Continued Response to Trent Horn on the Nature of Scripture, It's Sufficiency, and Rome's Claims

Well greens welcome to the dividing line we are continuing our response to Trent horn I recorded a response yesterday had technical problems there

The program that I'm using I love the program It's exactly what you need to do this kind of interaction with video

But once in a while it's happened a couple times you can simply lose the video window and can't find it

I and three other guys clicked on everything in that program yesterday We never found it again those poor guys are gonna have to take the same video and insert it in over the audio that I was playing

Made it a little bit tougher, but Jeff and I Jeff Durbin I responded to Trent Horn's thing on general security perseverance the

Saints nearly Church And it it was interesting that Someone on discord had made the comment that the next video that Trent posted was in defense of the bodily assumption of Mary and The accusation and it's true accusation there simply isn't any evidence for it nearly church.

Well. That's an argument from silence He had just done a video on the absence of evidence for belief in eternal security

But that's not an argument to silence and of course you can't even Pretend I mean

I you I don't even know how they do it with a straight face try to pretend to make a biblical argument for the bodily assumption of Mary in comparison to making a biblical argument for Jesus not failing to save his people.

That's pretty easy to do But anyways that's on apology radio, and I haven't seen to be honest with you

I haven't seen where that's dropped yet We were gonna I I said because we have to do all that extra editing which

I was trying to save the guys from doing And only made it harder on him

I didn't think they'd be able to get it out by today, but we'll see we'll see so Trent's could be really busy because Gavin Ortlund put out a video today,

I think responding to Yesterday's video on the bodily assumptions, so the videos they do be a -flying and You have to you have to think about it if we were doing formal debates and even if you made them

You know two and a half hours long The the time of presentation in a debate just isn't all that long and so That's the trade -off

When we're doing it this way you have to listen one side, then you listen to the other side and then the other side responds and and The problem is you know the ones were responding to from Trent are about 24 minutes long by the time you play his stuff

Then it everything just balloons in size, and it it becomes challenging so anyway

So this is just simply Go along with yes with Tuesday continuing and I'm picking up right the same spot and Thankfully, I've got the program working again, and I have the video.

I was concerned. I'll be honest with you I was concerned after what happened yesterday that I was gonna come in here and fire this thing up And I wasn't gonna have video any longer, but didn't work out that way so Yeah, yeah, it should be should be ready to go should be ready to go

So we are still at the very beginning, but we will pick up the pace here of And we've remember in the last episode we went through you know

Matthew 22 and We looked at Peter's description, and we we've talked a lot about the context and done some exegesis and stuff here

Because one of the sort of one of the accusations is from Trent Horn is it you know we? Those Protestants are just assuming because it's

Theos and Neustos Pneuma is in there. They're just assuming this as if we don't do biblical exegesis which of course we do and Did and I've demonstrated the consistency of the biblical testimony to God speaking in Scripture from Jesus from Peter and from Paul and Compare that to almost any one of The Marian dogmas no obviously not the virgin birth

That's a biblical teaching but compare that to the biblical evidence for any of the other Marian dogmas perpetual virginity immaculate conception bodily assumption

They got nothing in comparison to what we've already provided from the Apostles on this subject and as to the meaning of that word

So we pick up from there With What Trent Horn has to say

I made so I was very interested to see James White's response to it And I was underwhelmed in fact the primary purpose of today's episode is not to teach you how to refute an argument

Against the faith is to teach you how to spot when someone is using a non -argument

It's practice to learn how to look past bluster and rhetoric and see that a person has not refuted your case

Okay, that's exactly what we're doing today because that's what Trent's doing this is called projection What he's doing is he's changing what the subject of my video is supposed to be

I was focused on Poirier I'm focused on the fact that Trent Horn is presenting a unique novel massively modern

Completely disconnected from church history definition of the honest us now He will keep saying it wasn't just Poirier I was quoting you know from the canon debate and from McDonald's other work

I have it on Kindle but he's not talking about the meaning of the word and Everything I was talking about in my video

Was the sources that Poirier uses The databases that the Thesaurus Lingua Grecae database

That I've had a subscription to since the 1990s and And Study of semantic domains and again went through all this went through it on the video these are things

I was studying in the 80s and Have had as a part of my teaching and he said at one point that I've taught on college level never have

Always been graduate level. It's always been seminary level master's and higher and so All I was saying was hey if you're gonna be the new guy

That comes up with something that even Rome has never come up with before Then do you think you might need to have the the scholarly capacity the training the experience?

To look at the argument and go. Oh Well, it's brand new Hasn't really been reviewed goes against what everybody said all along so a thesis like that really has to have a tremendous amount of consistent argumentation and The whole point is the guy doesn't believe

Paul wrote it and If you can't see how that impacts the data set you're gonna bring in to Paul's use because this is

Paul's use He doesn't believe it's Paul's use Paul didn't write it and So I'm just I'm just like You have gone out on a limb and that limb cannot support your weight

That that cracking sound you're hearing Trent A Long ways down.

It's a long ways down so What he's doing is is he's projecting and spinning.

This is damage control. I Challenged him. I said, okay. Look, here's the things you need to be able to do to be able to meaningfully analyze

Poirier's thesis and he does not have the capacity to do that Now he's gonna try to say he has some of it

But the very fact that he spends all this time trying to demonstrate that well I can pronounce

Greek words That ain't the same thing That's not the same thing.

I I know what a genitive is Congratulations. I know what a genitive is and all sorts of different languages.

So what? Has nothing to do with what we're talking about. So this is this is called projection and You so when you've been caught doing something you throw it back upon somebody else.

And so it's gonna be interesting somewhat educational to see what How he comes up with what he what he has here so But I only have a limited amount of time today.

So I got a I gotta keep moving But I was really eager to hear White's reply to tell me how we know

Theopneustos has the meaning he and other Protestant apologists say it has okay. Have we got that now?

Did we get that in the last program? Did we did we? Demonstrate that to answer that question is to ask the question

Is scripture even sufficient to define its own language? Well, you can't be because it's a hoppock's legomena but you have context and You have a context in 2nd

Timothy Which included the assertion that the holy scriptures are able are

Have the capacity to make you wise unto salvation and to then thoroughly equip you

To do everything the man of God needs to do in the church we covered this last time last time So we've given the foundation now and it's a biblical foundation

It's not well look over here the sibling oracles and we've got something over here from a hundred fifty years later in another part of the

Roman Empire and And it has nothing to do with Christian faith. But hey, we're gonna read it in here as if that's somehow influencing

Paul's use Don't you think maybe Paul's writings should be the context for Paul's use?

Except it's not Paul There's the problem. So yeah, we've yeah, okay

God breathed superior authority to all other means of transmitting doctrine

Okay, superior to all other means of change. So think about it If it's

God breathed if it's if it's if it's when you hold your hand in front of your mouth and you feel that breath If it's that intimate to God what else is like that?

That's what that's what they can't deal with that that's what they have to try to undercut that they haven't in the past But now that's what

Trenthorne is doing is he's trying to undercut that he's trying to undercut the unique nature of Scripture It's ontological and we're gonna well, we'll sit in the same

Well, we'll cover something about what he said later on about that. So What what else now remember who needs a rule of faith the church does

The church is made up of sinners Fallen men. We are not perfected in this life. And So the church can't be its own rule of faith.

That's it. That is a circular monologue That's the church talking to itself that becomes irreformable

But he's going to suggest toward the end what Christ established the church, so why can't the church make the honest us

So the church becomes its own rule of faith. That sounds like um, oh, what's that guy bald

Scottish guy? Oh, yeah that James white guy keeps saying sola Ecclesia No matter how hard they try

They just keep demonstrating. They really do believe in Sola Ecclesia, they can talk about.

Oh, it's scripture in tradition and the magisterium and all the rest and but That magisterium always ends up defining everything else.

That's how it works so it is amazing to me that anyone would even struggle with the idea that if if God is going to establish the body of Christ on church on earth and in the in the church and he's going to Give them a rule of faith.

It needs to be divine in its nature right

Why are we arguing about this? Well, because fundamentally Rome demands that you believe things

That the Apostles never taught and that they cannot even start to demonstrate taught from the page of Scripture They have to have another source of authority and since they can't tell us what those traditions are

They cannot trace those traditions through church history Then it's really hard to avoid the fact that Functionally and this is this is why the bodily assumption is a really useful thing the last dogmatic definition made by Rome almost three quarters of a century ago now and Fundamentally it requires you to believe in continuing revelation because it is not a part there is no possibility whatsoever

That this is a part of an apostolic tradition delivered orally Outside of Scripture even if we didn't have

Jesus giving us the example Don't accept when someone says something is binding upon you this tradition outside of Scripture That's what the core bond rule was don't do it.

You're violating Scripture so So what's going on here is is we are in fact

Of Doing what Trent says he's doing we're demonstrating spin damage control bluster and When you say well he didn't answer this well if I never claimed to be answering that Then that's irrelevant

But there were all sorts of things. I brought up in my responses that Trent has just skipped over This doesn't even mention

So I think that's far more far far far more importance Instead white claims that the alternative understanding of theopneustos

I put forward can be ignored because it comes from a liberal Protestant scholar of course

I never say anything of the kind I didn't say it could be ignored what I said was Trent Can you even evaluate it yourself?

Do you have the training and the teaching experience and the published experience?

To evaluate the novel brand -new theory That you've glommed on to as the death knell of sola scriptura and the answer to that is no you do not and your attempts to To find a way around that fail badly in what we're going to be looking at But I did not say it can be ignored.

I said it needs to be evaluated and when I said that I said and one of the key problems with evaluating it is if the guy doesn't believe

Paul wrote it Then that completely changes the data sets and the context in which you're going to evaluate those data sets

Right Well, yeah that would be the case But that's getting skipped by What he is?

Saying here we continue on there is also helpful in providing a different interpretation of The ancient

Greek documents that Warfield claims support his understanding of the word But the documents like the sibling oracles they're there for anyone to examine and draw their own conclusion

This isn't just the work of one scholar Protestant scholar. Oh, wait a minute now wait a minute

Again now what he's gonna do here is he's going to he's going to confuse The use of thea of the honest us in some

New Testament writers now again This is another one of those situations Where you get to pick and choose what you're gonna quote from the early church and you're gonna try to create

The the idea that there is a consistency in the early church that does not exist So you're using the early church to backwards define

The words that are used in the New Testament, it's doing it backwards No direct connection, but Defenders of homosexuality do this all the time one of the most common things that they do is they will look at utilizations uses of Arsonic oites, which again,

I think I mentioned this but I'll mention it briefly When Jeff Neal and I were writing

The same -sex controversy. I used the TLG CD -ROM at that time. The website wasn't up at that point

I use TLG CD -ROM at that time to look at all the uses of arsonic oites in the

Greek literature and there was one possible use that was before or contemporaneous with Paul Depends on the canons and those canons sometimes change as far as the dating and stuff like that goes

And I include that information in in the book well all sorts of revisionist scholars will go to uses of arsonic oites two three four hundred years after Paul and say see

This author used it this way. So That must mean that Paul was doing that and that's not a valid form of argumentation at all.

In fact would Now it's one thing. It's good to have in your lexical database all the uses of a particular term even terms that come at a later point because that can give you an idea of how

Things developed but you can also look and go. Okay, here's here's something that is being used

Outside of a Jewish or Christian context. It's being used in the context of pagan religion and What's going to be more important to the definition of Theanostas as Paul's writing to Timothy?

Pagan uses two or three hundred years later Or use that's consistent with Pauline theology

Pauline exhortation what Paul? Said to the Ephesian elders as he was bidding.

Goodbye to them the consistent emphasis that Paul has on a consistent doctrine a

Faith that has been delivered to the Saints, which is gonna be more important. It's obvious But a

Lot of people ignore that kind of thing because they don't believe in a consistency of Scripture at all

So and notice once again, don't you think there would need to be? Some mention

Trent about the huge elephant in the room

Why don't you tell your folks and yeah, obviously one of the one of the big issues is that Poirier does not believe

Paul wrote these words That these are 2nd century forgeries.

Don't you think that's important? Don't you think it might sort of possibly undercut your thesis just a little bit

We will we will see we will see in the in the future I also point out in the episode that you can't arrive at White's definition of Theanostas By merely saying the component parts form

God -breathed that's the root fallacy That's like saying lady killer means female murderer.

And even if it does mean God -breathed How does white know that it's used in an exclusive sense to mean something?

unique about scripture and Theopneustos could not be used for non -biblical writings as McDonald shows happened in the early church

White's response to my argument dealing with the root fallacy is pure bluster

Watch this clip and try to find his argument must have this meaning because that's what they awesome panuma mean

But that is what the Protestant scholar da Carson called the root fallacy Now what he then then did here now, come on Trent He's not these

Protestants they're just it's because it's they awesome new mud and that's

Trent I don't believe you've actually read Warfield. I have Decades ago and I can read all of his language.

I Can make my way I've taught Greek Hebrew I've taken Latin Not I'm not bad with German might have or charts a sign fishing

Klein chopper kind of loyal to missus what I can but I can read

Warfield and I can analyze Warfield just as I can analyze for yay and And so What you're doing here is you're doing the

I'm going to refute the simplistic arguments and gain myself some credibility in the process and Yet all the people that you showed

We all we all read Carson a long time ago. I Was teaching my students the basics of what

Carson was saying and exegetical fallacies in the 90s so Don't go there

Unless you were teaching these things in the 90s in your Greek classes, which

I don't think you were So I don't need to add too much to that other than to point out.

Why is he going here again? I've Demonstrated this is an attempt to gain authority and weight by assuming by making the assertion that we and Evidently everybody who makes lexicons these days

That we are simply assuming something and we are engaging in the root fallacy He hasn't demonstrated that any of us sat here and said well

If I honor sauce it must mean God breathed because it's of these two roots. I've never said that Where have

I said that? Document it prove it. I Know that's not how it works because I actually read

Greek So this it was it was invalid to bring it up initially

This isn't blustering this is demonstrating that you were blustering and you are trying to create a air of respectability and scholarship

And at the same time attack those on the other side as if we're just simplistic simpletons

Who have never read exegetical fallacies by DA Carson? and I blew it away in the first thing and I don't even need to repeat it because it is just that obviously bad of A argument and presentation.

So I don't even know why you why you repeated it No one is claiming that the meaning is derived solely from its parts

All of us who have functional literacy in the Greek language know the basic things that Carson was saying and so this was this stands as a clear example of Where Trent Horne can be correct on something and he'll just double down on it.

He'll let's go up. I'm just gonna repeat it again So I'm not sure what audience you're trying to reach Trent but it's it's not one that I think can analyze

Things really really well here. Of course. I could say the church is an infallible rule of faith because Jesus established the church

Okay, I I told you this was coming But I want you to think about because this this touches on Ultimate issues of epistemological foundation and ultimate authorities and I've said for a long long time

Rome believes in sola ecclesia when you push and when you when you prod when you

Turn the fan on to blow the blow all the dust out of the air It's going to come down to why because the church says so and We are saying that the church needs a rule of faith and that rule of faith cannot be something that is internal to the church in the sense of a part of her own makeup because then she can never be reformed and If you read the

New Testament You read first and Corinthians and oh There's a church that needs to be reformed and you read

Paul's epistles upon Jesus's letters to the seven churches In almost all of them there was something that need to be reformed so there was a rule of faith that the church doesn't get to define and If it's

Christ Church, then the only source of that needs to be from Christ himself So it has to be God -breathed it has to be of that highest authority and If it's anything less than that Then the church is on its own and can end up coming up with dogmas like the bodily assumption of Mary Which no one nearly church believed and like I said one more time

There is not a single bishop at the Council of Nicaea that believed dogmatically the things Trent Horne believes

Today as dogma in their own Catholic Church, not a one of them All but it's all the same church

That requires continuing revelation whether you what do you want to admit it or not? You are promoting a concept of continuing revelation

Oh, but it's oral tradition. Yeah, and you don't get that you have never told us what that oral tradition is You just get to pull it out and define it.

Whatever you jolly well feel like it Sola Ecclesia over and over and over again the church

Cannot be her own rule of faith. She needs a rule of faith just as Scripturally teaching and man.

I'm almost afraid even mention anything about this given Twitter these days but there's something in Scripture about Christ being the head of the man and the man being the head of the woman and you know that kind of stuff and so If Christ is the head of the church and Loves the church as the husband is to love the wife.

Then there needs to be a rule of faith a consistent objective standard and What many

Roman Catholics are struggling with today and properly so is that the pontificate of Francis and It's highly probable

That the next Pope will only exacerbate this given that Francis has Stacked the

College of Cardinals with his own acolytes That Francis is a clear demonstration

That whatever you believe on apostolic succession there can be no objective content

That is preserved by that succession. You can turn it into some kind of nebulous Connectivity all you want but unless it connects you to apostolic teaching

It's it's irrelevant. And what Francis demonstrates is you just you pick

You pick any Pope Before 1900

You could really pick any Pope through John Paul II but just for sake of contrast you you pick any

Pope before 1900 and compare them to Francis and Apostolic succession as a concept becomes a joke as far as being able to guarantee any kind of consistent epistemological transmission of truth standards anything

Just the way it is the church needs a rule of faith the church cannot be its own rule of faith

He doesn't examine the other sources like I did to see how early Jews and Christians use the word

So what he's doing is he's saying I read Secondary sources that I've had in my library since I don't think

I put a date in this one But for a long long time, this is 21 years old. I read secondary sources and I read as much of Poirier as I could

But I couldn't evaluate His arguments because I've not studied These fields don't have access to the databases that he used

And I have no experience teaching That's him. So I've done that and he didn't like I said

I've been dealing with a subject for a very very very long time and Dealing with these areas for a very very very long time.

And so it's just untrue What my focus again was why is it that it's a

Roman Catholic apologist? Doing the brand -new novel not approved by the

Magisterium not Evaluated by scholarship as a whole not reviewed just published

But this is this is our ace in the hole argumentation. I my point is a

That's grossly inconsistent for Rome to do in the first place B Trenthorne is not in a position to actually evaluate the value and worth of Poirier's arguments prove me wrong

And so far he hasn't But what he does in the process is really really interesting now finally after all of this he gets to the hoppock's legomenon thing and I want you to listen to this because what he does here is he he does the

I'm a victim thing All right. What he's gonna do is he's gonna say he found a Place where he was reviewing

Mike winger And Mike winger used an unusual pronunciation of papacy.

He called it papacy I've actually heard people use that phraseology

Don't really think too much about it one way or the other But he tries he he said, you know, let's not pick on him about this

He doesn't mention that what I said is when I first saw in his tweet hoplock's legomenon

I just figured it was a typo. I Didn't jump all over it It wasn't until I listened to the video and realized wait a minute

He really does think it's hoplock's legomenon. And then my argument was this if You have

Greek capacity and facility Then you have encountered the word hoppock's especially if you're a

Roman Catholic apologist Why? Because it is key and central to the issue of the once for allness of the sacrifice of Christ You can't read the book of Hebrews.

Now. Look Hebrews is Hebrews Luke and Acts are the toughest Greek in the

New Testament they're the most classical the Syntactical regular syntactical formulation and That's why

I think Luke wrote Hebrews. I think it was Paul that preached it, but Luke wrote it in Greek is

Utterly non Pauline and Very difficult to just read at speed if what you're used to are the

Gospels well not in Cleveland or or Paul but the point is there are key key texts or hoppock's and epipox was just the

Strengthened form of hoppock are used on the key disputed texts on the once for allness of the sacrifice of Christ non repetitive

No representation in an unbloody fashion In fact, it's that oneness that is the argument against the continuing offering of sacrifices in the temple which are a reminder of sins whereas Christians have a reminder of their sin bearer and So when the mass does not perfect you

It falls in the same category as those old sacrifices that didn't perfect you either That's the whole point.

And so what I said was look if you teach New Testament I don't teach New Testament every day or every year

I've I've taught Greek and Greek acts of Jesus and topics in that area over the years but I've taught a wide variety of topics of requiring knowledge in a wide variety of places and Even in my teaching

You are going to encounter the phrase hoppock's legomena with regularity and So I had said hey this seems to indicate to me

That this is not an area that Trenthorne is familiar with and so he calls this ad hominem

Argumentation against the man. Well think about it for just a second. What was my video about a

Roman Catholic apologist who's presenting a brand new theory that has zero magisterial support

Even if the magisterium came out tomorrow said hey, we're making boy a saint It would still mean that before they did any of that before he had any kind of epistemological certainty at all

Trenthorne presented a completely novel unique never -before -heard in 2 ,000 years of church history interpretation of the meaning of the

Anastos as an argument against Protestantism and I simply said hey

Do you have the capacity to engage in this? Do you have the training?

This is a specialized area That's not ad hominem, I didn't say

Trenthorne Wears funny t -shirts under his short -sleeved shirts, and therefore you shouldn't believe what he has to say.

That's ad hominem What I did was not ad hominem at all So notice how he does the

I'm a victim James White's a meanie thing here, so here we go It's on the point about theopneustos only appearing once in Scripture that white engages in an ad hominem

Argument against me by saying that I just don't understand New Testament Koine Greek So I'm just not capable of making a correct analysis of the word or Poirier scholarship

Which as I said was not the only scholarship I relied on white makes a lot of hay But it was the only scholarship making the argument for the

Vivification translation of theopneustos Everything else you've got from McDonald and others is wider applications of theopneustos

Not the vivification definition Trent. I'm not gonna let you get away with this.

I'm sorry But you've you've you've planted your flag here.

You're stuck with it You decide to grab hold of a 2022 publication and run with it well

Tattoo his name on your arm because you're stuck with it now and It's not ad hominem to point out that you did not analyze his argumentation

Appropriately out of the fact that in a Twitter post recently and in my video I referred to a word that only appears once in the

New Testament as a haplax Legomenon instead of by the correct term haplax legomenon before I show white's reply

Compare how white acts to me to how I acted when I rebutted

Mike winger several years ago in that video I noted that winger mispronounced the word papacy and called it papacy instead

So note my response to winger and collect basically the papacy

Exists now Jesus institutes it and it's in this passage and a minister of the sheep But what you notice is this whatever Jesus is doing here.

This says nothing about a papacy I mean you would never read this if you didn't know about the papacy You'd never read the

Bible and come up with that doctrine. It just would never happen would never occur to you One point as I mentioned my previous videos don't get pastor

Mike a hard time about papacy saying papacy instead of papacy I Pronounce things differently than a lot of other people.

So that's that's not a big deal here now Okay, let me just let me just make sure that we're all tracking here

This has nothing to do with Trent horns failure to recognize a

Greek term that is Fundamentally a part of New Testament scholarship and discussion of lexicography

Mike winger Mispronouncing or having a unique way of saying papacy instead of papacy has nothing to do with this

There is no Logical or scholarly connection whatsoever The whole point was if you don't know what a hotbox legomena is

I don't think you're in a position to analyze poor ye's argumentation concerning stuff like Ignore go away.

I hate those things that just pop up you're not in a position to analyze his utilization of Electrical sources from the

TLG or semantic domain studies or anything like that. You're just not Sorry and what you try to do here by demonstrating that you've memorized

Lines of a few words of in Greek and used him in a debate look If you you say you claim you've studied coin a

Greek what school What years? How long a part of what degree study was it?

Was it about so I took seven years Okay, I took three years minored in Greek at Grand Canyon College under dr.

Mike Baird who himself learned under Jane Isles Puckett who is a student of AT Robertson?

Okay, and then I did four years with dr. Baird at Fuller Theological Seminary, so seven years and then when

I graduated from Seminary Fuller Theological Seminary, I Began teaching

Greek first -year Greek For Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary a

Southern Baptist Seminary their campus in Phoenix, Arizona met on the same campus of Grand Canyon dr.

Baird taught the second year class and While I was doing that They asked me to teach

Hebrew. I was like But they were having trouble getting anybody through Hebrew. And so I was like, okay and I got people through Hebrew I got people through Hebrew exegesis.

Yay. Great. Okay, that was a long time ago. Anyways point is I Can just give that information.

There's my background and He's gonna show that in a 2017 book

That hotbox appears correctly in his book Okay, was that caught by the editor?

I Don't know He's like, well, you know, it was just a mind thing or something.

Okay, fine. My point is I wouldn't make that mistake Because I know the field and it's evidence that he does not

That's been the point from the start and I think it's So so so Trent Once again, where did you take

Greek? How many semesters? What level was that at was it was it undergraduate graduate

Have you ever taught Greek where for how long what level I? Asked those questions in Twitter and this was your response.

You don't give an answer to these things and What you do give Seemingly demonstrates that what you're saying is

I've learned enough about Greek that I can pronounce the the words and memorize words

Okay That's not enough to analyze Poirier, which was my point from the start and Hey I'm not the one that decided to use a brand new study as the death knell of solo scripture.

That was your choice That's pretty bold thing to do to be honest with you I'm a little surprised that there weren't other people of Catholic answers that said whoa, yo, dude

Not a Catholic and you know might maybe the Magisterium might want to say something about you know, whoa

You're really gonna you're walking out on a on a pretty tiny limb there, man but maybe nobody

Caught it. I don't know Ran with it too fast. I don't compare my response to winger to whites response to me

Misspeaking and saying haplax legomenon instead of hapax legomenon not just misspeaking miss typing

Okay, like I said When it was in the tweet,

I saw a typo But then when it's in the spoken part as well

Then that means there is a fundamental misunderstanding and that has nothing to do with papacy papacy at all and so Yes, the outer sauce is a hapax legomenon

But when I realized that Trent didn't wasn't even familiar with the terminology What that tells me is we're not talking about someone who is in a position to actually

Critically analyze what poor yeas argument is Because if you don't know hapax legomenon, you probably don't read

Greek and If you don't read Greek you probably not using the TLG CD -ROM or now TLG website

You're probably not familiar with the Taurus and Gregoriki. You probably have not done semantic studies in lexicography semantic domains

Familiar with lexicons that are based upon semantic domains things like that. You're not in a position to be analyzing

What poor yeas say I'm not sure what white means when he says I can't read Greek I have studied

Attic and Koine Greek. So I certainly can read Greek that has not been transliterated into English Okay, as soon as someone as soon as someone says

I can read Greek that has not been transliterated in English That does not sound to me.

Like someone is saying I can actually live translate Greek That I have not only sufficient vocabulary knowledge to do so Because anybody can run across a hapax or something it's all used two or three times

Hebrews Peter who they can throw some Wild stuff at you. That's not the issue

Can you read the Greek text? Can you as you see it? Okay participle verb?

There's my Modifiers, you know, I understand how this preposition works in this case and you know

Can you read it? So that you can follow an argument that would be based upon syntactical categories do you

If I were to say to you which case system do you use and when looking at Ablative functions

For the genitive form what are what are you? What are the categories that you would?

Separate out from the genitive or Combine in with with with the genitive in Distinguishing with ablative or you know, do you do five case a case that this kind of stuff?

When you are dealing with syntax of participles Okay Circumstantial mode of just so much that that goes into accurately translating participants

Are you capable of doing that? Where did you learn it? How long did you study it? How long did you teach it if you if you've taught it, these are simple questions.

They are not ad hominem at all you rate you opened this door in a public debate when you presented this as a valid argument against the understanding of solo scriptura and let me let me

Well, I'll wait. I'll wait. I'll wait. I Keep jumping ahead of myself I don't have every element of Greek vocabulary memorized and hapax is not one of the 300 major words that make up the

New Testament But you can see my ability to handle Greek in this debate that I have with Richard Carrier where I quote

Galatians 119 in Greek from memory I was debating carrier on the question of whether Jesus ever existed and in that debate carrier was arguing about a particular

Detail of the Greek construction of Galatians 119 to make the case that James was not actually an apostle and brother of the

Lord Which would be weird because carrier says Jesus never existed He claims James is just a random

Christian a brother in the Lord So it hinges on the Greek words that are used here in Galatians 119 to describe

James And so here's how I engage carrier in that clip and reference the Greek construction in that verse

My response to that is the peer -reviewed article Richard is citing is just one that was written back in the 70s

It's one but the major translations do translate the passage in Greek. I believe it says heteron daytone

Apostle own UK don't so that would be but other of the

Apostles because it's in the genitive other of It's not a genitive of comparison which

Richard might try to argue. It's other than it's others of the Apostles tone Apostle on UK don't

I saw not a may except which is an exceptionary clause Jacob on tone

Adel phone to courier Oh James the brother of the Lord, and I just don't find dr Carrier's explanation plausible second prior to whites recording of his episode

I posted multiple times in response to him on social media that I used hapax legomenon

Correctly in my 2017 book the case for Catholicism I wrote I'm not sure why

I misremembered hapax as haplax, but I have used the word correctly before Here are two examples from my 2017 book the case for Catholicism I would attribute my recent mistake to a mental slip

We all have them and quote and you can see in this picture here where I use them in my book

Finally what okay? I did not see those There's all sorts of stuff that comes across Twitter that I I never see

Rich tells me about stuff fact when we started the program you were saying that there's Something Stratton is doing something on Twitter, and I look at mine, and I look at all the notifications up I see nothing zip zero nada, so I never saw it but again

That would be something that an editor would catch And okay, so you did it right in 2017 and Go ahead, and it's a simple point you don't seem

To be familiar with the language on the level that would that would be required for you to meaningfully interact with a unique thesis that overthrows

All the currently published lexicons on the Greek language Okay And what's interesting is he's gonna

Do a real bad and miss it again because like like this this part of the argument

There's no parallel between his mispronunciation of hotpox agamemnon and Mike wingers of papacy next he's gonna bring up Arabic and Again, there's no connection

And then he's going to preemptively try to deal with the reality that Rome has never offered

This definition either. I mean you really really going way down the road

I just get the real feeling you're gonna get so far down around the turn you're gonna be out there pretty much alone eventually

But anyway, so here's the next one and Here's here's how he presents it finally white's critique reveals a huge inconsistency on his part

White's claim is that if you don't have a reading proficiency in Greek if you aren't someone who has taught

Greek in college level courses like he has or Seminary level courses actually and you can't make an argument on what a particular

Greek word means or doesn't mean. Okay, it's not Ding ding ding ding not the argument.

Everybody knows it Trent. Everybody can see it by now. I don't know why you're going here What I'm saying is this is a novel unique brand -new

Theoretical perspective that it should be it's life -giving not God -breathed and to my knowledge

No one in the Roman Magisterium has said. Yep. That's what it is

And he's gonna say well, that's because Rome normally doesn't do that. Well, we'll comment on that as well but it's a novel perspective that you said is the death knell of solo scripture

And that we've simply been assuming the meaning Rather than providing a foundation for the definition of that meaning.

We've now demonstrated that all of that's false and So it's not oh, you can't make a comment about the meaning of a word

It's a novel Brand -new never before heard of theory

That does require you to have a capacity to utilize

Sources such as the TLG CD -ROM and to understand the study of semantic domains and from what you're saying right now you are demonstrating you do not possess those capacities or You would have just simply given us that information well, actually

I took this many years of Greek at such -and -such a place and I've taught it here and Here's evidence from my publications, you know,

I can King James only controversy the God who justifies forgotten Trinity.

I've got decades of published works that demonstrate capacity in the original language and especially in Greek and if you had that you could point it out, but You're not and so that pretty much demonstrates what's going on here.

And what you're about to do now Was sort of embarrassing but I'm starting to wonder rich honestly if this is just another example of where the

Transcript function is being used The website because they sure can't pull stuff up. Now.

Here's the problem White has written a book called what every Christian needs to know about the

Quran He's also debated Muslim apologists and in the course of those debates White made arguments related to the meaning of the

Quranic text and yet I'm confident James White does not have a proficiency In medieval

Arabic anywhere close to the proficiency he has in Greek He certainly can't teach the subject and he is admitted in debates of Muslims that he has had to struggle through Arabic having read the

Quran numerous times having Taken advantage of early Tafsir literature and doing my best to try to understand the

Quran in its language I've learned just enough Arabic I hobble along on my Hebrew basically to read through sections of the

Quran in Arabic and one of the things that caught me and I don't know if You've how much

Arabic you've studied and my Arabic has become a horrifically rusty unfortunately But I did have a tutor for a number of years

But here's the thing You don't have to have a reading proficiency of the Arabic in the

Quran in order to engage Islam It helps but it's not necessary and you don't need a reading proficiency of Greek to engage the biblical text catch it is it not

Absolutely astonishingly clear We're not talking about engaging the biblical text.

We're talking about evaluating a novel brand -new theory Everybody can see this

Astonishing to me that you'd be willing to go here. So this is not a parallel Let me show you what a parallel would be if I were to say to the

Muslim world If someone came up With a theory

About a particular Arabic construction in the Quran that they say

Fundamentally changes the claims of prophethood by Muhammad and it's never been heard of before It hasn't been reviewed

It goes against all the lexical sources that are currently in print if I were to present that in A debate it just came out a year earlier.

First of all, I would think that that is really inappropriate to do and I thought it was inappropriate for Trenthorne to do that and you can document

When Jay Smith did that against Shabir Ali in a debate about six seven years ago

I criticized Jay for doing that because there's no way that Shabir can Analyze the the paper in the article was just brand -new just came out or back to come think of it

I'm not even sure had been published But anyway If I did that in debate and I said here is a brand -new published work that you've never seen before that overthrows all

Arabic scholarship on this construction in the Quran Then any

Muslim would have the right to say to me do you have the capacity to meaningfully analyze

That argument to see whether it has validity or not and My Arabic would not be up to it and your

Greek is not up to analyzing Poirier case closed case closed done

You just made my point for me. Yeah, definitely just demonstrated. All I had to do was

Clarify what's actually going on and it's ouch Really really ouch ouch

Okay, wait, I'm gonna try to get done here because I need to be need to be going Even if the word should not be translated in the active sense like God breathing

White and other Protestant apologists assume that the word connotes a unique authority to scripture alone

But I've showed that this is not how the word was used in the early church. Here's now once again,

I Have I have demonstrated no you have alleged the idea that anybody

Has the capacity to not only master the early church but in light of the sparsity of Surviving material you might say.

Oh, yeah 38 vote. No, I'm talking about early church. Maybe first 300 years Anybody who reads

Eusebius Knows how many times he will quote somebody and you look at the note we don't have it anymore that's a book no longer in possession of anyone on earth and so this is the only thing we've got and So you can't check

Eusebius is context or anything like that at all and there's

Even even with people that we have a fair amount of their writings We know that from their writings.

They wrote other stuff that we don't have So I made this point yesterday

With Jeff because this came up again this constant Willingness to say the early church did this and early church did that the only honest thing you can say is

That certain individuals in the extant Literature that still exists

Said this or said that and if you're really honest if we know they wrote other stuff and you have to always go

Now that's only in this one thing There may have been He may you know, there might be a whole other book out there that would have given us a completely different understanding of it but we don't still have it and so there has to be humility and a hesitation

Not I have demonstrated that the early church did this You've demonstrated nothing of the kind and you haven't demonstrated that even if the early church did it consistently that post

Writing of the New Testament that these folks define the meaning of these words.

There are all sorts of things there are all sorts of examples of Going to Especially in the apostolic period through the apostolic fathers and into the apologists

They don't even have a completed canon They don't have a completed canon

Can you imagine what our arguments would be like on? justification we didn't have

Romans and Especially the pastoral epistles since they were written to hurt individual persons.

They don't start Circulating nearly as quickly as the rest of Pauline corpus does so, you know p46

Has the major Pauline? epistles, but not the not the pastorals in it and That impacts things that impacts how you define terms

That impacts if you're looking at this particular writer using this particular term it impacts how you are to interpret those things

Um So I'm going to make a note here

Go back to text here 1625 oops

Okay, and I will mark that out oops and We will start there

Next time because I I would love to go long but pastoral duties call

Pastoral duties call so we will I've only got Six minutes worth of stuff basically and that's just six minutes in his video

But there's there's still some important stuff in there and so we will get to it Next time around that won't be that's not enough for an entire program, but we'll we'll get to it and I didn't know if I get to it or not, but It's not unusual

All right. Thank you very very much for listening to the dividing line today Like I said Lord willing next week.

We'll be back with that and so many other things because for some reason things keep happening Thanks for watching the program.