Apologetics: Catholicism 2

Okay, so thank you all for your participation and interactions here and also some online. It has been quite popular of a series. And I did tell all the online people that I will address some of their comments online.

They have questions or comments, their arguments. The first one I do want to address is regarding Sola Scriptura, the Latin word for only scripture, scripture alone. But before I do that, I'll pray for us and then I'll read briefly what I wrote regarding Sola Scriptura.

The accusation is that Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine, but I believe it is solidly found in scripture. So I'll pray for us and we'll start. Father, we're grateful for the work that you're doing in us.

And we're grateful that we have the opportunity to share the truth of your word and share Christ with so many people. Father, we pray that your spirit would work through us and that you would use us to clearly speak the gospel of your son, Jesus Christ, who died for our sin, suffering the wrath, and who rose from the dead and reigns from above.

Help us to trust him alone. In Jesus name. Amen. So, briefly regarding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, scripture alone. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the theological view that scripture alone is the highest authority and the highest standard for truth.

This does not do away with the importance of church history, historical creeds, think Nicene Creed, and all these creeds that helped us to know clearly the Trinitarian doctrine. We don't disregard that.

We don't reinvent the wheels multiple times. We do stand on the shoulders of the giants. And faithful works by Christians. There are Christian books even at this church together. And we grow from that.

And faithful teaching and preaching. However, scripture is higher than any of those and all of those combined. And they all must necessarily be under scripture. And that's because God's word cannot be treated equal to any other words.

God's word is higher than human words. In Mark 7, 6 -9, Jesus rebukes the religious establishment for holding the traditions of the elders higher than the commandments of God. The Pharisees were notorious for doing that.

In fact, using the traditions of elders as a guiding tool to scripture. This specifically shows there is an order of significance. God's commandments are higher than traditions. 2 Peter 1 -19 tells us that, and we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

What this tells us is that our traditions do not trump the written prophecies in scripture, which are more fully confirmed. More fully confirmed means there is something that is not as confirmed. Paul exhorts Timothy also as he is nearing death.

In 2 Timothy, preach the word, be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and teaching. Don't stray from scripture because people will itch for something more.

But Timothy must stay faithful to the word. Lastly, the danger of placing traditions at the same level of scripture is the act of adding to scripture. Because if you put something else that's not found in scripture and it's at the same level as scripture, then that is, de facto, adding to scripture.

Deuteronomy 4 .2 and Revelation 22 .18 -19 warn against that. In fact, it's a dangerous place to be to add scripture. Scripture treats itself higher than any other form of authority. God's word commands us to treat it more importantly than other words.

Sola Scriptura, although coined during the Reformation time, is, in fact, a theological view that is richly found in scripture itself. Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. Deutero means second, canon means the canon.

So, even by calling it Deutero-canonical means that it's not the first canon. Apocrypha are the 14th to 15th books that are added by the Roman Catholic Church to the Bible. And if you deny it, you're committing a mortal sin.

If you die in your mortal sin, that's condemnation. If you die in your mortal sin, your soul is at risk, according to their doctrine. The meaning of the Apocrypha is that these are the hidden things. Again, the hidden things.

These books were called Apocrypha before the Council of Trent in response to the Protestant Reformation. I'm not going to read over all the books that are contained in the Apocrypha. Most of them you probably haven't read.

Some of them sound similar to the books that we have, but they're actually totally different books. For example, Wisdom of Solomon is not Proverbs. If you open to that book, it's not the same book. Ecclesiasticus is not Ecclesiastes.

Most of you haven't read them. I've only read parts of them, mainly to get the historical background. Again, I'm not saying they're all horrible and they need to be burned. All I'm saying is they're not scripture.

They must not be treated the same way as God's word. 1 -2 Estrus and Prayer of Azariah are not accepted by the Council of Trent. What's shocking is all these books, when you add them all together, they're about the two-thirds of the size of the New Testament.

That's big, right? Now, next slide. The Old Testament canon, so what we have in the Old Testament, what the Protestant Church has in the Old Testament, and the only thing that the Jews have in their scripture, the Old Testament.

Overwhelmingly, historians agree that the apocryphal books were not included in Jewish worship, even in the first century. Next slide. Why does this matter? Why do we have to be so strict about whether apocrypha is in the Bible or not?

Why not just put them in there if you want them and put them out if you don't want them? What's at stake here? The truth, right? What is it, David? What God wants us to know. Regarding truth, if there are things that go against what the Bible teaches that are found in apocrypha, yes, the truth is at stake, and we will go over some of the things that do go against the biblical truths in the Bible.

Second, David's right. What God wants us to know. Think about this. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3 .16, all scriptures breathe out by God, and it's for the equipping of the saints. Well, imagine if the two-thirds of God's words just missing for some of us.

We're not getting equipped if they are indeed God's word, right? So, in reality, we do want to know whether apocrypha actually belong into the Bible or not, right? Imagine if the two-thirds of the New Testament had been missing.

That's just crazy, right? Imagine all the Pauline epistles are gone. That's shocking, right? Let's talk about the Hebrew Old Testament. The Hebrew Old Testament was completed around 400 years before Christ was born, as in the Son of God, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, who's the eternal existing Word of God, became flesh, right?

When He was born, it's not when He's existed. It's actually when He became flesh, when He became man, but He's always existed, right? We have to go over that. And the Catholics would say, Amen, right?

They believe that too, the eternality of the Son of God. The Hebrew Old Testament does not contain any of the apocryphal books, right? The Hebrew Old Testament does not contain any of the apocryphal books.

That's important. Yeah. All right, let's go over this next slide, the Septuagint. Why do I want to go over the Septuagint? It's also written as LXX. That's the Roman numeral for 70. The reason why it's called 70 is because in the second century BC, around 100 years before Christ's birth, incarnation, about 70 Jewish scholars gathered in Egypt to translate the Old Testament into Greek so that it is more accessible.

The Septuagint contains 12 apocryphal books. Notice that it's not even fully all that the Catholic Church has. And in fact, not all copies of the Septuagint that we have contain the same books of the apocrypha.

So they differ copy per copy. So if I pick up a Septuagint scroll from one place and another, they might not agree on what belongs in it. Which means there are no general consensus as to what belongs in the Bible, if we look at the Septuagint alone.

Although it was popular during Christ's time, the Jews living in Israel, that land, the promised land, never accepted the apocryphal traditions nor additions. That's important. I will tell you that the New Testament authors do quote from the Septuagint.

They do. Often. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they translate the Old Testament themselves. The Apostle John is a great example. He does that when he says, fullness of grace and truth when talking about Jesus.

That's his translation. That's not from the Septuagint. And it goes back to Exodus 34 when God reveals himself abounding in steadfast love and truth. But a good example is like Matthew 1 when Matthew actually quotes from Isaiah, the virgin shall give birth.

That's from the Septuagint. The word virgin is specifically in the Septuagint while it's young woman in the Hebrew text. So I'm not bashing the Septuagint. All I'm saying is the Septuagint was not accepted as books of worship by the Jews in the synagogues or the temple in the first century.

And that's going to be crucial. And I would say the reason why the New Testament authors sometimes quote from the Septuagint would be the ease of access. Because what language was the New Testament written in?

Greek. Why do the work twice? Right? Just use the translation that's existing. I speak Korean. Not that I'm so good that I would translate into Korean. But if I were to speak to someone of the gospel that's who only speaks Korean, I probably won't be opening the Greek text to translate it into Korean.

Although that's possible, and it would be a lot of work. I probably would just grab a Korean Bible and flip to the page that I need to quote from. Right now, let's talk about the Old Testament that the Protestants have.

So the next page. We follow scripture. There are 39 books of the Old Testament. And the reason why I say we follow the scripture is because Romans 3 .2 said so. I will read it. Much in every way to begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

What are the oracles of God? Scripture. What do the Jews hold as scripture? That's what we need to be asking. What do the Jews hold as authoritative, inspired word of God? And if you buy one of the Jewish Bibles, Tanakh, Torah, Nevi 'im, Ketuvim, which is the law, the prophets, and the writings.

It's a thick book, right? You'll see all 39 books of the Old Testament that we have. In a slightly different order when you get to the prophets, but still, they're all there. So what does that mean? We're actually going with what the Jews were entrusted with.

Because what? Why do we do that? Because scripture said so. And scripture is our highest authority. It would be actually troubling to go against what God's word says to include something that's not in God's word.

So we're actually following the Bible when we have the 39 books, not more than 39 or less. Now, here are the arguments against the apocrypha. Next slide. Scriptural. Here's the scriptural argument. I think whenever possible, the scriptural argument takes the highest authority, right?

That's where we need to go first. The New Testament has about 260 direct quotations. What that means is direct quotations word for word of the Old Testament. And many times it will say, scripture said, or so that the scripture may be fulfilled.

You'll see a lot of that, especially in the gospel according to Matthew and also the book of Hebrews. And that's because those two books were mainly written for Jewish Christians, right? Allusions are, it alludes to it.

It refers to it. It takes the concept instead of quoting a word for word, it takes a concept and alludes to it. Great example would be, uh, anytime you see Jesus saying like, I'm the shepherd, the good shepherd, it, it, that alludes to the Old Testament in Ezekiel, right?

Uh, Ezekiel, the Lord is the good shepherd. The Lord will gather his people back, uh, along with the Davidic King, right? That's an illusion or the sacrificial lamb or the Passover lamb. That's an allusion to the Passover lamb, right?

Um, not a single of them is from the Apocrypha. That's, that's important. This is important, right? Isn't that striking a book? I mean, or a collection of books, the size of the New Testament, not single one of them is quoted by the New Testament authors.

And remember the New Testament authors are majority Jews. Maybe Luke was, and I'm not sure, but then he could have been Hellenistic Jew, right? He could have been, uh, like Greek Jew, right? I, it's hard to know.

I don't have his DNA. Uh, but, but most of them are Jewish. So the, the New Testament authors had no problem quoting from, in fact, uh, a lot of the Old Testament books yet they don't quote from the Apocrypha.

Uh, and, and Christ himself says the scriptures cannot be broken in John 10 35. And the scriptures he's thinking of is what the Old Testament. So you can't break that. Now the New Testament authors do quote from the Septuagint, but not the Apocrypha.

That's important. And again, just because they quote from the Septuagint doesn't mean they're accepting every part that the Septuagint may hold. We don't even know what their copies of Septuagint held because they're all different in terms of how many books of the Apocrypha are actually there.

So we can't even actually say that yes, all 14 through 15 Apocrypha books were there. You can't say that. All right. Catholic rebuttal. Uh, so, uh, I mean, I, I posted that like online and people, you know, instead of writing out their arguments, they give me links, you know, and that's troublesome, but I, I clicked on the link to like, read it, right.

I do want to know what they say. There were a whole bunch of New Testament verses that they claim that are quoting the Apocrypha. So I looked at some and I just picked some that are just like, what is, you're not even reading the Apocrypha correctly.

If you're saying that's from the Apocrypha. So one claim is that Matthew two 16, when King Herod slayed all the babies of Bethlehem, right. They're saying it was prophesied in wisdom, seven 11, the wisdom of Solomon, which is not proper.

Right. So I go to wisdom, seven 11, and you read that. And in the context of wisdom, seven 11 is actually the Exodus from Egypt. That's another King who slayed the infants, not the, it's not a future prophecy, right.

It actually has the words wilderness. Uh, Bethlehem was not a wilderness. It's a town. So it's, it's, it's, it's, it actually is disingenuous even to the Apocrypha to say that it's prophesying something when it's not actually claiming to prophesy.

And it's also, of course, disingenuous to the scripture because Matthew, uh, two 16. In fact, if you go to it, the scripture that's prophesied is, uh, from actually the old Testament, right? Uh, Rachel crying out, that's not from wisdom.

That's actually from, I think Jeremiah, I might be wrong. I got to look it up, but, uh, it's actually from the old Testament prophets and the, the, the, how it's fulfilled is typological. Matthew says the fulfillment is that just as all God's people were exiled, uh, and cause a cataclysmic grief.

And then when the Messiah is here, it repeats, but it's so much more intense. The infants are keeping killed. And, and as you know, from Matthew's theology, the Messiah who came to die for God's people will live perfectly on behalf of God's people.

That's why Jesus, right? All has to fast for 40 days in the wilderness, just as God's people fasted. I mean, not fasted. They were tempted 40 years in the wilderness and failed, but Jesus who fasted for 40 days in the wilderness didn't fail.

Right. And he does that over and over again until he dies the debt that his people deserve. Right. That's Matthew's theology. Next, uh, Luke 20, 29 confirms Tobit as scripture. And I thought this was fitting because I think I preached this recently, probably last, I think last week.

Uh, this one is about the Sadducees, uh, challenge against Jesus with, uh, one wife and seven husbands because they kept dying. So one, uh, so you turn to Tobit three, a, which I know most of us don't have that in our scripture.

That's fine. You, uh, one common thread is that in Tobit three, eight, there is a woman who has seven husbands. The main difference is this woman lost, uh, her husband, her husbands, uh, because of an evil spirit named asthma, asthma, Diaz, uh, who killed them.

The problem with this is, uh, nowhere in the Sadducees storyline, uh, is a demon involved. In fact, I would argue that the Sadducees would not hold to the demons involved. If you know the Sadducees theology, which is they reject the existence of angels, which means they would reject the existence of the fallen angels.

Not only that, what books do the Sadducees hold as scripture? The first five only, they don't even go as far as we do. So to think that they would be quoting from Apocrypha is rather absurd. And to even give the status of scripture would be obnoxious.

It's ridiculous that the Sadducees who reject actually 34 other books in the Old Testament that the normal Jews would have held the Pharisees and scribes to say that they ventured off and, uh, wanted to quote quote unquote scripture Apocrypha.

That's crazy. Uh, uh, the, the only argument I would say is they're making seven husbands to make an absurd point, right? Their view is the resurrection can't be real because can you imagine a woman with seven husbands in heaven, right?

In a new earth and you haven't, you're right. That's their point. It's not to quote the Apocrypha again. No New Testament author gives any authority nor mentions Apocrypha as scripture. Whenever the New Testament author says thus, the scripture is fulfilled.

It's never an Apocryphal books. And there are some other, uh, claims they make like, oh, uh, the Lord of heaven and earth is from this Apocryphal book. You could find that in other Old Testament books that are accepted by the Jews too.

It's, it's not like that's a new idea in the Apocrypha, the Lord of heaven and earth is found pretty much really anywhere in the Old Testament, right? So it's, it's disingenuous to make a claim like that.

Take like a three word phrase that are rather commonly used, but also happened to be used in the Apocrypha and say that they're actually quoting Apocrypha, right? Or, or something like God is shepherd or Jesus.

When Jesus says he's the shepherd in John 10, well, that's kind of used in the Old Testament already. In fact, it was written before the Apocrypha, right? Ezekiel. So it's like, it's, it's disingenuous to say that's actually quoting from the Apocrypha, right?

Uh, the Mormons do the same too. They, they say like John 10, it's, it's found in the book of Mormon. It's like, do you really think that it's more likely that it's a book of Mormon or it's actually the Old Testament that the Jews all read, right?

Like let's, let's use a Occam's razor here. The simplest is the most correct here, right? All right, next let's, we're going to go over the arguments against the Apocrypha. Historically, first century Jews never accepted any of them.

So I'm actually going off of historical arguments, uh, other than the scriptural, which we just did, we're going to go over this, uh, historical view. Israelites of the first century spoke both Greek and Aramaic.

Aramaic is the language of Assyria and Babylon. Uh, in fact, certain tribes in Iran still do speak to this day. Uh, yet they still rejected the Septuagint for worship. Uh, you will have the Catholics argue that Septuagint was accepted as Jewish scripture.

They respected it. They used it, but not for worship. In fact, uh, Josephus AD 90, so that's the first century Jew, and he's not a Christian. Okay. He's not a Protestant. He's a Jew. He's a Jewish historian, and he gives a list of the Old Testament canon as in the standard in terms of what books belong in the Old Testament does not have the apocryphal books, right?

That's shocking because the, uh, what the Catholics will do is that you Protestants, you're going by the medieval Masoretic texts. Masoretes were medieval Jews who, uh, copied down the Hebrew text, and that's the complete codex of the Old Testament.

We mainly go by the Masoretic text. So if you, uh, buy, purchase an Old Testament text, that's only Hebrew. Uh, it's because of the Masoretes, you have them. They're the ones who put the vowel pointings because Hebrew texts don't normally have vowels, right?

And so they would say, you guys go back even like 800, 900 years after, right? Uh, the canon was closed and that's why you're going with actually Josephus in the first century had, he did not think the apocryphal books, right?

We're part of scripture and he's a Jew of rather a famous Jew, right? Uh, he's the reason why we know anything about really AD 70. He, he's the historian who recorded that, uh, the apocryphal are rejected by origin.

Uh, we talked about origin last week, uh, famous, uh, church father who believed in some shaky stuff. Uh, but the Catholics count him as a church father and remember their, their vow, the unanimity of the church fathers, right?

That's what the priest bowed to. Well, origin didn't think so. Tertullian, another church father, third century, he's the guy who quote, uh, coined the term Trinity. So he's, he's a famous guy. Uh, by the way, Tertullian was not a Pato Baptist, uh, for any Catholics listening.

Uh, he did not have, uh, he actually rejected the apocrypha too. Athanasius, uh, the main guy who, uh, who got exiled so many times cause he stood up for the truth of Jesus being divine. Uh, he, he fought against the Aryans.

Aryans said that Jesus was one time created and Athanasius says no. And that's where we get, uh, the phrase Athanasius against the world because really the world was going against him. But it's actually thanks to Athanasius that we have, uh, old and new Testament canon.

The Protestant Bible goes with what said our scripture, Jerome. Oh, this is interesting. Jerome, the guy who translated the whole Bible into Latin, uh, the main version of the Catholic scripture. He also did not believe the apocrypha, uh, were part of scripture.

The only reason why he translated Tobit and Judith in his book, Vulgate is because his friends liked them so much. So they asked him to translate, but he did not consider, uh, the apocrypha as scripture.

That is shocking. Next, there is even internal disagreement regarding or had been right. Not anymore. They're all dead, but there had been internal disagreements regarding, uh, the inspired status of the apocrypha within the Roman Catholic church.

Cardinal Kajetan. I don't know if, if it's, if he's Spanish, it's Kajetan, but if it's not, it's Kajetan. I don't know. C-A-J-E-T-A-N for anyone who wants to look it up. He was actually the opponent.

He was one of the main opponents of Martin Luther. Yet he approved the Hebrew Canon, which is what the Protestant Old Testament has. So even the opponent, even a Cardinal Cardinals, it's one of the highest ranks, right?

Uh, it's, it's mainly the Cardinals who become Popes when they're elected by the college of Cardinals, right? It's where we get the electoral college from Cardinals choosing their leader. He himself held just as Luther did, the apocrypha are not canon.

Uh, if you want to check that out, uh, his book is called commit commentary on all the authentic historical books of the Old Testament. Couldn't be clearer, right? Uh, several members of the council of Trent, it's the council itself opposed the apocrypha.

Apparently they probably weren't the majority, but again, this was not a uniform belief that the apocrypha would be, uh, considered scripture. Next I'm going to quote a Pope. I mean, not a quote, but referred to a Pope.

Next slide is about Pope Gregory the great, and you can tell from the title, he was a, they consider him to be a great cup Pope, right? Pope Gregory, the great, he declared first Maccabees to be not canonical.

It's kind of shaky here, right? Wait a second. The Pope, one of your great posts, uh, early on early, this is before the medieval ages. Uh, he believed that first Maccabees, which all Catholics now believe to be part of scripture.

Well, one of your Pope's didn't, right? That's troubling. Who's right? Which, what are you going to sacrifice people infallibility or apocrypha at this case? You can't be like, you can't have both, right?

Cardinal Zominis excluded the apocrypha in his polyglot Bible, which was approved by Pope Leo the 10th. So not only a Cardinal, but it's people approved and he didn't put the apocrypha. Now the question is, were these two posts correct or not?

Right? That's, that's what the Catholics have to face, right? All right. Next, why, why does it matter? We kind of talked about this. Well, what's in the apocrypha, right? First, they support unbiblical traditions as in things that are not found in the old Testament and the new Testament that we have.

That's frankly from God. For example, purgatory in second Maccabees 1240 through 45 Judas Maccabeus sends money to Jerusalem for the dead idolatrous soldiers. And that's where they get the term purgatory.

It's like the money was used on their behalf in hopes that they would be, you know, saved even after they're dead. Right? Uh, here's a problem with that. Idolatry is a mortal sin. And if you die with a mortal sin, according to the Roman Catholic church, you go to straight, you go to hell, you don't go to purgatory purgatory.

You can't go to purgatory with mortal sin. Right? So there's an inconsistency there. Even if you want to use the apocrypha to uh, establish the doctrine of purgatory, well, then you're not going to get the doctrine that you have anyway.

Right? Well, you got to throw something out the mortal sin part too. Right? Next, when you read the apocrypha themselves, none of them actually claim divine inspiration. That's shocking. When you read the old Testament and the new Testament, they all claim divine inspiration.

Right? Oh, they actually, you know, second, um, second Peter three, uh, gives divine inspiration status to Pauline epistles, Paul's letters. Paul gives divine inspiration. He confirms divine inspiration to the old Testament.

Right? So, so on, uh, the old Testament themselves, they're called the word of God. I mean, you read the prophets, they're like, and the word of God came to Jonah and the word of God came to Isaiah and the word of God came to you name it.

Right? That's how many of the books of the prophets start. They claim divine inspiration that they are from God. However, not only the apocrypha don't claim divine inspiration. So you're elevating things that they themselves don't.

Not only that, some actually disclaim divine inspiration. And here's the list prologue to Ecclesiasticus first Maccabees four 46, nine 27, second Maccabees two 23, 1538. I'll quote first Maccabees four 46 for us and laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place until there should come a profit to show what should be done with them.

What can we imply here? Yeah, there's no profit. If there's no profit, uh, Victor said it. They don't have the word of the Lord. Then how can you claim divine inspiration status? Of course they didn't have the apostles either.

Right? That's way before. So there's the problem there. Apocrypha themselves don't claim divine inspiration. In fact, disclaim divine inspiration. Yet the Catholic church wants to, Hmm. Like it's just like you're even going against its own tradition, right?

Apocryphal tradition. Next, uh, some have numerous errors and, uh, remember the Catholics sort of believe in the inerrancy, right? Remember in, in, in their doctrine with, from the council of trend. And even before they do believe that God's word is without error.

But of course the liberal Catholic theologians, they like shake it up, right? But presumably the conservative Catholics still do hold to biblical inerrancy. However, there are errors in the apocrypha.

Judith one, one through seven, they claim Nebuchadnezzar as the Assyrian King and reigned in Nineveh. Now what, where was he the King of Babylon, right? That's a different empire. Uh, it's kind of like saying, um, you know, let's see who's a Abraham Lincoln.

Yes. President of Britain, right? It's a different empire. It's a different country. That would be wrong. Baruch supposedly Jeremiah secretary Baruch, his name is Baruch. Uh, that book quotes from Daniel.

And here's the problem. Jeremiah and his contemporary would have been long dead by the book Daniel's written, right? Daniel's written in the post exilic, like exilic time, right? And it even gets to the post exilic time because there's the declaration that King Cyrus right.

As let the Jews go free. So Baruch must be like at least 100 years old, if not more. And he's writing a book in which he quotes Daniel. So it's that that authorship is in question already, right? It's like, so Baruch probably didn't write that.

So you want to hold to a text that claims that it's written by Baruch, but it's not. It's kind of like if we would say like first Corinthians, although it says, right, Paul wrote it and he says it and say, actually, Paul didn't write that, right?

That's, that's crazy. But with Baruch, you can say that next. Uh, some have actually theological errors. Tobit 12, nine, four, 10, 14, 10 through 11, uh, says almsgiving can deliver from death and purge away sin.

Um, that sounds like buying your way to heaven. That's the indulgences, right? But even the church, they don't sell it anymore. You have to earn it, right? So in fact, they would have to say, well, after the council of trend, it's not true.

You can't buy it. Well, your book said so wisdom of Solomon, again, not Proverbs seven 17, the world was made out of preexistent matter. Yikes. That's paganism, right? To say that God didn't create the world, uh, ex nihilo, which means out of nothing as in, he spoke all things into existence.

That's, that's, that's a huge flaw in the doctrine. See rock three, three honoring father atones for sin, right? That's salvation by words. Yeah. Now let's talk about the Latin ballgames. The next slide.

Latin ballgate was, uh, translated by, um, a theologian named Jerome, uh, who lived from 83 42, four 20. He was commissioned by Bishop Damascus. I know it's not Damascus. It's the masses, uh, to translate the Bible into Latin.

Jerome, in fact, spent 34 years locked in a cave, really not locked in, but he's went to a cave in Bethlehem, uh, as a hermit to translate the Bible into Latin. Needless to say, I'm not bashing the Vulgate as like a bad, bad book.

I think the Vulgate can be helpful, but it's a translation. It's not in errant. It's not infallible, right? The purpose actually was to make the Bible accessible to the common folks because Latin was the main language of which country Rome, right?

The great empire. Well, if the whole empire speak Latin, wouldn't it make sense to, you know, translate it to a language that the whole empire would speak? That's the goal. And, of course, what's the irony of this?

Yeah, they, uh, the Catholic church. Hey, they don't give it to him, right? Uh, and haven't in a while. Right now, they're like slowly loosing, loosing the grip. Uh, second, when is the last time you've seen a Catholic whose mother tongue is Latin, right?

The irony is Jerome translated into Latin so that more people could have access to God's word. But yet the irony is like the Latin Vulgate has been used for thousands of years to withhold God's word from the common folks.

Right. And in fact, anyone who tried to translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue, vulgar tongue means just a common tongue, whether English or German. If you live in England or Germany, they were punished through death.

They were executed, right? Now let's talk about the Roman Catholic Church's view of the Vulgate. So next slide. They believe the translation is infallible. Infallible means it is not possible to air. So it's in Aaron means there's no error.

You can say a sentence that is inerrant, right? It is not raining today in Sacramento is an inerrant sentence because there's no error. Infallible is beyond that. It means there's no potential to air, right?

The Council of Trent says this. If anyone receive not as sacred, the canonical and said books entire with all their parts as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, let him be anathema. Anathema.

What does that mean? Condemned. No, anathema is the Greek term for curse. Let him be accursed. Let him go to hell. That's anathema. That's a strong word. This is the same word when Paul says in Galatians one, if any of us, the apostles or the angels preach a different gospel, let him be anathema.