Видео

@@CatholicReCon Thank ya!

Thank ya! 🙂

I appreciate the feedback! God bless!

Glad you liked the talk! God bless you too!

Much appreciated! God bless!

Thank you! Much appreciated!

God bless you!

I'll let God be the judge of that.😉

@@thereconvertedcatholic529 that is great, I hope he responds very doin

Happy to hear the positive feedback about the videos! And also good to hear that you are familiar with Gary's work. As a matter of fact, I just so happen to work with an awesome, resourceful, very engaging team of apologists on the Discord server, "Crossing the Tiber". I believe they have around 200+ subscribers now; the channels on CTB are generally pretty active. I am not quite as active as the other apologists there, but I love helping when I can. I definitely recommend checking it out!

Awesome! God bless you on your journey!

Thank ya, man! 🙂

And right back at ya!

Thank you! Much appreciated!

Exactly! Excellent point!

Hi! Although there are various approaches to discussing the Eucharist with Protestants, it is first important to get to the root of *why* exactly they reject the Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Let's say you are talking with a Protestant friend -- let's call him Steve -- and you have walked him through the entire history of the Eucharist, beginning with all references to it in Scripture, followed by a century-by-century walkthrough of Church documents (the Church Fathers' works, Council Documents, etc.) that all uphold the teachings in Scripture. Yet Steve still rejects the belief. That means Steve either insists on living in a state of cognitive dissonance, or we need to ask more questions to find what's really irking Steve about the whole idea. Here are some example questions for him: 1.) What troubles you the most about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ? 2.) Why exactly do you think the Eucharist is *not* the Body and Blood of Christ? 3.) Where in Scripture does it say that the Eucharist is only symbolic or is not necessary to the Liturgy? 4.) Why can we not trust the teachings that the Apostles gained from Jesus, and then successively handed down these same teachings to their followers, and so on? 4.) If we both believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and this has been consistently taught for 2000 years now, why can't other teachings be just as consistent? 5.) Is it ok to cherry pick the Gospel message, or should we follow it exactly as taught? If the latter, then shouldn't we follow the precise instructions that Jesus gave us to do in His name / on His behalf / based on His authority? 6.) What reason would you need to believe in the Eucharist? 7.) When reading the Gospels, how do you determine when Jesus is teaching something symbolic versus something literal? 8.) What is the definition of a sacrament? What does the idea mean to you? 9.) Although this question sounds a bit like Paschal's Wager, what do you have to lose by believing that Jesus is present in the Eucharist? Do you think it will hurt your salvation? Above all, the conversation must be 100% sincere -- that the both of you walk side by side to discover the fullness of truth. If it's just a game of cat and mouse, then you can rest easy that the conversation is not worth your time. Only engage with people who truly want to get to the truth. Hope these tips helped. Feel free to reach out again with any questions -- and definitely keep me posted with any progress you make. God bless!

Indeed!

Joyce -- First, when I said "first Apostles," I meant the 12 Apostles. However, as 2000 years of Church tradition and history show -- and which draw directly from Scripture -- we can draw a clear line of succession / apostolic authority from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers and all the way to modern day. Now, some questions for you: 1.) Why would you expect Paul to say in his letters, "Hey, look It's Peter, the head of Church!" Does Peter, John, or James preamble every letter or interaction with other Apostles as explaining their exact authority? 2.) What exact evidence do you have to show that Tradition is not of God? And to add, how exactly did we receive a complete, canonized Bible? Did it just appear out of thin air from God? Or did, say, Tradition give us Scripture? And if not, then please tell me exactly what happened. 3.) Please explain how Peter was not commissioned to build Jesus' church? Please provide Scripture reference and historical documents that prove your claims. I care about details, so please be precise in your answers. Thanks!

"Medic4Christ" If you have read the other comments here, also by others attacking the Catholic positions on faith related matters, you may see a pattern, including a comment you made near the end of your own response: Firing off strawman claims about Catholic belief or approaches only convolutes this conversation already more than it necessarily has to be. See, comments such as "The problem, is that Catholics..." do not serve any real purpose, other than to make claims without good arguments to back them up. Furthermore, I have noticed that the Protestants who insist on giving me a litany of their problems with Catholicism -- just look at the comments below -- are often jumping around from one subject to another, or flooding me with a barrage of Scripture laced with problematic commentary, and without concentrating on one or two passages at a time to discuss full context. Sure, a whole army of Protestants can bombard me with claims about Catholic belief, but that gets us no closer to the truth. In your case, you have given me two passages to back up your argument, so thank you for narrowing the focus some for now. Let's address a few of your points: 1.) How do you *know* that Catholics keep debating people who don't know their Bible? Where is your evidence -- including longitudinal studies -- to support this? Or if you are exaggerating your claim / using hyperbole, then keep in mind that you are mixing exaggerations with trying to make valid points. This combo often makes for having to clarify numerous points, rather than keeping the conversation just to the facts. I primarily prefer the latter. 2.) The reason that many Catholics often ask "Where is 'faith alone' in Scripture?" is that there is only one passage in which the exact phrase, "faith alone" is used -- and it is not the same context: James 2:24. Try a thought experiment here for a moment: If you are so "sure" that the meaning of "faith alone" is so fundamentally and abundantly clear in Scripture, then you shouldn't have an issue with Catholics questioning your reasoning. In other words, if you are entitled to question my reasoning, I can do the same in return. 3.) Let's clear up one issue that keeps getting perpetuated, yet is patently false. The Catholic Church does *not* teach that, by works only, we can earn brownie points on our way to heaven. And by "works," Catholics do NOT mean works of the law. We also do not mean corrupt works of the flesh, which are "works" too (Galatians 5:19-21). Instead we embrace the "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:22-23). Nor does the Church teach that our justification is not through God's grace. Catholic belief is that we are *saved by God's grace*. I will state that again: Catholic belief is that we are *saved by God's grace*. Maybe I need to put this on a marquee that flies across the sky around the world to make this point: The Church very much teaches that we must receive God's grace to be saved. That salvation being through Christ's death and resurrection. 4.) Regarding Romans 4:1 and 11:5, some questions for you: *While Abraham was indeed righteous because of his faith, what did Abraham have to do to *cooperate* with this righteousness? Think about Genesis 21-23 (the *entire context*). *Now, If, say, works as moral obedience to God's will are also not necessary, then why does Paul also say in Romans 2:6-7 "For he will render to ever man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek glory for and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life"? *When looking at the full *context* of Romans, Isn't Paul referring to the initial process of salvation -- that is, it cannot be granted through works? Where are the passages in Scripture that fully do away with moral obedience / works according to God's will? *Also, would you agree, as I alluded to above, that there are different "forms" of works? Like you, Catholics do not view works of the "law" (under the Mosaic covenant) as necessary to salvation or being brought into the Christian faith. That leaves works of the flesh, which I already covered above, and works according to moral obedience. In short, Catholicism believes that we are to *cooperate* with God's grace. God offers grace to us -- He saves us through Christ's death and resurrection -- but we must comply with that grace. Or if you are in the camp of "once saved, always saved," then we will need to have a different conversation just focused on that. *When we factor James 2:14-26, does this mean Paul superseded James in all matters of sharing the Gospel and explaining faith versus works? Also, where in this entire passage does James refer to works as "works of the law"? See the problem with making a quantum leap to "justification by faith is the be-all, end-all, la-la-la, plugging my ears now, please cut out the word 'works' and just accept 'faith alone'" type objections to Catholic Christian belief? Sadly, what I have observed so far are many Protestants operating under numerous presumptions, rather than flat out asking me -- a Catholic -- what exactly do I believe. Instead, a whole lot of people keep telling me what I believe. I cannot presume to know exactly what you believe, hence why I am asking questions here. Which brings me to one of your opening comments, succinctly yet accurately stated: "It is either law or grace." That's right. And I as a Catholic also believe in grace.

Keith Nester! Doing great here, my friend -- and now *married* (04/22/23). 🙂 We should catch up again sometime soon! -Chris

Ok, we have a mess of false claims here against what Catholics believe. Therefore, let's start with some questions: 1.) Just so I understand correctly, I am to ignore what *Jesus* says in Matthew 28:18-20, and in Luke 3:4-5, 22, and in Mark 16:15-16 -- while also ignoring Acts 2:37-39, 1 Corinthians 6:11, and Romans 6:24 -- and instead focus purely on Ephesians 1:13? 2.) How do you *know* that Catholics follow the "gospel of Peter", and not of Paul? In other words, I as a Catholic believe that my salvation is justified through God's grace -- yet that is now wrong? 3.) Where exactly in Scripture does it say that Paul's authority or input on all faith matters superseded Peter's authority? 4.) Because you quoted Galatians 2:7, 9 -- and let's extend this through Galatians 2:14, where in these passages does it say that Peter had proclaimed his initial view as doctrine? Doesn't Paul conclude that Peter had misbehaved? Where exactly does it say in Scripture that the Apostles were not allowed to make mistakes? 5.) Doesn't Paul's rebuke of Peter actually signal recognizing Peter's authority, and hence why Paul was surprised about Peter's actions? 6.) Or how about Paul going against his own preaching and having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3)? 7.) How do you *know* that "Catholics do not understand, and therefore do not participate, in this new Body which is being created in Jesus Christ?" Are you familiar with the logical fallacy called a "strawman?" Let's start with the above and go from there. Thanks! -Chris

@@thereconvertedcatholic529 I am happy to answer your questions 1.) You listed some verses, but I don't necessarily see the connection between them. Jesus telling the disciples to go and baptize the nations as part of their commission is part of Israel's national destiny to become a nation of priests. Priests had to be washed in water (Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 8:6), and Israel was to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6, 1 Peter 2:9). Jesus told the disciples the order in which they were to go and baptize the nation of Israel in Acts 1:8 "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” They were told they would not finish going through the towns of Israel, until the 2nd coming (Matthew 10:23). However, Israel rejected the ministry of the 12 and their commission to baptize the nation, and so that program was put on hold, until the future Israel will see 144,000 in the book of Revelation sealed, who will minister to the nation of Israel and begin to baptize them again. This has nothing to do with us today and is not the commission Paul was given, since Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17). 2.) As for how I know that Catholics follow the "gospel of Peter", and not of Paul, it is because of their emphasis on water baptism, works of righteousness, and selecting Peter, rather than Paul, as their first "pope" and leader of their church. The doctrine of the Catholic church is not based on what Paul taught. 3.) Paul's authority did not supersede Peter's, rather they had separate and distinct ministries to distinct peoples (Galatians 2:9). Peter was not the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was, and so Paul is the one who the delivered the message for Gentiles to follow during Israel's fall. 4.) I never said the Apostles were not allowed to make mistakes, clearly they did in the book of Acts when Paul had to correct Peter, but whenever they wrote doctrine, we are to view their words as the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 14:37). 5.) Paul rebukes Peter because Peter did not follow his agreement in Galatians to not proselytize the Gentiles to become Jews and obey Jewish customs. Paul is not challenging Peter's authority as an apostle to the circumcision, but he is telling him to stay in his lane and keep his distinct ministry separated. 6.) The reason for this may have been related to the fact that Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:1), and thus was considered a Jew under Jewish law. In order to avoid unnecessary conflict with the Jewish people they were evangelizing, Paul may have felt it was best for Timothy to be circumcised. It's important to note that while Paul believed that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, he did not prohibit it for cultural or practical reasons. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, Paul wrote that he became "all things to all people" in order to win some to Christ, and that he was willing to adapt to different cultures and customs in order to reach people with the gospel. 7.) As for how do I know Catholics do not participate in the Body of Christ, while I do believe many within the Catholic church are saved individuals who have trusted in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ alone for their salvation, that is not the doctrine of salvation that is taught in the catholic church proper. We are told to fellowship in the mystery (Ephesians 3:9), but we can only do that if we are ourselves believe the mystery revealed to Paul, which Catholicism proper does not. So anyone who is saved within the Catholic church, is saved in spite of, rather than because of, the church they attend, and contrary to what the Catholic church teaches about salvation.

​@@VFXShawn I am going to address your comments in the same order -- but first, a general comment about our conversation so far: While I see that you are diligently putting in the time and effort to respond, including drawing from multiple passage in Scripture to make your points, here are some tips (if you don't mind) for when you are evangelizing (you will almost always be better off in the long run): *Gain a strong understanding of a person's position first, before firing away with a barrage of Bible passages to back up your claims. Keep in mind that my video here was an introduction to an early Christian debate -- yet you went full onslaught about salvation and where Catholics are wrong, etc. Not the best approach to seeing whether you can move my views toward your direction. *Do not make strawman claims or even assumptions about *anyone's* salvation, as these are all a matter of opinion. Neither of us is God: His grace and mercy will always trump opinions. As I imagine you well know, Scripture is not a matter of opinion; it has already been well interpreted. I, as a Catholic Christian, can show a 2000 year continuity in interpretation. You, as someone who is following a Reformation understanding of Christian theology, and therefore reject Catholic Christian belief, must then show why my position is flat-out wrong. *To refute my position means showing -- in smaller, yet still thorough, blocks -- why my position is wrong. Hitting me with a sort of filibuster type commentary doesn't mean you are correct in your understanding. It just means that you have apparently invested a lot of time seeking out Scripture passages to support Reformation based beliefs. Now, my response here may sound like my own filibuster -- but the point here is, going forward, let's break this down into smaller blocks (as much as possible). For example, when I respond to your points now, I will start with answering points #1 and #2, and we can continue from there. Sound good? Now, on to my answers: 1.) Where exactly in Scripture does Paul say that baptism is not essential to the gospel overall? Also, if you are by chance referring to 1 Cor. 1:11-17, wasn't this because Paul had issues with the *administration* of baptism, as the Corinthians were choosing religious affiliations according to the minister who baptized had baptized them? Where does it say in these passages that Paul *completely* did away with baptism by water? Furthermore, how do we conclude that Paul's view on baptism completely supersedes Christ's instruction in the Gospels? Paul supplanted Christ? Yes, Paul received revelation; however, that revelation did not explicitly include doing away with baptism altogether, nor that it is not a necessary component of salvation. Wasn't Paul himself baptized, according to Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16? Or how about the passage in Titus 3:5-7? I understand that much of your position involves separating Paul's purpose from Peter's -- however, that position right there clearly has a lot of holes in it. Regarding the connection between the passages I sent you, they collectively confirm that baptism by water is still necessary part of receiving God's grace and entering into the Christian faith as one who dies to your sinful self and receives salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus commands us to do so. For example, In Matthew 28:18-20, when Jesus says "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," He means water baptism. The sacrament does not have other meanings -- It means just that: baptism by water. Then, in John 3:4-5, 22, Jesus says, "...unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Jesus is referring to baptism by water -- not only in our English translations, but including going back to the original Greek., along with its connection to several other passages in Scripture. Also, contrary to some of the Protestant scholar push back on what this passage means, the passage is actually pretty straightforward (in the Scriptural sense). Also, here is an article that thoroughly breaks this down: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/born-again-the-bible-way 2.) Your comment about Paul versus Peter ties into our discussion about baptism, so let's combine this with point #1. Namely, when we look at Acts 2:37-39, Peter gives a clear directive to "repent and be *baptized*, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins." Peter *does* have authority to give this order because, in Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus gives Peter direct authority to build and oversee Jesus's church. This not only directly relates to Isaiah 22, but it also establishes that, unless there is a explicit passage in Scripture that Peter's authority was fully superseded, then arguing against Peter's authority becomes more about speculation or doubling down on Reformation based positions. Many of these positions, unfortunately, are mostly rooted in personal interpretation, or from erroneously putting Peter in a box that "He was basically a Judaizer", or from not having an authoritative way to reconcile differences in interpretation. In other words, I have a 2000 year-old, continuous, consistent authority on how to interpret Scripture, the Apostle's roles in sharing the Gospel, etc. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show that the Catholic Church's positions, for the past 2000 years of Christianity, are all now suddenly null and void. So far, your comments have essentially boiled down to false conclusions such as "The doctrine of the Catholic church is not based on what Paul taught.." The Catholic Church absolutely embraces Paul's understanding of salvation through God's grace. Where you and I may differ is that I believe -- and with a whole lot of Scripture to support this claim -- that we must cooperate with the grace God has given us. In addition, of course, baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled a final *covenant*. This means that we are still in a *covenant* relationship with God. The key difference, if you will, is that our eternal salvation has been offered to us through Christ's death and resurrection. However, we are still in a *covenant* -- in a *family relationship* with God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Covenant is a binding oath -- both ways. Still, some people may not choose to have a relationship with God. But if they do choose to do so, then they are binding their salvation to God: they promise to be *morally obedient* to God's will. That's what it really boils down to for Catholic Christians: We receive salvation through *God's grace* -- but we must live a life that reflects that grace. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:12-13: "So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work." Meaning that our salvation is a life-long process: Through our salvation, we must be a reflection of God's goodness -- that is, our faith-filled desire to be morally perfect in word, thought, and deed. Yes, Jesus paid the ultimate price for our salvation -- yet we must *want* it in return. Which also means being a visible sign of God's grace. It is not solely about just doing "good deeds," or building up good works to gain salvation. This is one of the many reasons why the "Catholicism is just a works-based faith" is painfully inaccurate. I will stop here -- I know I have included a whole lot of food for thought. And if you agree, let's see if we can get through these first two topics before hitting points #5 through #7. Thanks! -Chris

​@@thereconvertedcatholic529 Hey Chris, thank you for taking the time to respond, I apologize if this wasn't the most appropriate place to engage in this conversation, however since you have taken the time to respond, I will return the favor. I certainly do not wish to strawman your position. It boils down to essentially two questions, as you pointed out, did Paul make explicit that water baptism was part of a separate ministry, and how do we understand the relationship between Christ's commandment to the 12 to baptize the nations in relation to Paul's ministry. I will try to be concise. We are first introduced to baptism in the New Testament by John the baptist. John gives his mission statement in John 1:31 “And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.” So the purpose of water baptism was primarily for the purpose of manifesting the fact that Jesus was the Messiah to Israel. According to Israel’s prophecies a messenger would come to prepare the way of the Messiah (Mal 3:1). Thus John preached, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord” (Mark 1:3). All in Israel that were water baptized were making themselves ready for the coming Christ (Luke 1:17), identifying themselves with the greater one John bare witness of. This is why the chief priests in Israel would not acknowledge John’s baptism was from God. If they did, they would be admitting that Jesus was the Christ. When Peter preached to Israel at Pentecost, he also preached John’s water baptism, only now he preached it in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). If Israel was not water baptized by Peter, they were rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. There is also a connection to the Exodus, as Israel passed through the water of the Red Sea to enter the promised land, so too Israel must enter the Kingdom through the water of baptism. So far we can see the Israel-oriented nature of water baptism, as it both manifested Jesus as the Messiah to Israel, as well as gave oppertunity to Israelites to make a public declaration of their faith and identify themselves in the new Exodus. Under the Mosaic Law, cleansing of the people by water was required [Numbers 19:13; Leviticus 11:25; Exodus 19:14; Exodus 30:17-21; Hebrews 9:10]. Water baptism is necessary to prepare believing Jews to become a “kingdom of priests.” Each Jew must wash with water like the Old Testament priests washed with water before entering their ministry. The Jews must be water baptized, or they cannot be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9) thus, water baptism is necessary for those in Israel’s program to enter the earthly Kingdom. The imagery of being baptized in water fits perfectly with Israel's national history and national destiny. The problem is, we learn through Paul that Israel fell (Romans 11:11), and they did not receive their earthly Kingdom (yet), and are not currently a nation of priests. They will be in the future however, this is why believing Jews are called “priests” in Revelation 1:6 and Revelation 5:10. So with these things in mind the question now is, how does this Israel-oriented ministry and water baptism relate to Paul and the Gentiles. At the stoning of Stephen, we are introduced to Paul, the leader of Israel's rebellion against their Messiah. The narrative of the book of Acts then shifts from Peter, to Paul, and from Israel, to the Gentiles. While it is true Paul was baptized himself after his road to Damascas experience, and that he baptized a few individuals, Paul on reflecting on these events says in 1 Corinthians 1:14 "I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius (synagogue leaders), so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." You correctly pointed out that Paul modifies his statement to show his concern for not being baptized "in the name of Paul", but that can also be understood to mean Paul did not want anyone thinking baptism was something Paul commanded. If you do something "in the name" of someone, that is to say, by their authority or by their command. There are many Old Testament examples of doing something "in the name of the Lord", which is to say, by his authority and command. An example would be in Deuteronomy 18:5, God tells the Israelites: "For the Lord your God has chosen [the Levites] out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord." If Paul baptized people in water in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father/Son/Spirit, how could they possibly think they were baptized "in the name of Paul"? And if Christ sent the 12 to baptize (Matthew 28), how could Paul thank God he did not baptize, and say he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel? This statement should at very least open our minds to the possibility that Paul had a different view of the importance of water baptism, and we should look elsewhere in Paul's letters learn what Paul thought. Paul wrote, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism” for us today (Ephesians 4:5). Rather than speculating as to what that one baptism is, we can simply search Paul’s epistles for the answer. Our one baptism is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” The question that remains then, do we receive the baptism of the spirit by water baptism? The answer must be no, since that is two baptisms, and because Paul makes a distinction between the baptism of John and the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 19. I don't see how then anyone can take the view that water baptism is part of Paul's message or instruction. It is clearly something that was designed as part of Israel's kingdom program, but not the current dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3:2).

@@VFXShawn rightly dividing the truth is essential to understanding Gods plans for his two witnesses Israel and the body of Christ ,in the body of christ there's 1 faith 1 baptism , 1 lord, and the baptism is when the HOLY SPIRIT baptizes us into the body , nothing to do with water, 1 (spirit baptism) 1 faith 1 lord! Cornelis's whole house was saved acts 10ish received the holy spirit without water, by faith, this was peters first time even knowing a gentile could be saved, these Canabal Catholics will never understand right division, justification or imputed righteousness, they just redefine what already defined words mean , they argue what works means and not even address ''not of our selves'' that's pretty clear, not of works not of law NOT OF OURSELVES,, but not to them, keep the faith brother never compromise Paul's evangel! to these lunatic cannibal Catholics!!

Yes -- including being morally obedient to the salvation / grace you receive from your baptism 😉

@@thereconvertedcatholic529 , good works , bad works , cooperate or don't.

8 For by grace ye are saved through faith, AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God, 9 NOT of works lest any man should boast. - Ephesians 2:8,9 NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. - Titus 3:5 There's ONlY two forms of righteousness: Law and grace. There is no third one. Good works, good deeds, works of righteousness, etc... is ALL of the law and thus has no mixture with grace. Law righteousness CANNOT and DOES NOT save. Only the righteousness of GoD by faith - Philippians 3:9

@@danielrutigliano7938 , those who have faith do good works 😘

@Matthew 16:18 those who have faith in Christ's finished, redemptive work have been saved UNTO good works (Ephesians 2:10) . Not saved BECAUSE of good works. And by the way...your good works are filthy rags if you're not even saved. And even if you're saved and doing good works to put God in your debt, they're still filthy rags. God is pleased with His Son....not your so called good works.

Watch the video again: you missed the reasoning by a mile. Awesome..Thanks!

@@thereconvertedcatholic529 You lost me at timestamp 3:55 when you stated, "How we Christians define God..." You can define this God of the bible any way you want, and then pretend it's real. Well, I happen to care if what I believe in is actually true.

​@@thereconvertedcatholic529 Also, at timestamp 5:30, you proclaim that goodness is an objective idea. That is just a baseless assertion that you have no way of demonstrating.

Wow -- yes, you certainly can relate to Megan's story! And God bless you for finding your way back to His grace and our Church!

Yes -- the some of the parallels speak volumes about "finding your truth" versus finding *The Truth*. Glad you enjoyed the video! 🙂

Luke: Please provide the scholarly source for your claim about the Council of Nicaea. Or I am happy to provide you several sources that explain exactly what happened. *Spoiler alert: It wasn't about 800 "dudes" creating truths out of thin air, nor based on ultra creative spins on Scripture and Christian theology overall. It was primarily about working through whether Jesus was the eternally begotten Son of God, or if He was begotten at creation. In this case, the Church had to correct the Arian understanding of what Scripture, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers actually taught -- as the Arian position was clearly flawed. This also prompted the need to align under a common Creed. This is not say that splinter movements did not rise up and attempt to create their own theological spin. However, there is a key difference between the Church that consistently upheld how they were originally taught the Gospel -- tracing back to the Apostles -- and movements that attempted to reinterpret Scripture, the Apostles, and about 300 years of continuity in Church teaching. That IS an important distinction: The early Catholic Church focused on developing the theology it already had. It wasn't trying to rebrand Jesus.

@@thereconvertedcatholic529 Hi sorry forot to mention am a believer myself. the fact remains that most of what we know as biblical truth comes from that and that is also what ironically pushes a lot of people away because as you even mention about the importance of manuscripts leads into a logical fallacy of if only important ie true manuscripts had some type of validity to them worthy of copying or protecting why are there manuscripts written before that by people who were first witness to the tomb empty such as the gals (you know the one:)) ... but there gospels were not even included but is where the "good" news comes from aside from the visions in flesh by paul and others which i am not doubting but remains the first actual witness of the empty tomb and to deliver the good news account was not included(you know mary and the gals) so whether you or i like or it not that logical fallacy along with when the council of nicea brought into canon what we mostly call biblical fact versus fiction pushes 9/10 out of most of the people we would like to share jesus word with ironically. all the woman in my life are deeply religious but could never come to being a catholic or Christian because the church has never rectified this fact in the bible itself in any version. Like I said i myself am a believer but have also found that to also be the simplest answer because you are right most of the new age foo foo nonsense is pretty silly,butttt just speaking for the laymen as well when I ask them similar things. so the fact remains that because the council of nicea even happened throws out essentially most of the validity of anything we say or is written to most people sadly..... at least that are constantly on that cusp of do I belive do I not? it makes most people feel(especially women at least that I have talked too) feel to put off that the water is too murky so to speak to soft through then what is and isn't fact versus added later and so on. I know this was a long response but like your video and felt it was also worth to give the "gist' of the opinions of the new age people who are pretty much waiting on that second coming when Big J comes down with that cool Micheal guy with the spear and scales. Hope you have a good day sir

Glad this resonated with you! I appreciate it!

I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate the insight. However, here are a couple of things to keep in mind: 1.) The Trinity isn't actually as abstract as is often claimed. Rather, the first challenges Christians had with working through the Trinity were about understanding the exact relationship among God in three persons, yet of one substance. Sure, that can sound outwardly abstract, but for early Christians, it was more about understanding the specifics. And based on the Church Fathers' and ecclesiastical writers' documents, the conversations were quite precise and based on making clear connections between the Gospel message and what had been written in Scripture. Gnosticism took a much more arrogant route, claiming they had an exclusive 'truth' that they grandstanded as being intellectually superior and right in line with the original Gospel and what was revealed to the apostles. Except that none of that is correct. And as it is clear that Gnostics were mostly fringe thinkers with a cherry picking approach to developing their theology, this doesn't align at all with the approach the Catholic Church took. Rather, the Church laid out what the Gospel that was already being preached, and which corroborates the documents authored against the heresies. 2.) Sure, abstract ideas in general can be prone to word salad. However, the Gnostics chose to create a new narrative that had little to no roots in the Gospel message that the Apostles carried out. It's one thing to be word salad; it's another thing to be word salad AND flat out wrong. Gnosticism was the latter -- big time.

@@thereconvertedcatholic529 thanks! I’m not disputing what you state about the gnostics. I don’t have the background here. I’m just drawing some parallels to the problems I have personally with understanding the concept of the trinity and god himself. Abstract is only one way to describe it, I simply fail to make sense of it. It might be philosophically sound, but what does it mean? I’m not even asking the question whether it is true. You have 3 persons with the same ‘substance’ so in essence one person. I know, this is certainly oversimplified and void of any nuance. But I have failed so far to understand it any other way no matter how many other attributes are added.

Sam, 1.) While I am generally not interested in passive aggressive digs about my own research and education, followed by sweeping claims with no evidence to substantiate your position, let's start with this instead: 1.) Explain exactly how your position / your interpretation of the Bible *clearly* and *empirically* refutes the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ? 2.) Explain exactly how you are differentiating between the Holy Bible and "the traditions of men"? 3.) What exactly are you qualifying as "traditions of men"? How are you defining the word "tradition"? What exactly is your evidence for this?

Bless your heart and i am so SO glad you are interested. Sunday School class is a great place to start, a suggestion of a good Sunday School class does not a passive aggressive gesture make. Take your time, and start from the beginning… you’ll be glad and much so that you did. 1) the work of the eucharist is not in scripture or in the more recent New Testament. Check out Ephesians 2:5 and in the same book and chapter verses 8 and 9. Enjoy! 2) Anything added to the word is simply and heretically a made up tradition. A good study of the fifth book of the Torah will help there, you will also benefit from The Revelation of Jesus Christ and AND the first and the second Books of both Timothy AND Corinthians. 3) see answers to questions one and two. Enjoy and read your Bible. You’ll be amazed with what is in there… and perhaps even more amazed by those things which are not!! Your mind may in fact be corrupted by the simplicity that is in Him! (I cant take credit for that, you’ll find that in Corinthians Book Two).

Sam, I’m wondering how you define a “good Sunday school?” WHO determines what that is? Also, you refer to “scripture “ and then refer to the New Testament as a later text. All Christian Churches I know of state that the Scriptures or Bible contain both the Old and New Testament. Do you consider both to be Scripture or am I misinterpreting your statement?

These are great questions and Thanks for asking! You can use the New Testaments Books of Romans, Timothy (first and second books) Jude and all three books of John to know what to look for in selecting a good church, teacher and certainly pastor. All the criteria and very VERY specific are there. Find a doctrinally sound church and you will find a good Sunday school. You’re right, it’s not up for debate… or “interpretation”. The criterion are set, finite, done and done within the New Testament itself. The “scriptures” are defined by The Holy Bible. You can learn more in the Book Of Romans the first chapter. Paul defines and in no uncertain terms “scripture” as The Hebrew Bible (which does not include The Gospels, The Acts, The Epistles or The Revelation of Jesus Christ.) Glad i could help! Bible Literacy Matters and ironically enough, is achieved with a little intentional reading. Enjoy!!

Larry, Two things: 1.) My mentioning the "Last Supper" is because this event is also referred to as such. I did not quote Scripture when I used the term. 2.) Actually, there are no connections between the Eucharist and pagan mystery cults. This old claim based on bad scholarship and has already been thoroughly refuted: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-eucharist-is-not-a-pagan-invention Also, I recommend reading Raymond Brown's works on this subject. Peace!

Josh! Yes, it indeed has been awhile! So great to hear from you, and glad you dig the new intro! And hopefully this video, along with the Church's focus on this topic, will help all Christians and seekers understand why the Eucharist is crucial to our faith in Jesus Christ. Hope all is well with you!

Greetings! I am really happy to hear that -- and I would love to learn more about your newspaper when it is ready for release. God bless you too!

Indeed! And hopefully many -- or all -- of those same people will connect with Megan's story, and then start their own journey towards this amazing faith!