think by the Danish king, before Scania was Swedish.

1:57 I think, even before you consider Catholicism, you might consider the Catholic canon.

I once asked whether the Bible ever defines how many books it has.

One argument is that 666 can be picked apart as 600 + 66, meaning Cross of St. Andrew (Scotland, Ulster, Dixie) + 66 book canon.

I have found another one, that singles out the Catholic (not for instance Orthodox or Ethiopian any more than Protestant) canon.

To make the point, I need to quote ...

"Even in recent times the Book “Jeremiah” was understood to include his Lamentations, hence we have the total of 72 books as opposed to 73 books if they are counted separately."
(see the site Defending the Bride)

I think I have seen that refer to Baruch, though, rather than Lamentations.

So, a Catholic canon has 73 books, or 72, depending on how you count. That means a Catholic OT has 46 books, or 45, depending on how you count.

The OT is old like the mile is in many English speaking countries abandoned for the km. The English mile is also de facto older as a measure than the km, which was invented in the Enlightenment period of France, I think under Lewis XVI.

The kilometer is more universal, as the whole Bible is more universal than the only OT.

Now, what two communities were most lauded for their faith and exegesis in the NT? Thessalonica in the epistle and Beroea in Acts.

The distance from Thessalonica to Beroea is:
a) 39 miles / 66 km?
b) 45 miles / 73 km?
Correct answer : b.

3:02 "and other imperial churches"

Copts, Armenians, Assyrians were all outside the Roman Empire or parts where it was seen as legitimate (Egyptians had a certain anti-imperial nationalism). They were in communion with the Church inside it for two to three Ecumenic councils, but depend (historically in a political way) on a certain distance from the Roman Empire or, in the case of Egypt, its centres of power. Once they were separate, of course. Otherwise, they could have been suppressed like Arians and Priscillians were suppressed, as well as Donatists / Circumcellions.

The wording "imperial churches" makes me wonder whether you seriously think non-Protestant Christianity was "founded by Constantine" ... which makes very little sense, since he is not documented as changing the position of bishops within the Church, only as changing the position of bishops within the administration. I e, giving them legal equality with a certain degree of province governors.

3:48 The question is not if Protestants hate Tradition, defined as extra-biblical sources purporting to go back to the Apostles in doctrinal content (which would include the canon).

The question is if Protestants admit that Tradition is or up to a certain point was Theopneust.

If Tradition was Theopneust, we only need to establish that it could not cease to be so. If Tradition was not Theopneust, whence your trust in the NT canon?

Joyce Greer

@joycegreer9391

Tradition is of man. Only scripture is the Word of God. Individuals can definitely receive inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit in what they understand, what they write, how they recognized which books were inspired and which were not.

Obviously those revealed to be inspired Word of God became the canon. I don't see why anyone would call that "tradition". It's from the Holy Spirit, not man.

Extra-biblical sources may or may not be accurate in doctrinal content. All such materials need to be tested against scripture. Never just accepted as authoritative.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joycegreer9391 "Obviously those revealed to be inspired Word of God became the canon."

Revealed TO WHOM?

The revelation accepted as genuine BY WHOM?

"I don't see why anyone would call that "tradition". It's from the Holy Spirit, not man."

I did not receive the 73 book canon and you did not receive the 66 book canon by each of us having or one of us having a revelation given individually to us by the Holy Spirit, we both received our canons as tradition.

The correct tradition is not from man, but still through man, while being from God. That's why we believe tradition can be divine.

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl The early believers of the 1st century.

The Canon was established by confirmation of the Holy Spirit. That happened once. All that comes down through the centuries is copies and translations. I don't see any tradition in that.

I don't trust any man or tradition for the Bible. I trust that God preserves His Word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 "The early believers of the 1st century."

In other words the Church we see in Acts?

"The Canon was established by confirmation of the Holy Spirit."

To the Church, I presume?

And from then preserved by the Church, right?

"That happened once."

I thought it happened for each NT book, but you sound as if it only happened in 382, under Pope Damasus. You are claiming more for the Catholic Church than I do ...

If you mean there was a Damasus moment, assembling all of the OT and NT canons already in the 1st C. that moment seems to have been lost. You cannot claim that moment confirmed a 66 book canon, and I cannot claim in confirmed a 72~73 book canon, because we don't have that decision. The earliest canon for all 27 NT books that we do have is from the Council of Rome under Damasus. It also allows the Old Testament 45 books, presumably all 46, and the non-mention of Baruch is because Baruch counted as part of Jeremias. However, as mentioned, that was the 4th C., not the first.

4:19 Ah, Trinity is inerrant according to Scripture. Fine. Catholics actually agree.

1 John is Scripture according to what Scripture? Or James?

I take non-Pauline epistles as examples, in case you'd point to 2 Peter 3:15 (though it's unclear if this refers to more than Romans, you just might stretch it to all Paulines).

4:34 "on the basis of the Church being able to make up new doctrine"

That is not what Tradition or infallibility of the Church means in Catholic doctrine. You are strawmanning.

Tradition with a capital T is not "everything you heard from a Catechist that's not explicitly in the Bible" but:

• some few points of doctrine or practise not found in the Scriptures
• a huge lot of obligatory exegesis of what is found in the Scriptures.

Note I said "obligatory exegesis" ... since Christ, we are obliged to consider Isaias 7:14 is fulfilled in Our Lord's being named Yah-Shua, since Yah is synonym for El and Shua and Emmanu (saves / among us) are contextual synonyms. God comes among us, not just to have a nice chat over a cup of tea (though He had many such things, apart from an Indian herb, with both family and disciples), but to save. However, the letter of Isaias 7:14 does not specify this. Well, you can of course point to Matthew 1:23.

But there are points where you'd normally admit the NT has an obligatory exegesis, and you are aware that there are sects contesting it, as Watchtower Society did.

What happened at Nicaea I is not, unlike what Charles Taze Russell would have pretended "the Church making up a new doctrine". What happened is, the new raised an old doctrine of Traditional Exegesis to officially recognised as Obligatory Exegesis. That is precisely how we view Tradition and Ecclesial Infallibility in relation to the doctrines you would dispute as well. I e, we view you pretty much as you view Charles Taze Russell. Except we have a consistent view on how to get around the disagreement. Charles Taze Russell was prefuted by the condemnation of Arius.

4:47 "[only] insofar as it doesn't contradict Scripture"

If Tradition can contradict Theopneust Scriptures, it is not Theopneust. If it is not Theopneust, it can not give a binding ruling on the content of Theopneust Scriptures, either about exegesis or about canon.

It's senseless to pretend, "we refer to Tradition about the table of contents of Scripture, because Tradition is Theopneust, and we reject Tradition about the implication of works in salvation, because Ephesians 2:10 is not Theopneust" ... that was a high level of parody of what you state you believe, but I think a very justified one.

To state it in more sober terms, either Tradition is binding or it isn't. If tradition is binding, seven sacraments are binding, need for keeping the commandments (as understood by the Church, for instance Sunday replacing Sabbath) is binding. If tradition isn't binding, your nod to Tradition when it comes to NT canon or Trinity is just an academic nod, like a modern scholar nodding to Homer about Bronze Age armour, without subscribing to Homeric truth. And in that case, I'd love to know where you get a more stringent argument for the 27 books of the NT, like the modern scholar finds boar tusk enforce helmets in archaeology.

The idea "it can be binding if the content is correct" = it is not actually binding, as such. "It's binding when I agree with it" ... you treat Tradition as some Orthodox treat Roman Catholic baptisms "they are valid when we decide they are valid, they are invalid when we decide they are invalid" ... and the problem is, unlike you, they believe in Ecclesial infallibility, unlike them, or rather like them, you don't believe in the infallibility of either yourself or your parish (and you are very right not to, in fact).

4:55 "when you come across a tradition that contradicts Scripture"

a) Doesn't happen
b) If it seems to happen, I seek a Tradition based exegesis about the Scriptures.

"you side with Scripture"
= Tradition can be sidestepped at your discretion = Tradition is not binding = you are not pointing to Tradition for a binding ruling on the canon.

Richard Johnson

@richardjohnson6140

The tradition of " tradition being equal to scripture in authority" doesn't make your list? Conveniently declared shorty after the reformation kicked off.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@richardjohnson6140 Formalised as dogma shortly after, like the Trinity was shortly after Arius and Macedonius.

Or the unity of person in Jesus shortly after Nestorius. Or the remaining distinction of natures shortly after Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria.

In the time of William of Occam, the position "sola scriptura" existed, not in opposition to the magisterium, not in opposition to tradition, but it existed. However, equally not in opposition to the magisterium, the "five kinds of truths" school existed, and that was William's position. It's kind of a fuller version of "Bible and Tradition" as per Trent.

What to you say about the proof texts that tradition is equal to Scripture ?

1) The one which you pretend as proof of "Bible sufficiency" involves an actual reference to OT, which only by faith in Jesus can save and perfect. That faith in Jesus however came to St. Timothy as oral tradition from St. Paul.
2) The reference to standing fast in all traditions, also to Timothy or to Thessalonicians, forget which, whether given orally or by epistle (only the latter being Scripture).
3) Jesus said that He would send His apostles the Holy Ghost and He ordered them to keep EVERYTHING He had commanded, and promised His own (and the Holy Ghost's) assistance for it. B U T that "everything" clearly involves pieces of text not found in Scripture, like the OT exegesis He gave the disciples to Emmaus.

Well, duh ...

My own response to Richard Johnson was deleted, or made invisible, and his original response was remade:

Richard Johnson

good times

Well, duh ...

another debate ensued, where I had to state the things again:

Joyce Greer

Scripture of course. Only scripture is from God. Tradition is nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 Saying "tradition is nothing" is against Scripture.

Saying "only Scripture is from God" is against Scripture.

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl You are wrong. Only scripture is the Word of God. Traditions come from men. There is no authority in traditions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 You are contradicting what St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians and on other occasions.

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl No, I am not. You are contradicting scripture and what Jesus said.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 Here is St. Paul:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

By "Jesus said" I suppose you mean the passage with "traditions of men" but He did not say all tradition, or all tradition then accepted as such within Second Temple Judaism was "traditions of men" He said THOSE particular items were.

As I am not sure that the things He directly objected to are accepted in the Oral Law of Judaism today, I cannot say they were even accepted as traditions from Moses back then. More likely "rabbi so and so said you can do that and that" much like some Old Earth believing Catholics today will say "Father Fulcran Vigouroux said Day Age theory is correct" ... that's not what we call Apostolic Tradition, that's not what we call Ecclesial Tradition, and arguably those things were not what Caiaphas or Gamaliel in a sober and official moment would venture to declare traditions from Moses either.

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl Yes, have learned, were taught, and from whom? Paul, the Apostles. The only way WE can know what those traditions were is by their subsequent writings. WE cannot hear Paul and the Apostles in person. Matthew 15:6-9 where Jesus condemns the traditions of the Pharisees negating the Word of God, and teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Judaism is a religion of the rabbis and the Talmud. It's not the same as the Hebrews of the OT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 "WE cannot hear Paul and the Apostles in person."

No, but we can, and do, hear people who were taught by people who were taught by people who were taught and so on, for 2000 years by St. Paul in person.

"The only way WE can know what those traditions were is by their subsequent writings."

That's not what their subsequently preserved writings are saying.

"Judaism is a religion of the rabbis and the Talmud."

Nevertheless it preserves partly the state of the OT prior to the rejection of Jesus and the Destruction of the Temple.

I was referring precisely to that passage : the kind of things He condemned in context were probably not presented as "oral law" but as "rabbi so and so has said" ... (probably often enough the interpretation of Hillel).

Precisely like you rely on a "pastor so and so has said" without even bothering to state why or who said that the only thing left us is the NT written canon.

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl Absolutely not! Oral transmission is incredibly notorious. It's not even accurate for only a couple transmissions. After several transmissions it's totally distorted.

Whatever they taught orally would have subsequently been written. That is the ONLY way we could know. You expected some writing to say, "These are the traditions we told you to remember"?

The traditions Jesus condemned were nullifying OT commandments.

No, I don't rely on what any pastor has said about the NT canon, what was left us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 "It's not even accurate for only a couple transmissions."

Do you conclude this from the telephone game?

The conditions of transmission are so opposed, not just different but opposed, that this is a useless model for how tradition works.

It's more useful about housewives phoning each other over a concern in the neighbourhood, though.

"The traditions Jesus condemned were nullifying OT commandments."

And our traditions counted as Ecclesiastic tradition or Apostolic tradition, are NOT nullifying NT commandments.

"I don't rely on what any pastor has said about the NT canon, what was left us."

So, you concluded it yourself after playing the telephone game? Who taught you to play that game?

@joycegreer9391 "You expected some writing to say, "These are the traditions we told you to remember"?"

We do have that. It's called Apostolic Fathers.

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl No, from the fact that oral transmission is extremely unreliable. If it's not in writing, it is sure not going to stay accurate.

That should just be common sense. No one needs to tell us that.

The ONLY way we know anything that was taught orally is if it was then also in writing. Otherwise, oral is lost to history.

@hglundahl No, you don't. Apostolic fathers are not Paul or the Apostles. These men reflect their own understanding and beliefs. It's not like they are writing what is being dictated to them.

Ayden Trevaskis

@aydentrevaskis8390

@joycegreer9391 Is the oral tradition passing on the canon unreliable? If so, I guess we can't trust the canon from which we have only arrived at by taking the aggregate writings of the church fathers and comparing them. If it's not, then why are you holding differing standards for tradition. Also, name a single catholic teaching that contradicts scripture

Joyce Greer

@aydentrevaskis8390 What oral tradition? The canon was not arrived at by taking aggregate writings of the church fathers and comparing them...lol. The canon does not come from men or a church.

Do you not believe that scripture is from God, God-breathed? You don't believe that it is identified by God, the Holy Spirit?

A single RCC teaching that contradicts scripture?? Try a single teaching that doesn't!! Catholicism has a different Jesus, a different gospel, a different plan of salvation, a different definition of baptism and eucharist. Then there are the unbiblical Marian dogmas, saints, pope, priest and penance, venial and mortal sins, merits, purgatory, prayers to deceased, relics, etc etc.

Ayden Trevaskis

@joycegreer9391 Thank you for proving my point, you have no basis for your canon. However, we as Catholics do, simply look at the Synod of Hippo, the First and second councils of Carthage, the Council of Florence, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint. And if you don't hold those as authoritative, you must show ups where I n the Bible the canon is written. How was the canon arrived at then, because the Bible never tells us. I have an entire article revolving around that point

And your comment about the scripture being God breathed has no relevance, as I can answer yes, and affirm Catholic doctrine, or I can answer no and then provide you a book that deals with all of the uses of the word theopneustos to show it more accurately means life giving. Also, it's a hapax legomenon, meaning it only appears once in its context, so you can't really do much with that anyway. And I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops at the councils that affirmed the canon. You don't have that luxury however, or else you'd have to 1) hold different standards and only accept what you like from any given council or 2) hold the same standards and accept catholic teaching. Its a lose lose for you lol

Also, I have defenses of all of those things you brought up in an article thats over 50 pages long, as well as 9 page defenses of a few of those too. Would you like them? If so, I can't send links here, so I'll need something else to send it. I personally like discord. Now, again, since you didnt answer me, name one catholic doctrine that contradicts scripture, and we can focus on that one.

Joyce Greer

@aydentrevaskis8390 Of course we have a basis for our canon. I don't know why you think it has to be "tradition". The Dead Sea scrolls do not come from Catholicism...lol. The Septuagint is just a Greek translation of the OT for the Hellenistic Jews. Anyway, that has to do with the OT canon, which is of Israel, and not the NT.

Of course scripture being God-breathed is relevant. Only appearing once has no relevance. God is the author, so God knows which books are His. If you want to believe that it is man who decides everything and not God, that is your problem. Of course God is the life-giver.

No, you are presenting a false dilemma fallacy. We believe God; we believe His Word and His preservation of His Word. We believe He reveals His Word to those who are His. We don't need any council or false church for that. Your "church" loses in every way.

I absolutely answered you about the manmade doctrines of Catholicism that are unbiblical and contradict scripture. I gave you as many as I could think of at the time.

You like discord? That is not a Christian virtue. Go discuss with Gavin Ortlund.

Ayden Trevaskis

@joycegreer9391 The Dead Sea scrolls include Catholic books, which was to emphasize that the Protestant canon is fallacious. The septuagint is the Bible translation that the Apostles used and quoted from, and it also includes the deuterocanon, thereby proving my point even more, which you failed to recognize. And it is relevant to the NT, because as Paul notes in Romans, God gave the authority to the Jews to keep the canon, so it is extremely relevant. Also, how is the Scriptures being God breathed relevant? It doesn't say anything about which books are canon, nor does it give any criteria.

You claim I presented a false dilemma, if so, give me another option, give me another way you have of validating your canon. If you cannot, it is not a false dichotomy. Ok, you agree God preserves his word? I'd like you to look at every time the phrase God's word is used in the Bible. It is very rarely in direct reference to scripture, and is lacking in context most times, as Trent Horn pointed out in his debate with Gavin Ortlund on sola scripture. Also, if you believe God reveals his word to those who are his, you must maintain that Catholics are not saved, which is something I'm sure you probably don't want to do, as then you're adding something to the gospel(which also isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, aside from believing in Christs death and resurrection, also found in the same debate). And even if you are to maintain that position, that is the same exact things that mormons say, and since you have no historical basis for the canon, you must say that God reveals his word to those who trust in him, which Mormons and JW's do as well, and so you are just as heretical as them if thats all you have. Then, even on top of that, we have the problem of who has the Holy Spirit revealed the actual canon too, cause Calvin had the Protestant OT and Baruch, Luther had the protestant OT and NT, but missing 4 books, Augustine had the Catholic Canon, as did the Apostles, and many other examples of conflicts between Christians. Therefore, to maintain your position, you have to claim that at least one of them wasn't saved, as the Holy Spirit wasn't within them and didnt reveal the correct canon. Unless of course you want to backtrack on what you previously said. So, once again, you have your dilemma to answer.

Ok, since you won't point out a specific doctrine, I'll pick one out for you, and give you a case for it. I pick the deuterocanon, as if that is proved, it also would make purgatory and praying to the saints much easier to prove. In my next comment, I'll lay out a case for the deuterocanonical books.

And the last part of your response is just a misunderstanding. Discord is a social communication app, and it has nothing to do with causing strife. Im a teenager, I already do enough of that lol. And FYI, I do watch Gavin Ortlund, as if Im going to hold a position, I need to know the arguments from both sides, so I watch his videos and mentally come up with responses.

Joyce Greer

@aydentrevaskis8390 There were no NT books among the Dead Sea scrolls, so that is irrelevant. Obviously, there were no "Catholic" books among the Dead Sea scrolls. The scrolls were only Jewish. The Septuagint we know is from after Jesus and the apostles. It is the Septuagint that quotes from them. Jesus read and preached from the scrolls in the Temple.

Yes, God's entrusted His Word with His people Israel; and they have preserved His Word. Do you think they needed some council, some tradition to know what books were His Word? You realize they knew the deuterocanon was NOT God's Word?

The Scriptures being God-breathed means only God infallibly knows the books of His Word. Only God can infallibly reveal canon to His people. Men do not choose so men do not need criteria. The only valid canon is what God reveals, which is what Protestants have. FYI--The inclusion of the deuterocanon was disputed all through the centuries. The ONLY people who have authority over the OT canon is Israel/Hebrews/Jews.

If you don't believe scripture is the Word of God, that is your problem. Then you don't have any basis for your beliefs. You're just believing in a religion created by men.

The word catholic means universal. It's an adjective not a name. Who is saved or not is up to God. The word "gospel" is used many times in scripture.

Of course we have historical basis for canon. God didn't just reveal it in the 16th century...lol. I did not say God reveals His Word to those who trust in Him. I said He reveals His Word to those who are His. The rest of what you said is just men disputes and errors. That is why it is only God who is infallible. Men make mistakes, saved or not. It takes time. It doesn't just happen overnight.

The Apostles did not have a canon. They were the ones who largely wrote the books of the canon. There were the scrolls in the Temple, but not technically a canon of the OT.

The deuterocanon was disproved a long time ago. It never was accepted by Israel as scripture. It wasn't among the scrolls in the Temple. It was historical value only.

Okay about Discord...lol.

@aydentrevaskis8390 You keep going on and on about the OT. The NT has been agreed upon since the early centuries of Christianity. If Catholicism and Orthodoxy want to reject the Jews and their authority over the OT scriptures, that is their problem.

The early centuries were only catholic in the true sense of the word=universal. Catholicism didn't exist until centuries later as it slowly developed. Clement, for instance, had perfect "Protestant" theology. There were always groups/churches separate from either Catholic or Orthodox. These groups survived as a faithful remnant through the centuries of RCC persecution until the Reformation.

As I noted, there were controversies throughout the centuries over the deuterocanon starting with Jerome. It was not unanimously affirmed in unity from 400+AD to the Reformation.

"3 biggest non-heretical groups in Christendom at the time"---Biggest, but non-heretical?...lol.

No, the Reformation was to reform, not redefine and substantiate their own doctrines...lol. That was the problem with Catholicism, trying to substantiate their own manmade doctrines.

The Dead Sea scrolls were not the OT canon. They were the oldest surviving manuscripts of some books, but also extra-biblical manuscripts.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 "from the fact that oral transmission is extremely unreliable."

But you get that "fact" from your experience of the telephone game, right? You do NOT get it from the Bible, that's for sure.

"If it's not in writing, it is sure not going to stay accurate."

Depends on the number of intermediates that don't meet each other before it's in writing and also on the support it has in things already written down, in Bible, in Apostolic Fathers, in later pre-Nicene Fathers, in the fathers around Nicaea, like St. Athanasius, in post-Nicene fathers.

"That should just be common sense."

It's not universally accepted as that, perhaps that's Protestant "common sense"?

"The ONLY way we know anything that was taught orally is if it was then also in writing. Otherwise, oral is lost to history."

Father George Leo Haydock doesn't the least agree about that for transmitting Genesis 3 from Adam to Moses.

St. Paul doesn't agree, since he uses Jewish oral law at least twice: Jannes and Mambres, and the duty of women to cover their hair in Church, or perhaps generally in public.

"Apostolic fathers are not Paul or the Apostles."

OK, somehow Sts Papias and Polycarp got St. John the Beloved wrong, even if they talked to him for years or for St. Papias heard him in childhood or youth, for years, but you become infallible in interpreting much less text than they got, just because the text is inspired and in writing?

Doesn't make sense for five cents!

"These men reflect their own understanding and beliefs."

So do you!

@joycegreer9391 "If Catholicism and Orthodoxy want to reject the Jews and their authority over the OT scriptures, that is their problem."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Jews who have already rejected Christ continue to have authority over the OT Scriptures up to providing the Masoretic 1000 years later.

"Catholicism didn't exist until centuries later as it slowly developed."

So, you pretend a creeping apostasy was so slow that no one noticed it until when the Reformers compared the theology they had been handed with [their understanding of] the Bible and then were alarmed that there hadn't been correct theology for centuries?

"The Dead Sea scrolls were not the OT canon."
"we have a basis for our canon. I don't know why you think it has to be "tradition". The Dead Sea scrolls do not come from Catholicism...lol."

So, if the Dead Sea scrolls were not the OT canon, how are they basis for your canon?

Continued on:

Continuing with Joyce Greer and Ayden Trevaskis
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/03/continuing-with-joyce-greer-and-ayden.html

5:46 The last book of the Old Testament was arguably Second Maccabees.

If Pharisees inherited a canon from Ezra (who lived before First and Second Maccabees were written, and before Jewish priests had recovered Tobit and Judith from Samaritans, and infallibly declared them actual Scripture, even if they originated in a non-infallible community), the sacerdotal canon Ezra had could be expanded up to AD 70 in principle, as long as a Cohen Gadol could place another scroll in the basket of scrolls that contained the canon.

If Jean Colson was correct in assuming that John the Beloved, John the Gospeller, was a Cohen, that would explain how he had access to a fuller OT canon than that which the Pharisees were pushing through, either at Jamnia or even before that, in polemics against Christianity.

Here is the case for them polemising against Christianity, Baruch 3:
36 This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. 37 He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. 38 Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

Sounds a lot like John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

5:52 "it was not the Christian Church, but the Jewish people"
1) The Jewish Church was validly the Church of God up to the treason by Caiaphas in Crucifying God
2) It was not a democratic, but a hieratic process. The democratic part, Pharisees, only came in as a delegation from Ezra (similarily, lay apologists can be seen as having a delegation from Pope Pius XI confirmed if I recall it rightly by Pius XII).

5:59 Yes, the Jewish Church very definitely was the infallible Church of God up to when the Temple Veil was rent asunder.

And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. As we find in John 11:51.

So, what was your argument against the Jewish Church having been up to Deicide infallible, again?

6:05 You are claiming Matheson as not infallible, but on this point inerrant?

"Her repeated idolatry, apostasy, exile, and ultimate rejection of Christ all point to the obvious fact of her fallibility"

Matheson is here conflating "fallibility" with "peccability" ...

Before you make this kind of comparison, it may be interesting to compare Deuteronomy 28 with Matthew 28. The Jewish Church was a Church that could fail and end up being cursed, a Church from which God could get a divorce.

The Christian Church, according to the promise of Christ, is one which He will never divorce.

So, the "ultimate rejection of Christ" as Matheson puts it was when God cast off the Jewish Church, as she cast off her God. That's why He promptly replaced it with a Christian Church.

More, to my first point, there is no shadow on a Cohen Gadol's infallibility while serving as Cohen Gadol, back then, from the fact that even himself he would apostatise to idolatry, if such a thing happened (perhaps I should look up Maccabees, the time before Judas).

An act of idolatry, per definition, was not an act of the Cohen Gadol as Cohen Gadol. Hence, it throws no shadow on the infallibility in for instance assembling "the book of Samuel" (I and II Kings) or "the book of Kings" (III and IV Kings) to the already infallible canon of the Torah.

6:13 John 11:51 actually made a claim of infallibility for the Cohen Gadol.

But perhaps you count Gospel of Christ according to John as myth rather than history?

6:19 "by Jews"

Did you get a time machine to consult with Judas Maccabaeus?

Or did you consult with "Jews" a k a the Synagogue, which after Deicide is no longer the Jewish Church?

You have no more right to project the opinion of Christ rejecting Jews onto the Old Testament, than to pretend Isaias 11 disproves Jesus was the and remains the promised Messiah.

Btw, the political / ethnic entity of Ephraim reunited to Judah actually came to be after Christ's Sepulchre was Glorious (or His abode, whether Heaven or the Eucharistic Tabernacle). The first Christian Church was in Jerusalem. The second and third were in Samaria and Aksum, as you can read from early chapters of Acts. This Church of the region, described by Isaias, is still around. The modern term for its ethnicity is Palestinians. I'd like to be precise, Christian Palestinians. But even Muslim Palestinians are heirs of the "bigger Israel" of the 1st C ADn which Christ founded, so fulfilling Isaias 11.

6:30 The only thing you can prove from Romans 3:2 is that they were (prior to the Deicide, St. Paul uses past tense, sth which already happened when he spoke) entrusted to the "Jews" in some sense of the word.

I'd recommend anyone willing to listen to not conflate the OT Jews, the Jewish Church, with what Jews became since then. The real heirs of Circumcision in Romans 3 are not Judaism, but Christianity, Catholic Christianity.

You cannot prove the "despite not being infallible" from this.

Obviously, Protestants do, for two reasons:
a) they have a preference for today's Jewish canon because of II Maccabees 12 directly contradicting Luther and Calvin about prayers for the dead and what they can accomplish
b) this preference can only be satisfied by going to post-Christian, apostatic Jews, for which there can obviously not be any infallibility.

But when you go beyond the non-extantness of Jewish infallibility in objective fact, you pretend they do not even claim Jewish infallibility, I think Tovia Singer would disagree about what Judaism traditionally says. I think he would say (erroneously) that the Talmud, not just parts of it prior to Christ, and pointing to Christ, but the whole, is infallible.

6:42 Timothy Lim may be correct that St. Paul was using OT in a way consistent with the Pharisaic canon, but this is far from proving he limited the canon to what the Pharisees saw as such.

In Timothy, given that St. Timothy was a Hellenistic Jew, we find evidence for St. Paul believing the fuller OT canon. II Tim 3:
15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

a) he adds "by the faith" as an obligatory exegesis of the OT canon
b) he adresses this to a Hellenistic Jew.

6:51 The most compromising part (for my position) in the two quotes is when Jesus asks Pharisees about "your law" ...

But again, in John 10, the Old Testament was still valid, the Pharisees still participated in and the priests still had the infallibility of the Jewish Church.

So, the only thing I disagree on for the OT here is the one thing you are not proving at all, namely the Jewish Church back in the OT having been fallible.

7:07 Matheson:

"The Jews lived for fifteen hundred years without an infallible or inspired 'Church' declaration concerning the parameters of the Old Testament canon."

How does Matheson propose to prove without an infallible or inspired Church declaration?

Joyce Greer

Are you kidding? God chose Israel to be His people. God revealed Himself to those people. God entrusted those people to preserve His Word that He gave to them (which they have done). There is no "church" involved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 The Jewish people WERE a Church, and the Catholic Church is the new Israel.

A people entrusted with God's word = an infallible Church.

Before Jesus died, the Church was represented by Caiaphas in the Temple.

After Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Church was represented by Cephas, a k a Peter.

BOTH of these represented a "people of God" which was "entrusted with the word of God" ...

7:25 Yes, I, and Patrick Madrid no doubt too, say that a Jew in 100 BC had Scripture. We also say, he had it because of the then still extant authority, infallible authority, of the Cohen Gadol.

The last priest who had it in the OT was named Kaiaphas in (Grecicised) Hebrew. The first priest who had it in the NT was named Kephas in (Grecicised) Aramaic.

7:48 By the third century AD, and even more since 313, so many Jews had been converted, who had previously been rejecting Christ and holding to the Pharisaic only canon (not updated since Ezra), that the security of Christians about what was the OT was temporarily fudged in the edges up to the fourth C. declarations by Pope St. Damasus and by the subsequent synod in Carthage following it.

By the first C. BC, a Pharisee would not have been formally denying the canonicity of Judith, but he would not have been using it, since Ezra had not confided it to them. In Alexandria, however, he would have been using it, in giving the Ethnics interested in becoming proselytes a complete canon.

The 100 AD denials by Pharisees no longer inside an infallible Jewish Church would be irrelevant for either (except for indirectly introducing the third century or early fourth century confusion, as I hypothesise).

7:52 "because there was no infallible authority claiming"

Nearly 8 minutes in, nearly 61 % of the video, you have time after time taken this for granted, and you have still not proven it. Do you intend to do so in the last few minutes?

8:11 "by the providential guidance of God"

The OT Jews, via the Cohen Gadol, knew Scripture by the providential guidance of God.

Do you know what Catholics (and presumably Orthodox) consider as the "mechanics" for Ecclesial Infallibility?

The. Providential. Guidance. Of God.

9:03 Both identification of a source as primary and authentification of the purported primary source as genuine would depend on tradition, facts known from subsequent decades to centuries.

This letter is by Sherman or Grant, it was written when he did this or that campaign, I forget which of them it was for the letter that did famously not mention slavery, and it's therefore a primary source.

How do we know it's a primary source?

Well, it's by the Northron General. It's from the time of when he was campaigning.

But how do we know that?

a) some scholar found it in his house (or the house of its known recipient)
b) that house was identified as belonging to the owner because tradition subsequent to the Civil War pointed to it as such.

9:18 "it would have been as easy to walk to the next door neighbour and talk to some who had experienced the War first hand"

The exact definition of "tradition" as it applies to history.

The talk, unlike the written document, does not in the Weibullian sense qualify as a primary written source:
a) because it is oral, not written
b) because it's 20 years after the war.

So, no, you do not get around tradition in the wider sense, even in merely natural parallels.

9:33 You say "the Church had to determine" (Apostolic origin, authenticity of it), but you are forgetting part of the parallel.

In the Civil War case, you have a historian who 20 years after the war goes to a next door neighbour (The Tales of Ensign Stål are from 1848 to 1860, 39 to 51 years after the end of the Finnish War, but John Lewis* Runeberg claims to have heard the tales he versified back when he was young, like he was 20 in 1824, 15 years after the war, but he was only 5 when it ended).

But in this case you have, somehow impersonally "the Church" ... who was the "historian" of a Church, crediting Apocalypse to a letter to herself (like Ephesus) written on Patmos?

(As I mentioned the thesis of Jean Colson, that John the Beloved was not a son of Zebedee or one of the twelve, it's still apostolic if he was some other disciple of Jesus who witnessed the Resurrection, I believe he was one of the 72).

Well, the historian in Ephesus would be its first bishop, St. Timothy. Or any successor of him, but already the first if it was written in AD 90. The successors would be:

• Onesimus (yes, that Onesimus)
• seven of his relatives (the last of which would be ninth bishop, unless I misunderstood it and they were exercising a kind of collective episcopate)
• Gaius, one of the seventy** (who, if I am correct, and if that is correct, would have known St. John since before AD 33)

Or, directly from St. Timothy to St. Gaius.

Tradition would be differently reliable depending on how much importance was attributed to the content, how much care was offered to its exact preservation. That's why a quibble on whether Gaius was second or tenth bishop of Ephesus doesn't bother me all that much.

(Possible cause for concern: Orthodox wiki credits Onesimus with having been one of the seventy, bishop of Byzantium and the Onesimus mentioned in Philemon, I don't think this is true ... however, Philemon and Onesimus could have been both bishops, but Onesimus would not have been a co-disciple of Philemon among the seventy prior to being the runaway slave converted by St. Paul).

10:35 The problem for your point is that Church historian Eusebius is as such not Theopneust. Or at least not admitted by you to be so.

There is a further point, some few writings were disputed, unlike the Gospels, for instance Apocalypse or Hebrews.

But what kills your point totally is, Eusebius relied on Church Tradition.

Now, that's not a proof against it. But you seem to want to sell your butter and keep it. You accept Church Tradition for Matthew being genuine. You do not accept Church Tradition for Maccabees being genuine.

You accept Church Tradition for Trinity, but not for Seven Sacraments or Good Works, or, even more importantly, identity of the works that, are Good.

10:54 You do need an infallible authority in a case of dispute.

Unlike what Zeitgeist the Movie states, the Four Gospels were not in dispute at the Council of Nicaea, the groups that contested them or gave other gospels being usually radically different religions, like Gnostics, known from start to be different, and by Tradition credited to Simon Magus.

However, there has been dispute over the Apocalypse. The Council of Laodicaea did not enumerate the Apocalypse among books to read from.

There has been for 500 years, a dispute over II Maccabees.

12:46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Luther disagreed. He also, tactically, removed II Maccabees from the canon.

Now, you have given the reasons that the infallible authority of Synod of Rome 382 AD no doubt had to include the Four Gospels.

But there can be ever so good reasons to include II Maccabees, and you still refuse them.

Basically, without saying it out loud, you are treating yourself as providentially born in a Church that providentially was guided to accept the correct canon and the correct exegesis. That is, you treat yourself as born in a Church that essentially enjoys infallibility, since that is what ecclesial infallibility means. In and of itself, it's not an unreasonable hope. But, it's unreasonable to believe it applies equally to Catholics, Jews, Protestants. The reason I disagree about you is the Reformation, a break in tradition. just as the reason I disagree about Tovia Singer is Deicide followed by Destruction of the Temple.

And as the good reasons you give do rely on ecclesial tradition between 1st C. and Eusebius, I think it more reasonable that the correct ecclesial tradition is accessed by Catholics, without a 16th C. Break, over Protestants, with such a 16th C. Breaking off.

11:23 "They know who was writing them and how novel and recent they were writing them"

Like the Pope Leo X knew about the 95 Theses?

By the time of Pope St. Damasus in 382, Hermas' Shepherd or a writing by Marcion would have made it into canon, if there had been no agreed on infallible authority to reject these, either as to content or at least as to canonicity.

The exact same infallible authority also condemned the Reformers.

Now, if you wish, the ones rejecting these writings could on your view have been "not infallible" and still right, but if "not infallible" -- what if they were wrong? By definition, if you are "not infallible" it means you "can be wrong"

Again "not infallible, but providentially right" means nothing. Infallible means "systematically right bc of God's providence" ... and the opposite of "systematically" is "erratically" ...

Even more. The verdicts of rejection were certainly accepted by the Church simply because the authority rejecting them was considered as infallible. If you are right that they weren't, God's providence used an error about authority to preserve a truth about the canon.

11:23 -- 11:27

"the same way the church identified and rejected heresy itself they identified and rejected heretical texts"

Nice ... you accept the Church of the year 170 or perhaps even 300 (dates proposed for Muratorian canon, the text we have is a fragment from the 8th C.) had the right to identify and reject heresy, roughly speaking comparable to their right to guard the canon.

When did the Church lose that right? If it didn't, where is the one that still has it?

11:47 No. Church infallibility has never been about deciding infallibly in a lack of evidence.

Church infallibility has been used by good evidence through good popes. And even through bad popes.

There is good scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception, and it has held its ground in the Catholic thanks to Popes Alexander VI (a notoriously bad Pope, or if you prefer, bad liv-er but good Pope), and Pius IX (good Pope, both as a liv-er and as pastor).

Again, you are not refuting Catholic views of ecclesial infallibility, you are failing to adress them, you are strawmanning them.

12:09 "the witness of the Holy Spirit given corporately to God's people"

I agree, as a Roman Catholic, with Dr. Roger Nicole here. I can also point to God's people: it's the Catholic Church.

The Pope is seated in the Philippines, even if some Catholic souls are certainly left among those accepting a false "Pope" in Rome, someone who is not a Creationist and makes a point of it, unlike Pius XII, who was ambiguous.

"and made manifest by"

Yes please, I agree with Nicole the witness has to be made manifest by something ... what about the providential guidance of a Church rejecting heresy, with a visible show of authority residing in certain chief pastors, also known as ecclesial infallibility?

"by a nearly unanimous acceptance of the NT canon in Christian Churches."

Er, no. Before you can use that, you need to show Christianity is true. Before you've shown Christianity true on historic grounds, you have established the reliability of Apostolic tradition. Once you've done that, you can no longer accept a Protestant plurality of "Churches" ... Apostolic tradition does not show us "Churches" like Lutheran, Calvinist, Mennonite and so on.

*Johan Ludvig in the original Swedish. I think the prologue states he was "hardly even twenty" ...
** The wiki sources this to Orthodox Church in America, which may at times be suspected of inflation in identifying so and so as one of the seventy, like it considers both Luke and Zebedee as such and Zebedee as an alias for ... what was the name of that ... yes, Father Aristobule sth considered St. Aristobulos, one of the Seventy, as Zebedee.

This System Will REVOLUTIONIZE How You Understand Tradition and Scripture
My Apologies | 27 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTuXsFc7x0

6:03 Justin Taylor, apart from terminology, comes very close to the view of Trent.

According to Trent, yes, there are a few things we would not know from Scripture, like the Sign of the Cross or worship on Sundays or canon of the Scripture. We know them from Apostolic Tradition.

What Tradition however mainly gives us is an obligatory exegesis of the Scriptures. For instance, that you can plug NT concepts into OT passages and get a result ... or on a more radical view, even what exact result we get that way. By the way, this is cautioned by John 5:45 Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.

46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

Note, John took this very radically. John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him.

Of whom? Of the Paschal Lamb! St. John is referring to the lamb that the Israelites were supposed to slaughter and eat on Passover.

9:07 It seems to me that those "own authority" guys have infiltrated what still seems to most the Catholic Church (and which still contains many genuine Catholic souls) for the past "three papacies" ... if you've heard about the seventies, you should be familiar with Catholics who ... wait, I don't mean going to Star Wars the first time or taking a radio music down on a casette recorder, I mean seventies in the Catholic Church. If you have heard about that you should know some Catholics find some new Church was founded. Or "Vatican II is as cut off from Catholicism as Anglicanism or Lutheranism were" (with some degree of exaggeration).

I am sure you know Trent. No, not the council, the counsel of Mr Horn.

He feels there is a risk that sitting at home with Scripture and Tradition and accusing Popes of ditching that risks landing us with the Reformers.

I'd reply, the way that a Catholic in England or Sweden remained Catholic in 1560 was to decry the liturgic upheaval happening around him.

Plus, in the meantime, there actually is a Pope who's not suspect of that Modernism.

10:24 Burghardt is not actually showing a Tradition III view, as you define it, also known as "solo magisterio".

He is basically stating that the universality of the view among all the bishops is a sign of the ancientness of the view.

I e, God would not have allowed an error to become universal among Roman Catholic bishops, precisely as on your view or Roger Nicole's, God would not have allowed a fake book to make it into a canon accepted by nearly all "Christian Churches" -- a term that Burghardt could have used. Except he would have been using it correctly.

The Christian Church in Rome.
The Christian Church in Toledo.
The Christian Church in Munich.
The Christian Church in Paris (or perhaps he'd been partly wrong there, they had been towting Evolution for some time).

What your "tradition III" is supposed to mean is, a leader deciding just because he can, regardless of the state of the evidence. Which is definitely not the case about this case.

I suppose one common view among Protestants (perhaps partly my own, back when I was one) on for instance Leo X condemning Luther was Popes were pulling off a kind of Mormon Prophet thing.

Nope and noper. That's why I can state confidently that §283 of "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is not Catholic, is not Papal, and therefore the Popes who endorsed the Catechism with that text in it are not Popes.

Note, §283 has the numerals reversed from AD 382, the year which infallibly gave us the Bible canon.

10:44 St. Paul presumed that was currently taught in the Church that accepted his admonitions was absolutely correct.

I recall a Protestant who pretends that NT books have replaced NT tradition. He admitted what is obvious to a reader of the Acts and Epistles, that the teaching of the Church indeed is a truth upheld by "the pillar and ground of truth" (I Tim 3:15).

He just thinks, at a certain point, this ceased to be true (precisely as Mormons think so, pretty much like you referred to "Imperial Churches") and that since back then, all we have left of infallible authority is the NT texts.

Now, I was stating that such a change cannot have happened. Why?

Matthew 28:20 lets Jesus (in red letters and all that) be pretty specific on "all days"

If you think there could have been even 24 hours back in St. Paul's day, when all Churches, on Crete, in Corinth, in Asia Minor, in Jerusalem, in Alexandria, in Rome, held to even one error, then you have pretty blatantly contradicted I Tim 3:15.

So, did the state of a collectively infallible Church cease or not? I think Matthew 28:20 holds the answer.

11:13 Your view may base itself on Heiko Oberman, but his is at least suspect before a Roman Catholic.

You see, Dutch Calvinist and Reformed theologians is one of his categories on wikipedia.

Now, some non-Catholics have highly complex views on what we should do, and as a consequence, highly ban most different shortcuts about what we can do.

You can read the Assumption back into lots of things, but not into statements like "Mary was buried and we still pray beside her bones in / outside city NN" if any source had been stating that. Significantly no such source exists. Stating she walked through a wardrobe and later died in Narnia would be more realistic than to pretend that.

Between Heaven and Narnia, I think both the novelty (among Christians) of God actually using His potential to create more worlds than one, and the weight of the bishops is sufficient to make us prefer Heaven, even for those, if any, who were to suspect "seven chronicles" somehow were a documentary. (Which is obviously my pretence when writing a fan fic, but that's beside the point).

It sometimes gets annoying when a Protestant, often enough a Calvinist, tells me what I am really doing, what I am really up to.

I wear capes, definitely not the model that ladies were wearing in the seventies (I wore one my mother had worn, but was so much shorter, as a child, it was not the same model for me, more like a Dracula cloak in proportion to my then size). But even if it's not the same model, even if it's a mente (ask a Hungarian what that is!), some Protestant might get the idea I were cross dressing.

Guess what? I am not a fan of psychologising. Burghardt was not accepting that what he said was what Heiko Oberman was stating. I prefer what Burghardt stated over what Oberman stated when it comes to Burghardt's intentions, and, as long as it's possible, even actual open acts. Not just what he intends to do, but what he succeeds in doing.

However, if someone were to deduce from Munificentissimus Deus that the Blessed Virgin never at all in any visible sense died, but was lifted in the same manner as the 1 Thessalonians 4:16 rapture, still upcoming, that would be "solo magisterio" since the weight of tradition is, She was raised and assumed into Heaven after Her burial.

12:47 Apart from very few rituals, very few facts, like sign of the Cross, Sunday worship, Trinity being predicated about Persons in the One God, neither accepting one or two persons were not God, nor that they are three different ""gods", the Blessed Virgin Mary being assumed body and soul, the primacy of Peter having a successor in the Universal Church and not just each Diocese, apart from this kind of thing, the Catholic view is very close to your "tradition 1"

What you call "recommendations by friends" is what I would consider as traditionS, including those of spirituality.

Like, before someone becomes a monk, he goes through a novitiate. Like, Popes are elected by the college of Cardinals.

Where I would place Tradition (capital C) is, the friends are actually the guys who made the map, and they are also giving instructions on how to use it (like your map certainly has some label on what an inch is in relation to how many miles, or dito for cm and km, in the Christian case, that would be a thing pertaining to Tradition). If you read a map ignoring such an instruction, thinking an inch were half a mile when it was three miles, you'd misidentify potential landmarks.