Trent Horn to debate OT canon

[adf417]

Yet, I just saw that Horn, Michuta, and Albrecht had a post debate discussion on the debate. So, apparently, they don’t feel the debate is “over.”

I understand and the nature of Christ has continued to be discussed through the ages but it doesn’t mean the debate is still going on or that the Council of Chalcedon is any less than authoritative or final.

Some people believed and followed Jesus immediately, some took a bit longer to understand and believe, and some never believed. This does not mean the essence of Christ’s teachings were not final till some later date.

But as for me, which was what my previous post expressed, this debate is over and as it seems, others like @Dolphin have judged it differently and i have no problem with their conclusion.

Peace!!!

 

[MarkRome]

I just finished watching it. One of the weakest arguments against the Deuterocanon is the supposed errors contained within. When Trent pulled out that thick 3-inch Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy which is a work outlining the supposed errors in the Protocanon, it was a drop the mic moment.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

There are many takes from the Fathers on which Zachary Jesus spoke of.

Some say it is John the Baptist’s dad.

But Christie’s point was: shouldn’t Rome “know” who the identity of Zechariah is, rather than speculate? We know who “Abel” is because Luke identifies the starting point: “ALL of the prophets from the foundation of the earth.” The way the Jews who Jesus spoke to (specifically the Pharisees & the scribes - who were also Pharisees) & the believing Jewish readers of Matthew’s gospel knew, was because this “Abel” was martyred in the first book of the OT canon, which records “the foundation of the earth.” Therefore, for Jesus to be consistent with the last martyred prophet (“to Zechariah”) it would have to be from the last book of the OT canon. If Jesus was not talking about the canon, but the last martyred OT prophet, then that would John the Baptist HIMSELF, not his father. Christie pointed out that EWTN acknowledges that John the Baptist was the last OT prophet, not Zechariah. Plus, there is no record of his father being martyred.

The name conflation that Christie mentioned by Beckwith seems to be a much better fit than either John the Baptist’s father, and even Zechariah the son of Iddo. Christie also pointed out that after the Jews return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity, Jews did not murder God’s prophets like they did just prior to the captivity, like with Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who died in the same way recorded in Matthew Ch.23 & Luke Ch.11. And Christie also pointed out that both the New Catholic Version & the NABRE identify this “Zechariah” as the son of Jehoiada.

The name conflation explanation Christie proposed by Beckwith makes the most sense, since it was a known rabbinical practice even prior to the days of Jesus, such as Psalms Ch.34 that Christie brought up in the debate. Jesus does seem to be drawing from an already established canon which begins with Genesis (which is where we find Abel) & ending with 2 Chronicles (which ends with Zechariah), which this canonical order would have been accepted by the Pharisees who Jesus was talking too. Christie also referenced Nehemiah Ch.9 listing these boundaries. Horn’s rebuttal didn’t quite address all of this.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

But Christie’s point was: shouldn’t Rome “know” who the identity of Zechariah is, rather than speculate?

Is it bearing on the Gospel? No!

Therefore, for Jesus to be consistent with the last martyred prophet (“to Zechariah”) it would have to be from the last book of the OT canon.

Malachi is the last book of your canon so your argument flats flat on its face.

And Christie also pointed out that both the New Catholic Version & the NABRE identify this “Zechariah” as the son of Jehoiada.

Protestant commentators have that too.

The name conflation explanation Christie proposed by Beckwith makes the most sense

So the canon of the Ancient Church gets disproven cause of a hunch about which Zechariah got killed, when, and where it happened.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

One of the weakest arguments against the Deuterocanon is the supposed errors contained within. When Trent pulled out that thick 3-inch Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy which is a work outlining the supposed errors in the Protocanon, it was a drop the mic moment.

How so? Trent’s example from the Encyclopedia was Genesis Ch.1 “contradicting” Genesis Ch.2. All you have to do is read the two chapters to discover Genesis Ch.1 is explaining what happened on each of the six days of creation, while Genesis Ch.2 goes into more detail of what happened on “Day 6.” That’s not even a contradiction, but an inability to comprehend the context of the text. This is not the same thing as saying Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians who ruled in Ninevah. There is no way around explaining this blatant error, which explains why Christie pushed on Trent saying he was backpeddling by turning the book of Judith into an allegory, even though the NABRE states its a book of HISTORY. Even if you accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture, can you at least see why the comparison Trent Horn made between Genesis & Judith are not even close to be a fair comparison?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Malachi is the last book of your canon so your argument flats flat on its face.

Malachi is the last prophetic book, not the last chronological book of the Protestant canon which records Israel’s history.

RaisedCatholic:

And Christie also pointed out that both the New Catholic Version & the NABRE identify this “Zechariah” as the son of Jehoiada.

Protestant commentators have that too.

What’s your point? You just agreed that the “Zechariah” who Jesus is talking about is the son of Jehoiada. So, you are agreeing with Christie now?

So the canon of the Ancient Church gets disproven cause of a hunch about which Zechariah got killed, when, and where it happened.

I never said it was a “hunch.” Again, it was a KNOWN rabbinic practice prior to & contemporary with the time of Christ. Again, Psalm Ch.34 uses a name conflation that King David pretended insanity before King Abimelech, while the books of Samuel said he did it before King Ascisch. You see this frequently in Baraitas & Targums of the OT books. Matthew even uses it when he name conflates Jeremiah with Zechariah. Jewish writers & rabbis (including Jesus) would sometimes name conflate two people who had similar characteristics - whether good of bad - and refer to one when addressing the other. That is far from a “hunch.”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You just agreed that the “Zechariah” who Jesus is talking about is the son of Jehoiada.

No. I referenced an argument. Which has no bearing on the validity of the canon of the Ancient Church. Now, again I ask you, does which Zachary He was referring to have an impact on Christianity’s core?

Jewish writers & rabbis (including Jesus) would sometimes name conflate two people who had similar characteristics - whether good of bad - and refer to one when addressing the other.

Which says more about your position than mine.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I understand and the nature of Christ has continued to be discussed through the ages but it doesn’t mean the debate is still going on or that the Council of Chalcedon is any less than authoritative or final.

Some people believed and followed Jesus immediately, some took a bit longer to understand and believe, and some never believed. This does not mean the essence of Christ’s teachings were not final till some later date.

But as for me, which was what my previous post expressed, this debate is over and as it seems, others like @Dolphin have judged it differently and i have no problem with their conclusion.

The difference though is that the nature of Christ is inexplicable in the NT. The fact there were heretics like the Arians who rejected it explains why the orthodox Christians at Nicaea addressed his nature in the Creed explicitly defined it “according to the Scriptures.” But that has nothing to do with Catholics, Protestants, & others wanting to continue to discuss the Horn/Christie debate.

And you overlooked the fact that Horn CONTINUED TO DISCUSS the debate long after it was over. So, why was it “okay” for Horn to do so, but it’s “over” if a non-Catholic decides to continue discussing it? It understand you don’t want to. That is perfectly fine, and kudos to you. But your comment doesn’t address why you aren’t saying Trent should stop discussing it, like you are here.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

No. I referenced an argument. Which has no bearing on the validity of the canon of the Ancient Church. Now, again I ask you, does which Zachary He was referring to have an impact on Christianity’s core?

It is completely relevant - not because it affects salvation - but on whether or not Rome possesses the complete OT canon that Jesus embraced. As Christie pointed out in the debate, Jesus would not have given His “One True Church” an incomplete canon - either with too few books, nor with too many books that are not inspired. The “from Abel to Zechariah” argument is one of the strongest I’ve heard for the Protestant canon, because it addresses the fact Jesus is drawing from an already established canon the Pharisees embraced, for all the reasons listed in the previous replies - please refer there, so I don’t have to repeat everything.

RaisedCatholic:

Jewish writers & rabbis (including Jesus) would sometimes name conflate two people who had similar characteristics - whether good of bad - and refer to one when addressing the other.

Which says more about your position than mine.

I can’t change the fact that Jesus - as a Jewish rabbi - utilized a known rabbinic practice common & utilized even prior to His birth. So, it’s not “my position,” but an ancient Jewish practice known & used by Christ.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I love Trent Horn but I think he lost this one in the sense that he wasn’t able to pick apart the other argument as much as he has done in previous debates. Horn did well debating Alex O’Connor, both did amazing honestly. This one though I think Horn lost.

Just so everyone here knows, I am a big fan of Trent Horn’s. His debates against atheists, and even against James White, was epic. And he made some really good arguments during his debate Christie, but none that Christie couldn’t address & even correct some of his misconceptions (like Trent saying Protestants begin by assuming the Deuteros are not Scripture, which Christie jumped on the debunk this false assumption, and then showed that Catholic apologists like Trent are the ones who begin by assuming they are Scripture, and then dealing with the errors).

And there were several points Christie made, especially during the cross-examination, that Trent simply could not address adequately, especially the “from Abel to Zechariah” argument. Trent tried using the classic “Jesus is talking about Zechariah the son of Iddo” argument, but was not able to counter Christie presenting the name conflation argument known & used by rabbinic Jews, and even in the OT itself, like the Psalm Ch.34 argument, Christie utilized during the debate.

Overall, both were knowledgeable, professional, and respectful towards each other. But after observing how each one addressed each other’s arguments, rebuttals, and cross-examinations, Christie did a far-better job of countering than Trent did. And remember, I really like & respect Trent.

 

[MarkRome]

Even if you accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture, can you at least see why the comparison Trent Horn made between Genesis & Judith are not even close to be a fair comparison?

It was a great comparison. And it isn’t the only one. The Church doesn’t have to settle all of the apparent contradictions before she recognizes a text as inspired Scripture.

 

[Dolphin]

It is important to remember the burden of proof isn’t on Trent since he’s not arguing the affirmative. I don’t think Trent did a great job defending counters but I don’t think Christie got over the hump of the burden of proof either.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Church doesn’t have to settle all of the apparent contradictions before she recognizes a text as inspired Scripture.

Do you realize what you just said here? That Rome begins by “recognizing,” or in reality, assuming, a particular text is Scripture, and THEN addresses the errors & contradictions in it. Exactly “how” do you “recognize” something is God-breathed Scripture, without FIRST testing to see if it is indeed God-breathed or not? Christie’s opening statement & rebuttal brought this circular reasoning of Trent’s up. Christie stated that Protestants don’t “begin” by assuming a text is Scripture or not. They begin with godly criteria FIRST, such as if it has errors or contradictions with previous & later inspired Scripture, then it CAN’T be God-breathed. To do the opposite (ie: assume its Scripture and THEN address the errors) makes the whole thing non-falsifiable. So, no, Judith & Genesis are not great comparisons at all. One is easily reconcilable, while the other is not at all. How do you reconcile the false belief of a king ruling in the WRONG city & over the WRONG people, without saying a HISTORICAL book is allegory?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

It is important to remember the burden of proof isn’t on Trent since he’s not arguing the affirmative. I don’t think Trent did a great job defending counters but I don’t think Christie got over the hump of the burden of proof either.

I noticed Christie did two things in his opening statement: he began by demonstrating Rome to this day doesn’t know what the complete canon of Scripture is by potentially leaving it open, even though the Council of Trent stated the complete canon was passed down to them from Jesus & the apostles. Christie’s argument of 3 Esdras seemed to solidify this. The second half addressed the consistency of the “smaller” canon beginning with Nehemiah Ch.9 that listed from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, the NABRE saying the 3-fold division of the Foreword to Sirach begin the same as the present Hebrew Bible, and then later Christie’s “from Abel to Zechariah” argument, the use of 22 or 24 books from before the time of Christ to well-into the church age, and other arguments really helped him win the debate, even if it he didn’t present every argument that would have solidified his case. But I agree with you that between the two, Christie did a better job defending the “smaller” canon. And remember, when you defend why your canon should only include limited books, you also have to defend why other ones are not included as well.

 

[Magnanimity]

The difference though is that the nature of Christ is inexplicable in the NT.

True enough.

The fact there were heretics like the Arians who rejected it explains why the orthodox Christians at Nicaea addressed his nature in the Creed explicitly defined it “according to the Scriptures.”

Everyone, in all historic christological debates appealed to the sacred Scriptures in support of their respective positions. How would you know who is a heretic and who is orthodox outside of a God-ordained authority saying as much? Wouldn’t you have to presume that the council of Nicaea and its decrees were authoritative? But if you are not Catholic or Orthodox, how could you justifiably presume that?

Both the catholic and the orthodox communions claim apostolic succession, Which would serve the purpose of being an authoritative voice for settling disputes. If you are not in either of those communions, how would you have any idea which books might belong in either the Old Testament or the New Testament? Other than just by assuming that early councils luckily got it right on the New Testament?

It seems to me that issues of the canon dissolve into issues of authority.

 

[MarkRome]

Do you realize what you just said here? That Rom begins by “recognizing,” or in reality, assuming, a particular text is Scripture, and THEN addresses the errors & contradictions in it.

The Church doesn’t address apparent contradictions that people bring up from time to time. The Church hasn’t responded to the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.

To do the opposite (ie: assume its Scripture and THEN address the errors) makes the whole thing non-falsifiable.

Again, the Church doesn’t address supposed errors in inspired Scripture. As Horn pointed out, even among Protestants they have differing conclusions as how to explain the supposed contradictions contained in the Protocanon. Even atheists have their “gotcha” examples which will never be answered to their satisfaction. They will continue to insist that we are not open to reason or logic and have “blind faith”. I’d like to gently say not dissimilar to what you are saying to me right now.

 

[Dolphin]

Yeah, by defending a smaller canon, in theory you might also have to defend why that Canon doesn’t include the gnostic books like the Gospel of Thomas for instance. Is it that the Protestant Canon views both as inconsistent, or not adding anything knew, or unverifiable? I think it would be worth exploring this since Trent Horn was attempting to establish what qualities a book must have in order to be accepted and asked Christie what qualities he uses to accept books/defend the smaller canon.

Therefore, I wonder if the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books are viewed in the same light as the gnostic books and if so, what does that tell us about the Protestant perspective? I think this would be a very interesting question to ask.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

but on whether or not Rome possesses the complete OT canon that Jesus embraced

And by your admission, Protestant commentators identify this Zachary with the one who was slain in 2 Chronicles.

I can’t change the fact that Jesus - as a Jewish rabbi -

Used that technique? What is your proof for this?

 

[adf417]

The difference though is that the nature of Christ is inexplicable in the NT. The fact there were heretics like the Arians who rejected it explains why the orthodox Christians at Nicaea addressed his nature in the Creed explicitly defined it “according to the Scriptures.”

Tell it to those who continue to discuss and try to debate it today - with bible scriptures - and constantly win over converts from what you and i call Christianity.

But that has nothing to do with Catholics, Protestants, & others wanting to continue to discuss the Horn/Christie debate.

I dont have a problem with this. Im not sure why you think i do.

But the fact still remains the (that) debate is over.

But your comment doesn’t address why you aren’t saying Trent should stop discussing it, like you are here.

Thats because i didnt say that. Please dont put words in my mouth RC.

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Wouldn’t you have to presume that the council of Nicaea and its decrees were authoritative? But if you are not Catholic or Orthodox, how could you justifiably presume that?

Both the catholic and the orthodox communions claim apostolic succession, Which would serve the purpose of being an authoritative voice for settling disputes. If you are not in either of those communions, how would you have any idea which books might belong in either the Old Testament or the New Testament?

However, the Catholic & Orthodox disagree on not only the OT canon, but also several other important issues, like the supremacy of the papacy, the Filioque, etc.

In Christie’s opening statement, as well as either his rebuttal or during his cross-examination by Trent Horn, was that Protestants use the same (or similar) godly criteria for the Protocanon that Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and other groups under Christendom use for the NT:

1. free of errors & contradictions (just as the NT is free of them)
2. written during a time of miracle-performing prophets and not afterwards (just as the NT was written and not afterwards), or by their close contemporaries whose writing were validated by them (like Paul affirming Luke’s writings).
3. written during a specific time period before prophecy ceased (ie: before 400 BC) but not afterwards (just as the NT was written before the apostolic period ceased with the death of the last apostle John, and not afterwards).

When it comes to the Protocanon & the NT canon, Christie stated Protestants, Catholics, & Orthodox use the similar arguments to defend these groups of books, but when it comes to the Deuterocanon, suddenly non-Protestants change this criteria.