Видео

These are great examples of movies to avoid. Thank you for your comment!

Genuine question, do all Christians prior the the 16th century not have salvation?

@Co11in_Fabac According to the Bible and its numerous examples, salvation comes after a person repents of their sins and receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Then, afterward, they should get baptized as a sign to the world that they are now a disciple of Jesus.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@acsberean4092 genuine question, so what does scripture say about someone that receives Jesus in their heart, but does not get baptized as a “sign to the world”?

@@Co11in_Fabac The thief on the Cross next to Jesus was promised he would be with Him when he died because of His proclaimed belief, and he wasn't water baptized. Water Baptism is a sign and not a condition of salvation because it is the corresponding item that follows salvation and not the other way around. The Old Testament laws and sacrifices were counterparts of the reality that it is only through the faith of Jesus Christ that a person can be saved (See Galatians 2:20; Romans 3:22).

@@acsberean4092 the thief on the cross would be “baptized by desire” is what the Catholic Church teaches because there is no physical way of obtaining water for physical baptism on the cross. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church With that being said though, we see in John 3:5 where Jesus reaffirms being baptized by water and the spirit being needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven even after Nicodemus asks for clarification of physically going back into his mother’s womb, very much like Jesus clarifies without changing his original statements in John 6 about eating his flesh and blood, which is a whole other topic so sorry to divert. This to me would dispel him meaning water to mean amniotic fluid in the womb. Immediately after this declaration Jesus goes out with his disciples to baptize in John 3:22 Some of the final words of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew 28:18-20 were referring to the importance physical baptism as well. Acts 16:31-33 shows that even with a declaration of faith St Paul still immediately baptized the household. Scripture that shows how the apostles and early church followers believed about physical baptism: I Peter 3:20-21 Romans 6:3-4 Galatians 3:27 I Cor. 12:13 God Bless.

Of course, at least in his earlier years this was true.

Mitchell, Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

Mitchell, again, Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! And way before the thousands of Man made unbiblical Protestant churches began! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

@@matthewbroderick6287 >>>quote---Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock,..... unquote The title "pope" was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East, it was used only for the bishop of Alexandria. Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "pope" used of him. >>>Peter Was NOT The Rock The Church Was Built Upon - Christ Is The Rock Roman Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope but that's just a fairy tale they tell Catholics in order to deceive them and to keep them from the true gospel. There is actually nothing in the bible that supports the Roman Catholic claim of Papal authority. Roman Catholics often read too much into the bible verses they quote or they selectively quote mine from the church fathers and ignore the other things those church fathers say. Catholic apologists are aware they the bible does not teach Catholic theology and that's why they reject sola scriptura and just claim that Papal succession and Papal infallibility have just always been there. The Protestant Reformers correctly identified Christ as the Rock on which the church was built and the keys to the kingdom of heaven as the gospel and the truths about Christ. >>>> The Rock is spiritual, not human. - Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. - Eamon Duffy is a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that Matthew 16:18 alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was forming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation. - If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Ananias went to see Paul, not Peter. >>> Jesus wasn't edifying Peter, he was however exhorting him to understand that this thing is much bigger than he even knows. >>>When was the first church in Rome built? Built as early as AD 280, Santa Susana is considered the oldest church in Rome. For a Cistercian sisters' monastery established on the property in 1587 that is still there, the present church was reconstructed from 1585 to 1603. Since that was the FIRST Catholic church built on Rome, HOW COULD Peter be the first Pope of the Catholic church in Rome??? >>> And I also say to you that you are Peter [Petros], and on this Rock [Petra] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades [that is, the grave] shall not prevail against it. Why two different words? What difference does that make? “Petros” is the masculine form of the word and means a small rock, or “a piece of rock.” It is translated into the English word Peter 161 times in the New Testament. Only once is Peter translated from a different word, and it has no relationship whatsoever to the word rock. “Petra” is the feminine form and refers to a larger rock, “a mass of rock.” You may have heard of the great rock outcropping in Jordan known as Petra. In effect, Jesus was telling Peter, that he was a small rock, or a piece of rock, but He would build His Church on a massive Rock-Himself! When petros is used for a person, it is translated Peter (161 times in the N.T. as already mentioned). But petra, when referring to a person, refers only to Christ. Notice this example in Romans 9:33: As it is written: “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STUMBLING STONE AND ROCK [that is, petra] OF OFFENSE, AND WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM [that is, Christ] WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.” There is this passage, written by Peter himself, which shows that Peter knew who the real Rock was. Referring to Christ, he wrote in 1 Peter 2:7-8: Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE,” and “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK [that is, petra] OF OFFENSE.” Both Paul and Peter used the same word when referring to Christ. And, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul leaves no doubt who the Rock is that worked with Israel when they came out of Egypt. >>>>> Peter as The Rock Yahshua (Jesus) was speaking Aramaic, not Greek, as many claim. So when people argue over the “original Greek” he supposedly spoke, it is the beginning of confusion, which is why there are so many “contradictions” people see. The translations can suffer not only over many languages but many centuries, and the personal biases of individual translators, and one has to understand the intended meaning from the original language as much as possible. For example the figure of speech used here was where Yahshua was saying, you’re called Kepa (Petros in Greek, later Peter, stone; his real name was Shimon), but upon this Rock I will build my church. He was making a comparison. You’re a little stone, but upon this giant ROCK I will build my church. The prophecies of the coming one representing Yahweh-God was described as a ROCK, like a mountain. “Kepa” did not mean a giant rock nor was he the coming one or the one in prophecy. Peter did not save us from our sins. Peter did not own the church. Peter did not fulfill prophecies of the Rock. Peter was not the Messiah. Peter was a Jewish fisherman following an itinerant preacher he now realized is the Son of God and Messiah, and recognized Yahshua, not himself, as the Rock of Salvation. I know all about the idea of “apostolic succession” which is built upon this scripture and the entire structure of the catholic church rests. From this, the justification of thousands of “traditions” arose. He said you’re a little stone; I’m a giant Rock and I’m building this church upon myself. Yahshua is the head of the body of Christ, the true church. Not Peter. Peter is not the head of anything. He is just another part of the body of Christ, the church, like the rest of us. Christ is the head and he is the only intercessor between humans and God. The head intercedes for the body. The rest of the body has to submit to the control of the head, the brain and mind. That goes for the human body and the spiritual body.

@mitchellosmer1293 Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Pope simply means Father! Just as Bible means collection of books! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

Mitchell, yet, Jesus Christ spoke with the alive in God, Moses and Elijah! Father Abraham, after death, alive in God, spoke with the rich man who had died, and the martyrs who died interceded to Jesus Christ for the people on earth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

@@matthewbroderick6287 >>>quote--martyrs who died interceded to Jesus Christ for the people on earth-.... unquote That is an opinion!! Now for FACTS: >>---Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun. ---Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise? ---Psalm 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. ---- Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. ---Ecclesiastes 9:6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun. ---Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” ----James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. ---Job 14:10-12 But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep. --****John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. ---Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment. (Judgement on Judgement day) ---Acts 7:60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep (died ---Revelation 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. -----Job 14:12 So a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep. According to Catholics, God and the Gospels are liars !!!! >>>>quote ---- He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! ... unquote The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12,13). (Symbols--NOT literal). The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30). The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18). The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3). ------*******Communion Let me ask you some questions--while eating the body of Christ--have you ever asked yourself :what part of His body am I eating? His ears? Toes? Butt? Butt hole? Finger?--And -when does Christ replace His body that has been eaten? Before communion or after? Does His body taste like human flesh--or bread? Drinking His blood--Does it have a metalic taste like human blood? Same consistency as blood? Has it been oxygenated? Is it blood before the heart or after the heart? Does the blood smell like blood--or wine? When does Jesus replace it ? Before communion or after? There is average 6 pints of blood in a body.What does Christ do when it has ALL been drank up in one communion?---Is His blood ever flowing? -From what part of His body? IF It looks like bread. Smells like bread, taste like bread--then it MUST be bread!!!--If it looks like wine, smells like wine, taste like wine--then it MUST be wine. >>>>****One "eats" God's Word by believing it and meditating upon it: Isaiah 51:16 "I (the Lord) have put my words in your mouth ...". Ezekiel 3:1 "... eat this scroll and go and speak to the House of Israel". Jeremiah 15:16 "Your words were found and I did eat them ..." Revelation 10:10 " I (John) took the little book out of the angel's hand and ate it". >>>> www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you-must-eat-my-flesh -What Jesus Meant When He Said, “You Must Eat My Flesh" The day before, Jesus had fed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fish. Then that night he walked miles across the Sea of Galilee before catching up with his disciples in their boat. The crowd had seen him send his disciples away in the only boat available. So the next day, when they found him in Capernaum, they knew he could have only got there miraculously. They wanted him to be their king. Then he went and ruined everything. To his adoring fans Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.*** Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” (John 6:26-27) More Than Bread But wanting the blessings Jesus provides is not the same thing as believing in him. Indeed, Jesus had come to give them bread from heaven. But not that kind of bread. ****So, to test them, he began to make statements that sounded very strange. He told them that he was the true bread from heaven that gives life to the world, and whoever eats this bread would live forever. “Jesus had come to give them bread from heaven. But not the kind of bread they were looking for.” ***Then he said, “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). This sounded like cannibalism. His listeners balked. He pressed it even further: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:53-55) The “Jesus for King” campaign evaporated. The people walked away, shaking their heads. The crazy man wants us to eat his flesh! They completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying. So what did he mean? Here are the clues: How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (John 6:27, 29) “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35) “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47) Eating Is Believing ****For Jesus, eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what? Believe that his death - the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood - pays in full the penalty for our sin, and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness. “Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper because he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.” Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe. ****When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (John 6:63-64). WHy did they walk a way??? Let’s you and I be like Peter. He didn’t walk away, but instead said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69).

@mitchellosmer1293 again, Jesus Christ spoke with the "dead to you ", but alive in God, Moses and Elijah, and Father Abraham, "dead to you", but alive in God, rich man after he died, and the deceased martyrs, "dead to you", but alive in God, interceded to Jesus on behalf of the people on earth! Plus, Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants like yourself say to Jesus, "no it isn't!". You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

If you are SDA. Please show me where in the bible it says to worship on the sabbath?? Chapter and verse please m

All fair points to bring up, but any reasonable person reading scripture knows that there are issues/things that Jesus did not explicitly define in scripture. For example, in Acts 15 as the Apostles are debating about in whether Gentiles need to be circumcised to be in the body of believers. Jesus didn’t specify that very important question. The apostles derived from his teachings and gathered what they believed and made that the authoritative decision that they did not have to be circumcised anymore that baptism was enough. Another one that might be even better that Jesus doesn’t explicitly explain is the Holy Trinity, which most all Christian denominations confess. It is because of councils and humans with inherent authority and through the power of the Holy Spirit, we come to believe in three persons in one God. Is it not reasonable that if there are some things that we all, for the most part believe that did not come from Jesus’ words in scripture, then there could be other things as well? God Bless.

@@Co11in_Fabac all you have to offer are worthless OPINIONS!! QUOTE the BIBLE!!!

@@mitchellosmer1293 I literally brought up an example from Acts chapter 15…anyway God Bless You

@@Co11in_Fabac There was no 'debate' amongst the Apostles that is alluded to or directly mentioned in Acts 15. It says that "some men/certain men" (Judaizers) came down from Judea and had the gall to teach the Apostles. NOwhere does it say they were Apostles or even disciples of John or Jesus. Paul and Barnabas actively opposed their attempt at teaching a doctrine of works because it was a direct evil attempt to subvert the Gospel that is sufficient for salvation by grace through the faith of Jesus without works, which they were preaching, and could cause dramatic confusion in the entire Body of Christ. The Bible reveals the tri-unity of God hundreds of times. The word 'Trinity' wasn't used until it first showed up in a letter written by Tertullian to Praxeus in the second Century. The tri-unity of God had to be clearly defined because of false teaching/heresy creeping into the church, and the term stuck. It didn't take very long afterward for the Heresies of Modalism and Tritheism to creep into the various human attempts to explain the Trinity of God being three persons but One, which is beyond all human comprehension and understanding.

@@mitchellosmer1293wow you’re rude. Christ definitely never said to call peoples opinions worthless. You want a Bible quotation how’s this: “Blessed art thou, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you that you are Petros (meaning rock), and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.” Throughout scripture, Peter has a clear primacy, and is the only person that Christ ever includes with himself in the word ‘we’. The only time Christ uses the inclusive we, it is when he is speaking of himself and Peter. Why is Peter always listed first among the apostles, and Judas last? Why can the catch of fish only be brought in by Peter at the end of the gospel? Why is much more demanded of Peter than the other apostles? Why do the biblical others say “Peter and the Apostles” as if Peter were not an Apostle?

How's life in the cave?

Amen!

Clarification about Saints: We do believe that all of the faithful are saints, just the same as you do. I think we are getting tripped up by the distinction of Canonized Saints vs the community of the living saints. Canonized saints are simply those people whom we are relatively certain, through the evidence gathered, that are actually in Heaven with Christ interceding (praying) for us. We would never call a living person a canonized Saint due to this difference. So we are pretty much in agreement. The difference between us would be regarding whether it not the dead in Christ are praying for us or conscious at all.

Regarding prayers to saints vs Jesus: One peice of evidence you left out is that prayers to the saints have resulted in miracles. That’s pretty strong evidence in my opinion. Secondly, we don’t often speak of this, but our condition affects our prayer life, and thus Jesus might not be inclined to answer our prayers at times due to our current habits or sins. Catholics don’t presume to be always in a perfect state of Grace, and thus request help from the Saints to bolster our requests. It might seem silly, but the church for the longest time has held these views. That also bears some weight. The question is not “why should I hold this view”, but rather, “why am I right to reject thousands of years of church tradition”? I really liked what you said about the prayers to everyone else might get in the way of your relationship with Jesus. That’s a very reasonable concern. Maybe you are not aware, but Catholics are under no obligation to pray to Mary or the Saints. You can be Catholic and not participate in those practices.

Regarding confession: We do not “pay for our sins” via penance. I was surprised to hear you say that considering how accurate your statements have generally been thus far. The sinner is immediately forgiven upon confessing to a priest. Then they are assigned a penance in relation to their sin. Failure to do the penance would invalidate the sacrament due to a lack of a real repentance, not because they didn’t pay, but rather that they confessed in bad faith. Hopefully that makes sense. Further more, we also regularly apologize and repent for minor sins daily, in our hearts. However, the only way to be certain those sins have been forgiven (even one’s you forgot about which you are still culpable for) is to go to a priest, especially if you committed a mortal (deadly) sin. A Good question to ask is this: Am I certain that I have authority to forgive sins against God? What is my biblical evidence that me, separated from the original church, have any authority to act in such a manner? It’s not something I often hear evangelicals talk about.