Noticed this ages later, 12:53 sounds like I cussed but I promise you that my headphones muffle outside sound. I did say “shoot”, but it sounds odd because again my headphones muffle sound outside.
Great explanation Ryan. God bless you for explaining the simplicity of the gospel to this young man. May God open him up to the truth and make him trust(have faith) our Lord
The parachute saves you but you still have to put it on. It's sad that protestants manipulate the scripture to fit their ideology. You need the faith to believe the parachute can be used to save you, that causes you to put it on.
If Christ is the parachute, I see having faith in it (i.e. in Jesus) as actually putting it on (so trusting in Jesus that He will save you from sin and death, which Protestants do) but then actually _jumping_ from the plane, taking action (living that faith in the real world). Saying you have faith in Christ (merely trusting in the parachute) whilst remaining in the plane that will crash (indulging in the desires of the flesh and putting the things of this world above God) is not going to save you. God is our strength, he is the only one who can save us from sin. Therefore, to be saved is to rely on Him, rely on his grace, rely on his plan for you, and that means taking action. If a man wants to overcome porn, it's not just a mental act, it's surrendering yourself to God because you know he's the only who can set you free, and surrendering looks like actually talking with Him, building your relationship, because if you want to trust in God, you must try to nurture a relationship, because trust only increases with a relationship, and every relationship is based on trust. It means not thinking you will be strong enough on the internet alone in a room, hence, asking God to help you change your lifestyle etc. Sola Fide allows for moral laziness because our actions don't affect our salvation, which is so not true. I can't see that doctrine having divine origin. It's true my actions can't _earn_ me heaven, but they can get me in hell!
3:29 thats a blatant lie, everyone had different canons, especially about the epistles, some even considerated ester to not be canon (athanasius) which protestants have in their canon, some disregarded hebrews, others disregarded revelations, not to mention that the apocriphal have to be scripture because Jesus quotes them all the time, infact wisdom is the first book to teach imortality of the soul, and heaven, its the first book ever to talk about a holy Spirit. If everyone taught the 66 canon is the correct one than in would be the canon today lol, furthemore did the early christians taught infalliably when its convinient for him? But when its about the eucarist, when its about no salvation outside the church, when its about infant baptism, its like : no bro trust scripture
How's this for an answer to Ryan, asking @16:00 and other places - "What sins are being forgiven at the time of Jesus' crucifixion?". My answer is "Those I have confessed" Therefore, those sins are of my past sins only (even the sin I committed 10 seconds ago are "past"). At the Mass, during the Eucharistic celebration, we are WITH Jesus at the time of His crucifixion, and just before the Eucharistic celebration, we offer up our gifts, along with all our sins that we are willing to confess to. This is in line with the Jewish tradition of the priest offering the lamb - the unblemished one - as a sacrifice for the sins of the people, except Jesus is now the High Priest, the Eternal Priest, and through the mystery we are present with Jesus at the Cross. This highlights some very important points - the need to go to Mass as often as possible, the need for confession and repentance; the need to be in a state of grace to receive communion (or, put another way, to be in communion with Jesus) The validation of a priest (or one of apostolic succession) to be the only ones who can legitimately celebrate Mass (the Eucharist), and why it is a sacrament. It also means we have to continuously ask for forgiveness, to repent, to constantly beg for God's mercy, to live in faith all the time, to do good works (meaning following the commandments, being charitable, repenting, growing in faith, praying, reading scripture, etc - those are the Good works) BECAUSE of the faith and grace we have received from Jesus and because without those works, our faith (alone) would be dead or pointless. Oh, and in reference to the deuterocanonical (the 7 apocrypha) books - show me a Jew that does not believe in Jesus, but does accept the new testament.. :) Using Rom 3:2 is not a sound objection because God did not provide the Jews with an inspired table of contents - and among Jews there are many / have been many disagreements over the canon. And on a more serious note : One of the earliest pieces of evidence comes from a person who, despite his hostility toward Christianity, nevertheless attests to a few truths of Christianity, including the acceptance of the Deuterocanon: Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137). The Deuterocanon books were not added.. they were removed by Protestants. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). In 1546, Martin Luther included them in his first German translation, (published the Council of Trent). They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible (a century before Trent).
There still is a problem with this answer, and Ryan even said it. What happens when you committed a sin 5 days ago (in all honestly we sin all the time without even knowing it) and you haven't confessed your sin then you die, would you end up in heaven? If the answer is yes it means that Jesus did die for all your sins past, present and future. If your answer is no then no one should be in heaven at all.
@@John_Daniel312 we can all agree that we cannot enter heaven with any sin. So yes, we have to be purified before entering heaven. That is purgatory. While in purgatory, we have to confess those sins and all others we forgot about- but it is harder as many times we need to ask for forgiveness to those we sinned against. But in Gods mercy, we will get to heaven. But I’m no theologian :) just a Catholic. I might be wrong, but that’s how I understand the churches teaching and it makes sense, to me.
@@warren6395 I definitely agree that we can’t go to heaven with sin, although I can’t agree on the place called purgatory, I do believe that we’re washed and purified by the blood of Jesus, I as well could be wrong or right. I’m just a protestant and by no means am I scholar I just love talking to my catholic brothers, we may have disagreements on certain things but at least we agree on the core of Christianity.
13:04. Ryan says, “I see continuing in His kindness is continuing to believe.” Imitating Gods kindness is not described as believing ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE to my knowledge. Why does he equate charity with faith? They are not the same. 1 Corinthians 13.13- faith, hope, and love are three things that will last forever, AND THAT LOVE IS THE GREATEST OF THE THREE.” Love is greater than faith. Acts of love are greater than acts of faith, I would believe….
I think they're all separate but linked concepts, I doubt God is worried about who discerns between them because acting from either should reflect the others.
“Your works are like dirty rags” do you need me to explain why Works=dirty rags. Jesus says our works are dirty rags because let’s say works is the way to salvation, then us as sinners will taint those good works with sins, then do more works to get salvation, but we sin again because that’s what we’re going to do. Let me use the dirty rag’s analogy, the sin is the dirt in your body, and the works that you do for salvation is the rag, you sin and get dirty but to wash yourself you use a clean rag, now you’re clean from sin and the rag, your works and damaged because of your sin, but you do more works to clean yourself from sin, yet tomorrow you will sin again, rinse and repeat. When you go to heaven works based salvation people, know that you will be presenting Jesus a dirty rag because you sinned throughout your life, but you did works in order to please God, yet those works were tainted by the sin, so you end up with a dirty rag that is no good. I’m not saying that you can do whatever you want, sin and you’re just forgiven no, your works will come out of LOVE for your neighbor and Christ, we’re simply messengers of Christ, who want to see as many people in heaven with us as possible. Works don’t save us, they’re use showing that we follow Christ, it in no way shape or form works save us, because we turn around the very next day and sin, and ask for forgiveness.
@@SortofFriendlySM I guess the catholic church is like my old math teacher when she would say "Don't forget to show your work or you won't get credit even if you get the answer right." Not showing your work doesn't mean the answer is wrong it's just showing you can work it out, not just some lucky guess. Terrible analogy because then my math teacher would be Jesus. And her teaching me algebra is the her gift of grace? To save me from summer school? But I'd still have to take the final to pass? Or would grace be her taking the final for me? Or would it be her going to summer school for me? Totally messed that up. Let's just thank God for teachers.
One point that could have been made about the validity of the Catholic Old Testament is the feast of dedication or Hanukkah which is from Maccabees where they rededicated the temple to God which was celebrated by Jesus
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6 Stop trusting Rome kid and trust in Jesus for salvation
Jesus is the one who estabilshed the Catholic Church... "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Of course, the Maccabees events are true historical events worthy of consideration and celebration among the Jews, but that doesn't mean that the Jewish historical accounts of the Maccabean war are inspired as Scripture.
@@lucaskaufman1725 the book of maccabees is certainly scripture it is part of the canon. It is in the greek septuagint as canon. It is in all of the first Bibles as canon. Only to be removed in the 1800's by protestants. Who gave protestants permission to remove books from their Bible?
@@KyrieEleisonMaranatha You argue that it's clearly Scripture when it went completely ignored by Jewish philosophers, historians, and writers of the time such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. It's interesting that you also bring up the Septuagint as a proof of canonicity and inspiration, since you would also affirm that the Septuagint also includes a number of apocryphal works. You bring up a good question regarding the supposed removal of such books by the reformers, but you'll understand much easier if you consider their position that the deutero-canonicals were only included based on their position in tradition rather that inspiration, and take the position of St. Jerome, who said just as much, arguing that books such as 1 and 2 Maccabees are useful for instruction and worthy of consideration, but that it was only the Jewish canon that would be considered inspired. As to what authority they had to "remove" such books from the canon, also consider their argument that Scripture is authoritatively presented in the Jewish canon of the Old Testament and the circulated and preserved gospels and epistles of the New Testament, and would return to you the question "what authority did you have to *add* to the collection of the canon as it has been authoritatively presented."
@49:23 even more so, he straw man's the Apostolic claim, saying the Pope doesn't have Apostolic authority. The current Bishops and Pope may not have the SAME authority as the original Apostles, i.e. Scriptural authorship, but their other authorities passed on.
The early renditions of the KJV had the Deuterocanon. It was later removed by the Reformers. This is very concerning because the church held those books to be scripture. Luther wanted to remove the Book of Hebrews, James and I believe Revelation but was ultimately talked out of it. Fast forward to our time and there are scholars that are now saying that some of Paul's letters and other epistles are spurious. If Protestants remain consistent, they would have to consider removing those books in question as well. Need God keeps saying "we don't think they are scripture" for X reason. First, I don't know who "we" is but if he just follows his line of reasoning that the scholars take, he will end up siding with them or even Luther.
Church leaders who rejected the Apocryphal books: 5th Century: Jerome, Rufinius 6th Century: Pope Gregory the Great, Bishop Julinius, Bishop Primasius, Anatasius of Antioch, Leontius 8th Century: John of Damascus, Venerable Bede 9th Century: Alcuin, Nicephorus of Constaniople, Agobard of Lyons, Walafrid Strabo, Haymo of Halberstadt, Ambrose of Autpert 10th Century: Radulphus Flavicencius 12th Century: Zonaras, Rupert of Tuits, Peterus Mauritius, Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, John Beleth, Bishop John of Salisbury, Honorius of Autun, Peter Comestor, Peter Mauritius, Adam Scotus, Philip of Harvengt 13th Century: Glossa Ordinaria ("the tongue of Scripture" and "the bible of scholasticism" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia), Archbishop Johannes de Columna, Nicholas of Lira, William Occham, Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher 15th Century: Archbishop Antoninus, Bishop Alphonsus Tostatus, Cardinal/ Archbishop Francis Ximenius, Jacob Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Alonso Tostado, Dionysius the Carthusian, Thomas Walden 16th Century: Jean Driedo, John Ferus, Cardinal Cajetan, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis. Those who voted against the inclusion of the Apocryphal books at Trent. Cardinal Seripando, Bishop Bertano, Bishop Nacchianti, "the Servite general" (Bonuccio), Cardinal Madruzzo, Bishop Fonseca, "the Carmelite general" (Nicholas Audet), Bishop of Agde, and the Bishop of Carole. Check out @ProtestantNotes on insta for more.
Additionally, the earliest canon list, made by Melito of Sardis had no apocryphal books. 39 OT, 21 NT (exclusion of the NT “antiligomena”) Josephus, a second Temple Jew, uses the 39 book OT. Eusebius records the Protestant Canon as his.
Please note that the Council of Trent is considered as an ecumenical council. Consult the lower portion of my previous post to see those who voted against the apocryphal books at Trent. The 39 book proto canon has never been contested. The apocryphal books always have been questioned, even in the council that declared them as canon.
1.Which Jews is Roman's 3:3? The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Those that followed Jesus were all Jews and used those books.2. Jesus and the Apostle quoted from the Dueterocanonicals. 3.Their were Prophets around Prophetess Anna, so their were Prophets he stated their were no Prophets for 400 years before Christ, so he is in error. 4 Jews did accept and some didn't. 5 Josephus belonged to the Pharisees. So he accepted only certain books but the Sadducees accepted 5, Essenes accepted the Septuagint, Bereans accepted the Septuagint. AND Timothy accepted the Septuagint too. You did a great bro.
I just started watching it and I unfortunately will have to listen to it in bits and pieces because I’m tied up with several things but this dude from @needGodnet, starting at around 2:26, commits the biggest flaw that Protestants have. They use a crippled bible in the KJB. First of all they deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals as they were removed, if I’m not mistaken in 1825 by some British printing company. Martin Luther didn’t like them however, they were still included in the KJB but not as part of it; just something that made a good read. ML and others didn’t believe they were inspired, that is why they go all over the place with their own interpretations and form their own churches, splitting over and over and over, ad infinitum. He seems to be comparing the CC to the Mormons. He says He goes to the Jewish people, but they deny Jesus, so does he want to follow their footsteps? If so, then he also should deny Jesus. Protestants fail to understand that King James had NO, absolutely NO authority to have a new version of the bible written. The CC canonized the bible WITH THE AUTHORITY given to Her by Jesus Christ. King Jimmy was a secular leader. It’s just like as if there had been a bible authorized by President Obama and calling it the true bible and he removed several books. Luther didn’t think the Letter of James or even Revelations should be part of the bible but they were kept anyway. This dude lacks wisdom as the Book of Wisdom was removed from the True bible and he hasn’t studied it, or maybe he has, but since he has, as I said, a crippled bible, he will not believe anything that is written in them. The CC canonized the bible in 382 AD and approved by Pope Damasus and the CC Bible has remained the same since then. Those that protested didn’t like what was in them as they would have had to remain Catholic. BTW this dude from @needGod.org was spanked in a debate with Alex from voice of reason.
We can have a moral certainty of salvation. If a person dies in a state of Grace, we can at least expect to receive the purification of soul before entering Heaven. Jesus expects us to obey him, we need to be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins, be his sheep by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner. If one just says the sinners prayer and fully believes in his sacrifice that he died for one's forgiveness, then not obey him, one cannot have have any certainty of salvation. Obedience is key to salvation, your faith depends on your obedience.
@@kwing6017 At best they'll try to point to how James says "I will show you my faith by my works" to a hypothetical person saying "you have faith and I have works" as if the point of works is simply to boast before other men how much better your faith is than theirs, but also God doesn't care about it at all (perhaps this is an uncharitable understanding). The common protestant way of explaining James 2 is that works are merely evidence of faith, rather than something that genuinely plays a part in our being made right before God (in that it completes grace and faith). But the only reason I can think of for being justified (made right) before man is so that other men can trust you as someone credible, like if you're teaching something (which is simply not the point of James 2).
@@kreatillion1718 no sir. At best we will say you are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!! **
Wonderful job dealing with his initial talking points on the canon. I find that the vast majority of the reasons he cites to reject the deuterocanon are arbitrarily drawn up and applied (i.e. he doesn't have an objective way of grounding the criteria or of applying it only to the deuterocanon). Ex: He says none of the deuterocanon were cited or alluded to by Jesus or the Apostles (debatable). Yet, when we point out instances we think are alluding to what is written in a deuterocanonical book they say "well just because it's alluded to/cited doesn't mean it's Scripture." Or when we point out that books like Esther are no where cited in the NT, their criteria all of a sudden shifts.
Not sure if NeedGod addressed this in the video, but: We know that citation doesn't equate inspiration. For example, the apocryphal Enoch is cited, but is referenced as a cultural work. Paul also quotes an invocation to Zeus within Greek poetry, "In him we live and breathe and have our being," but of course it's not affirming the canonicity of a pagan work. Esther, on the other hand is counted among the OT canon even in the Second Temple period before any of the NT was written. It's been accepted as canon for thousands of years.
@@lucaskaufman1725 In your view what would indicate something is inspired? Also, Esther was disputed by the Jews in the Second Temple period. There isn’t a single copy of Esther in the Dead Sea Scrolls when we have fragments of every other book of the Bible including the deuterocanonical books that had been written at that time. The dispute of Esther’s canonicity by even the post-NT Jews occurred for the first at least 3 centuries. That’s part of the reason why it was disputed by some early Christians. Nonetheless, the truth won out by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the whole canon of 73 books was included in the Bible.
@@thecatechumen My indication that something is inspired differs from yours because I don't believe a book is made inspired by the authority of the pope or a council, but by its authoritative presentation, preservation, and agreement with the redemptive and theological themes of Scripture. As for Esther, it was widely accepted among the Jews, though there was consideration in their Council of Jamnia in 90 AD in which, as I'm reading now, they solidified and confirmed the Hebrew canon, which notably included Esther but rejected the Maccabees as canonical and inspired Scripture. My point still stands, that just because something is cited in Scripture does not confirm its inspiration and canonicity, as we have already seen.
@@lucaskaufman1725 Guess what? The Catholic Church doesn't teach that a book is MADE inspired by the Pope or a Council or by the Church. Your criteria that would apparently indicate something as inspired is kind of vague, no? "its authoritative presentation, preservation, and agreement with the redemptive and theological themes of Scripture." So, you assume the existence of Scripture as a criteria indicating something is Scripture? That's a logical fallacy. Esther was disputed by the Jews as were some other books. The Holy Spirit guided the Church to accept it along with the deuterocanon just like the Essenes, the Alexandrian Jews, and the Jews of Qumran who used the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jews involved in the so-called Council of Jamnia (assuming that actually happened) were the Jews who rejected Christ. Their teaching authority was abrogated and inherited by the Church (who confirmed the deuterocanon).
@@thecatechumen My criteria is based on what it is that the apostles teach, consistent with the themes of Scripture, tested by Scripture. It was enough for the early church and it's enough for me. What is fallacious is to believe that anything cited in scripture is immediately canon and God-breathed.
Yes, in the time of the apostles and after Jesus’ crucifixion, the term “Church” referred to the community or assembly of believers-those who followed Jesus Christ and His teachings. The Greek word used in the New Testament for “church” is “ekklesia”, which means “assembly” or “called-out ones.” It did not refer to a physical building but rather to the collective body of Christ’s followers. The early Christian Church was understood as the Body of Christ, a spiritual community made up of all believers, regardless of location. This idea is expressed in several of Paul’s letters, such as in Ephesians 5:23, where Paul describes Christ as the “head of the Church” and the Church as His body. Jesus is said to be coming back for His Church, which, in biblical terms, means the group of people who have put their faith in Him-His followers, or the faithful community of believers, rather than a physical institution or structure. This is sometimes referred to as the “Bride of Christ” (Revelation 19:7-9), symbolizing the Church’s close relationship with Jesus and the expectation of His return.
Heads up, don’t let them call the Deuterocanonical book apocryphal. Apocrypha means hidden and was specific to the “Gnostic” writings. The 7 books they removed were never hidden and not connected at all with Gnostics. Also don’t use Maccabees for purgatory. That was before Jesus’s resurrection so it doesn’t apply to Christians. Keep up the great work
Faith alone saves you at the initial justification. Thereafter one has to live out that faith otherwise if you fall away you could possibly lose your salvation. It's actually all over in the bible. This 'once saved always saved' doctrine is a dangerous belief which thankfully not all protestants adhere to.
Regarding the cabin: 1) the text cited if Josephus is written in a polemic against pagans. Obviously he is going to steel man the Jewish position by claiming a uniformity that is clearly not there based on the Sadducees rejection of resurrection and the dead sea scrolls 2) he mentions the "law and the prophets" and says the deuterocannocial does not fit into that. But neither does the mutual history books we accept like kings and chronicles 3) he states that the oracles were received by the Jews. That's all. We all agree that the Jews wrote and received the deuterocannocial. But scripture doesn't say the Jews will DETERMINE or infallibly discern the canon. So therefore the argument assumes this... Unfairly To use a metaphor: St Paul: "the groceries were delivered to the Jews" That doesn't mean Bob put all the groceries in the cupboard. It means all the groceries were given to bob 🤷♂️
Ryan’s question at 33:30, basically if you trust in God today but later you sin 5 times and then die, do you still go to heaven? In one sense this severely underestimates the fact that sin offends God and that it leads to death, mortal sin in particular. This question is like asking “today I trust in you God” then tomorrow committing murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and blasphemy all in the same day and still expecting to be saved. That’s obviously insane, because Ezekiel tells us how you can’t be expected to be saved for your righteousness today if tomorrow you turn to wickedness as if your past good deeds compensate for your present evil deeds. The other sense of this question is that you sin venially out of your human weakness but still trying to remain a friend of God. In that sense yes you can still go to heaven (with some cleaning up to do first). But I don’t think Ryan makes that distinction.
What does it mean to be saved by faith alone? Faith is a trust in revealed truth. The question I may have is how does this trust itself save us? First, what exactly are we trusting in? We put trust in something by assenting to it (that’s at least part of it). Assenting to _what_ exactly? That by Jesus dying for our sins and rising to eternal life and by our coming into communion with him, we can rise to life even if we die. That’s perhaps one precise thing to assent to. Is it now the case that this assent alone is good enough to merit righteousness? Surely trusting in this is more than just intellectual assent? Real trust impacts how you act, so if you don’t act in accord to your assent, it can’t be a meritorious trust. We also must trust that in order to love god we must keep his commandments. After all, we are told that we will be judged according to our works. It is sin which leads to death, and sin is an act, so how do we have good acts to be judged by instead? We are saved by being righteous, the question is how to become righteous? Firstly those sins need to be removed, and then life in righteousness must be lived out. Obviously it can’t be done all on our own apart from grace, because we can’t earn God’s infinite favor no matter how many deeds we may heap up, as if we can boast of our own goodness. Sin is only wiped away and genuine good deeds are done in response to the promptings of God’s grace (not prior to it, but after it). I return to the question of how faith relates to this, which is what I’m curious about. We perhaps know these promptings of grace through faith, ie trust in the claims that sins can be forgiven by a crucified man and that that good deeds are in fact meritorious for life in heaven. Because who in their right mind would feed a hungry man instead of themselves if there was no merit to be gained from it regarding life in heaven? You first have to be moved by grace to do that. I think there’s a sense in which we are righteous by our deeds (in the sense that we’ll be judged by them) and there’s another sense in which we are righteous by grace (in the sense that we cannot be righteous without it). Equivocating is what causes all the disputation. TL;DR me thinking out loud
Keep doing what you’re doing. Debating is an acquired skill and, sadly, being right doesn’t mean you’re gonna win. Don’t be fooled by the Protestants who follow a perversion of Christianity which has come forth in the last few hundred years… Keep up the good work. It is hard to undo heresy that a person has built his entire Christian life upon…The entire Protestant view of God, Christianity, salvation, is warped. About a question he asked: “If God has judged you based on how you’ve lived, would you go to heaven or hell?” I see what he’s trying to ask, but is this not just the same question as “are you going to go to heaven or hell?” I say this because God DOES judge off based on how we’ve lived. Needgotdotnet proposes this idea as if it’s a hypothetical 😂 The thing is, while how we’ve lived does include sin, it also includes turning away from that sin and choosing God and staying in Gods grace. God isn’t only judging us based of our sins… If God isn’t judging us based off of our lives, what is He judging us on??? If He sees we have lived a sanctified life, then He will reward us. If He sees that we have lived a life of unrighteousness to the very end, then He will not. Am I missing something? The answer to Ryan’s question in this context would be yes…right?
I`m unsure why a gen0cidaI, baby murdering, sIavery c0nd0ning, invisibIe man w0uId have any right t0 pass judgement 0n any0ne given that adam and eve are fictiti0us, as dna c0nfirms, I cann0t be heId resp0nsibIe f0r the aIIeged acti0ns 0f fictiti0us characters, in the same way I am n0t resp0nsibIe f0r the murder 0n the 0rient express f0r instance erg0, I am n0t a "sinner" have never sinned against an invisibIe man
Such a straw man to say we believe that our actions amount to anything compared to God's mercy. But what they do is express walking in Christ and building a *relationship* with him. To be part of his body
Not to ruffle feathers but thanks to the reformation we got multiple denominations, bible mistranslations, and over all degradation of christian core values. Not to mention the removal of many verses and now some Protestants saying Jesus sinned or the removal of key words
@Zuungie actually only a select few but many are mislead by these John 7:8 were in some bibles Jesus lied about going to a feast, there's also the argument some have said since some say Mary wasn't full of grace aka without sin that Jesus would have original sin. Protestant is often an umbrella term which I should apologize on too. That's why I like using different bibles
@@rockykramer9134 Interesting -- I've never heard that argument before about Jesus lying in John 7.8. Clearly, He wasn't, because of v9, which makes it clear He followed His word. Thanks for sharing.
@Zuungie yeah, thank you, and it's best for both parties to learn these passages in case they come up, there are a few other translation craziness too like the word begotten is often mistranslated or misused in more modern Bibles that KJV doesn't
“To say faith + works is to say, Christ, you didn’t do enough to get me to heaven” WRONG! That’s totally not what Catholics say or believe. Rather, our “how do I get to Heaven” answer is “by remaining IN Christ up to our death”. Our good works and our sufferings are meaningless by themselves, but for the one who is IN Christ they become His good works and His sufferings too, which means they are anything but meaningless and are actually salvific grace playing into our lives. In this profound way, as Paul wrote, we are completing what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ! (Col 1:24). WHAT? Yep, Jesus loves us so much that he left us room to personally participate in his perfect sacrifice. And by doing so we are IN him!
Jesus celebrates the Feast of Dedication, which is Hanukkah, in the New Testament. The only other place the feast of dedication is mentioned is 2 Maccabees.. It's scripture
The Catholic Church did not outright ban the translation of the Bible into the common vernacular. However, they did restrict and prohibit the possession, reading, and use of certain editions and translations of the Bible. The Church preferred to keep the Latin language as the liturgical language, even when no one else spoke it. They also provided only a few difficult-to-access "chained Bibles" and forbade Bible translations in the vernacular. The modern belief that medieval Catholicism opposed translation of scripture into the vernacular is largely exaggerated and misleading.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty What just like the martyr St. Thomas More for us Catholics brave solider of Jesus Christ who stood against the tyranny of a king even though he lived a life of comfort in that kings court. Killed for being Catholic and faithful to the true faith, a smart faithful man of God who could see that King Henry 8th was taking England down an ungodly path by make his own Christianity. The Catholics when England turned to the Anglican religion had all there property and wealth taken from them if they didn't convert, most lost their very lives. Centuries of religious persecution, catholic were not allow to meet together to celebrate mass until the 1800s.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty No William Tyndale was a troublemaker with wild ideas and got what was coming to him. It was thanks to him that King Henry 8th decided that England will become a theocracy under a King, and there for gave himself the right to stealing property, wealth, and the lives from the Catholics living in his country. You're not fooling anyone that knows history with your appeals to emotion. William Tyndale wasn't executed because he translated the Bible. He was executed for sedition and possible regicide amongst many other charges. So you're the one that is incorrect.
@@TryingToFollowChrist37Trading atrocity for atrocity does not detract from the point that your original comment is a blatant lie. Also research John Wycliffe and the execution of Jan Hus.
Iglesia ni Cristo is not even considered as christian for not believing in the Holy Trinity, so it should not be compared to the Catholic church. INC does not believe in Jesus' Divinity and would be considered as an indigenous protestant church.
The concept of "assurance of salvation" is kind of an highpoint of arrogance. There is a verse that protestants often use and that is 1 John 5:13 "13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." With this verse, they claim the concept of "assurance of salvation" by only believing in the Son of God. So if we look at verses 1 to 12 (the verses verse 13 is talking about) we get this: 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. (already we see that believing and loving is DOING, "OBEYING his commands", " KEEPING his commands", NOT just believing without doing, mere faith, faith alone) 4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. (Overcoming the world is a requirement that is obtained by carrying out and keeping God's commands? hmm..). And this is the victory that has overcome the world-our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (so we see that belief and faith go hand in hand with DOING His commands) 6 This is he who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.(how do we HAVE the Son? Simple, let's go back to verse 2 and 3: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. So if you are sure that you are KEEPING God's commands, by OBEYING His commands, you can know that you have eternal life. (verse 13). It's a pretty bald statement to claim that you are fully obeying God's commands, especially for those who are outside of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ (which is in itself disobedience to our LORD). Instead of having the arrogance of claiming your "assurance of salvation", I'd rather pray to my LORD and say: LORD Jesus Christ, Son of the living GOD, have mercy on me, a sinner! I trust that you have saved me, that you are saving me right now and that you will keep me safe until my death. All I have is You and without Your finished work all I have is assurance of damnation. Because none of us can keep Your commandments perfectly, I pray that You keep us in Your grace and mercy and that You help us all to keep Your commandments. Help us to pick us our cross and follow You. My LORD and My God, have mercy on us, and on the whole world. Amen.
Brother as a fellow Catholic I appreciate u defending are beliefs.. but u gotta press em on that whole free will thing God endowed us with. an Jesus himself saying not everyone who says Lord Lord will be in my Kingdom .but those who follow my father's will.. that already right there is action.protestants dance around the world doin works so much an say you gotta do basically the same thing as Catholic doctrine.. but say but acting out ur faith by doin as Christ isn't doin anything jus believing.. I guess all those christiansfor the first 1500 years are wrong
We are saved by faith not by works. The Catholic Church does not believe our works get us into heaven. That has never been the Catholic Church's stance. This is a pointless "debate" because we believe the same thing. Here's what both these guys are missing. Yes we are saved by Christ but that doesn't mean we cant fall away from faith with him. This is where good works comes in. We do good works to STAY IN FAITH with Christ because if we don't then we are not true followers of Christ. For example, say if you go the protestant route and go faith alone. Are you still not a sinner? Nothing imperfect enters Heaven. What if you believe in Jesus and have faith but your faith falls on the last day of your life and you chose to murder someone and didnt repent? Do you think you'll be in Heaven after committing a breaking of the Lord's commandment? We must live out our faith by doing good works so we don't lose it. Otherwise we open the door to sin and turn ourselves away from God. The works themselves dont get you into heaven but the faith behind them does and the works are just helping you to sustain that faith.
Question: You said "THE Greek Septuagint" talking to this man.... Are you aware that there were at the least 3 different Greek Septuagint's (with differing canon lists) during the first and second century or was that a tactic to avoid what they "Laid Up in the Temple" in order to introduce confusion?
Sounds to me like even more confusion about exactly what books were canonical for 1st century Jews, thus making it harder for Protestants to claim their canon was THE Jewish canon. How about we trust the church?
Whole family was Catholic highly recommend looking at the information from read also from the Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible from your perspective and not from you where taught
My whole family was Catholic also. They now “know better” because they read the Bible for themselves and are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are you a JW? Maybe a Mormon like my neighbor who also used to be a Catholic? Possibly a very Liberal Evangelical like my coworker???
This wasn't a debate, and it was barely a "discussion", which you also say it is. This is you hijacking a Q&A session, trying to steamroll. If you want a debate, arrange it properly with someone who agrees to debate you.
Whole lotta yapping and stuttering from your part. I suppose you haven’t been into Catholic teaching for longer than a few months yet. Less catechism, more Bible.
@delroy - Why, the catechism and the Bible come from the same source and the catechism is properly referenced with Bible quotes for those that read it. 🤷🏽♂ History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
"Ryan cooked you" , is this language the fruit of your faith? Or perhaps we don't need to be Christian when we write an anonymous comment on the internet?
“To say faith + works is to say, Christ, you didn’t do enough to get me to heaven” WRONG! That’s totally not what Catholics say or believe. Rather, our “how do I get to Heaven” answer is “by remaining IN Christ up to our death”. Our good works and our sufferings are meaningless by themselves, but for the one who is IN Christ they become His good works and His sufferings too, which means they are anything but meaningless and are actually salvific grace playing into our lives. In this profound way, as Paul wrote, we are completing what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ! (Col 1:24). WHAT? Yep, Jesus loves us so much that he left us room to personally participate in his perfect sacrifice. And by doing so we are IN him!
Noticed this ages later, 12:53 sounds like I cussed but I promise you that my headphones muffle outside sound. I did say “shoot”, but it sounds odd because again my headphones muffle sound outside.
How did you initially contact NeedGodnet in order to challenge him to a debate?
Great explanation Ryan. God bless you for explaining the simplicity of the gospel to this young man. May God open him up to the truth and make him trust(have faith) our Lord
The parachute saves you but you still have to put it on. It's sad that protestants manipulate the scripture to fit their ideology. You need the faith to believe the parachute can be used to save you, that causes you to put it on.
Christ is the parachute
You also can't poke holes in the parachute or light it on fire.
That is a wonderful anology for the leap of faith
NeedGodnet reminds me of Ray Comfort. Same analogies and everything.
😂
Pretty sure his method has been influenced by him
If Christ is the parachute, I see having faith in it (i.e. in Jesus) as actually putting it on (so trusting in Jesus that He will save you from sin and death, which Protestants do) but then actually _jumping_ from the plane, taking action (living that faith in the real world). Saying you have faith in Christ (merely trusting in the parachute) whilst remaining in the plane that will crash (indulging in the desires of the flesh and putting the things of this world above God) is not going to save you. God is our strength, he is the only one who can save us from sin. Therefore, to be saved is to rely on Him, rely on his grace, rely on his plan for you, and that means taking action. If a man wants to overcome porn, it's not just a mental act, it's surrendering yourself to God because you know he's the only who can set you free, and surrendering looks like actually talking with Him, building your relationship, because if you want to trust in God, you must try to nurture a relationship, because trust only increases with a relationship, and every relationship is based on trust. It means not thinking you will be strong enough on the internet alone in a room, hence, asking God to help you change your lifestyle etc. Sola Fide allows for moral laziness because our actions don't affect our salvation, which is so not true. I can't see that doctrine having divine origin. It's true my actions can't _earn_ me heaven, but they can get me in hell!
3:29 thats a blatant lie, everyone had different canons, especially about the epistles, some even considerated ester to not be canon (athanasius) which protestants have in their canon, some disregarded hebrews, others disregarded revelations, not to mention that the apocriphal have to be scripture because Jesus quotes them all the time, infact wisdom is the first book to teach imortality of the soul, and heaven, its the first book ever to talk about a holy Spirit. If everyone taught the 66 canon is the correct one than in would be the canon today lol, furthemore did the early christians taught infalliably when its convinient for him? But when its about the eucarist, when its about no salvation outside the church, when its about infant baptism, its like : no bro trust scripture
How's this for an answer to Ryan, asking @16:00 and other places - "What sins are being forgiven at the time of Jesus' crucifixion?". My answer is "Those I have confessed" Therefore, those sins are of my past sins only (even the sin I committed 10 seconds ago are "past"). At the Mass, during the Eucharistic celebration, we are WITH Jesus at the time of His crucifixion, and just before the Eucharistic celebration, we offer up our gifts, along with all our sins that we are willing to confess to. This is in line with the Jewish tradition of the priest offering the lamb - the unblemished one - as a sacrifice for the sins of the people, except Jesus is now the High Priest, the Eternal Priest, and through the mystery we are present with Jesus at the Cross.
This highlights some very important points - the need to go to Mass as often as possible, the need for confession and repentance; the need to be in a state of grace to receive communion (or, put another way, to be in communion with Jesus) The validation of a priest (or one of apostolic succession) to be the only ones who can legitimately celebrate Mass (the Eucharist), and why it is a sacrament. It also means we have to continuously ask for forgiveness, to repent, to constantly beg for God's mercy, to live in faith all the time, to do good works (meaning following the commandments, being charitable, repenting, growing in faith, praying, reading scripture, etc - those are the Good works) BECAUSE of the faith and grace we have received from Jesus and because without those works, our faith (alone) would be dead or pointless.
Oh, and in reference to the deuterocanonical (the 7 apocrypha) books - show me a Jew that does not believe in Jesus, but does accept the new testament.. :) Using Rom 3:2 is not a sound objection because God did not provide the Jews with an inspired table of contents - and among Jews there are many / have been many disagreements over the canon. And on a more serious note : One of the earliest pieces of evidence comes from a person who, despite his hostility toward Christianity, nevertheless attests to a few truths of Christianity, including the acceptance of the Deuterocanon: Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137).
The Deuterocanon books were not added.. they were removed by Protestants. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). In 1546, Martin Luther included them in his first German translation, (published the Council of Trent). They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible (a century before Trent).
@@warren6395 I love this answer, I’ll definitely use some of these comments for defense. God bless ❤️
There still is a problem with this answer, and Ryan even said it. What happens when you committed a sin 5 days ago (in all honestly we sin all the time without even knowing it) and you haven't confessed your sin then you die, would you end up in heaven? If the answer is yes it means that Jesus did die for all your sins past, present and future. If your answer is no then no one should be in heaven at all.
@@John_Daniel312sin can only happen with full knowledge
@@John_Daniel312 we can all agree that we cannot enter heaven with any sin. So yes, we have to be purified before entering heaven. That is purgatory. While in purgatory, we have to confess those sins and all others we forgot about- but it is harder as many times we need to ask for forgiveness to those we sinned against. But in Gods mercy, we will get to heaven.
But I’m no theologian :) just a Catholic. I might be wrong, but that’s how I understand the churches teaching and it makes sense, to me.
@@warren6395 I definitely agree that we can’t go to heaven with sin, although I can’t agree on the place called purgatory, I do believe that we’re washed and purified by the blood of Jesus, I as well could be wrong or right. I’m just a protestant and by no means am I scholar I just love talking to my catholic brothers, we may have disagreements on certain things but at least we agree on the core of Christianity.
13:04.
Ryan says, “I see continuing in His kindness is continuing to believe.”
Imitating Gods kindness is not described as believing ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE to my knowledge. Why does he equate charity with faith? They are not the same.
1 Corinthians 13.13- faith, hope, and love are three things that will last forever, AND THAT LOVE IS THE GREATEST OF THE THREE.”
Love is greater than faith. Acts of love are greater than acts of faith, I would believe….
I think they're all separate but linked concepts, I doubt God is worried about who discerns between them because acting from either should reflect the others.
Easy believer or Faith alone error... "Faith without work is dead" Keep it up! 🙏 Faith=Obedience + believe.
The verse wasn't talking about your death.
@@alexmason8557 he did not say it was talking about his personal death. Please practice your reading comprehension.
@@elingeniero2000 he is talking about going to hell right ?
“Your works are like dirty rags” do you need me to explain why Works=dirty rags. Jesus says our works are dirty rags because let’s say works is the way to salvation, then us as sinners will taint those good works with sins, then do more works to get salvation, but we sin again because that’s what we’re going to do. Let me use the dirty rag’s analogy, the sin is the dirt in your body, and the works that you do for salvation is the rag, you sin and get dirty but to wash yourself you use a clean rag, now you’re clean from sin and the rag, your works and damaged because of your sin, but you do more works to clean yourself from sin, yet tomorrow you will sin again, rinse and repeat. When you go to heaven works based salvation people, know that you will be presenting Jesus a dirty rag because you sinned throughout your life, but you did works in order to please God, yet those works were tainted by the sin, so you end up with a dirty rag that is no good.
I’m not saying that you can do whatever you want, sin and you’re just forgiven no, your works will come out of LOVE for your neighbor and Christ, we’re simply messengers of Christ, who want to see as many people in heaven with us as possible. Works don’t save us, they’re use showing that we follow Christ, it in no way shape or form works save us, because we turn around the very next day and sin, and ask for forgiveness.
@@SortofFriendlySM I guess the catholic church is like my old math teacher when she would say "Don't forget to show your work or you won't get credit even if you get the answer right." Not showing your work doesn't mean the answer is wrong it's just showing you can work it out, not just some lucky guess. Terrible analogy because then my math teacher would be Jesus. And her teaching me algebra is the her gift of grace? To save me from summer school? But I'd still have to take the final to pass? Or would grace be her taking the final for me? Or would it be her going to summer school for me? Totally messed that up. Let's just thank God for teachers.
One point that could have been made about the validity of the Catholic Old Testament is the feast of dedication or Hanukkah which is from Maccabees where they rededicated the temple to God which was celebrated by Jesus
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
Romans 11:6
Stop trusting Rome kid and trust in Jesus for salvation
Jesus is the one who estabilshed the Catholic Church...
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
@ nope, the devil established the Catholic Church and that’s why Catholics worship the “Queen of Heaven” a false pagan goddess from the Old Testament
4:34 Jesus did not cite it but He celebrated Maccabees events , one of the deutricanonical books
Jesus quoted the greek septuagint dozens of times including the apocrypha.
Of course, the Maccabees events are true historical events worthy of consideration and celebration among the Jews, but that doesn't mean that the Jewish historical accounts of the Maccabean war are inspired as Scripture.
@@lucaskaufman1725 the book of maccabees is certainly scripture it is part of the canon. It is in the greek septuagint as canon. It is in all of the first Bibles as canon. Only to be removed in the 1800's by protestants. Who gave protestants permission to remove books from their Bible?
@@KyrieEleisonMaranatha You argue that it's clearly Scripture when it went completely ignored by Jewish philosophers, historians, and writers of the time such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. It's interesting that you also bring up the Septuagint as a proof of canonicity and inspiration, since you would also affirm that the Septuagint also includes a number of apocryphal works.
You bring up a good question regarding the supposed removal of such books by the reformers, but you'll understand much easier if you consider their position that the deutero-canonicals were only included based on their position in tradition rather that inspiration, and take the position of St. Jerome, who said just as much, arguing that books such as 1 and 2 Maccabees are useful for instruction and worthy of consideration, but that it was only the Jewish canon that would be considered inspired.
As to what authority they had to "remove" such books from the canon, also consider their argument that Scripture is authoritatively presented in the Jewish canon of the Old Testament and the circulated and preserved gospels and epistles of the New Testament, and would return to you the question "what authority did you have to *add* to the collection of the canon as it has been authoritatively presented."
1 of only 3 Jewish holidays (?) I know. Seems pretty significant to me and I'm not of that faith.
47:47 the real colour of protestant.
Catholic is the fullness of truth.
@49:23 even more so, he straw man's the Apostolic claim, saying the Pope doesn't have Apostolic authority. The current Bishops and Pope may not have the SAME authority as the original Apostles, i.e. Scriptural authorship, but their other authorities passed on.
I'm a pentacotal i think you did great. The lords prayer speaks of the need of continuing repentance. You were right on.
Good job debating ray comfort.
The early renditions of the KJV had the Deuterocanon. It was later removed by the Reformers. This is very concerning because the church held those books to be scripture. Luther wanted to remove the Book of Hebrews, James and I believe Revelation but was ultimately talked out of it. Fast forward to our time and there are scholars that are now saying that some of Paul's letters and other epistles are spurious. If Protestants remain consistent, they would have to consider removing those books in question as well. Need God keeps saying "we don't think they are scripture" for X reason. First, I don't know who "we" is but if he just follows his line of reasoning that the scholars take, he will end up siding with them or even Luther.
Church leaders who rejected the Apocryphal books:
5th Century: Jerome, Rufinius
6th Century: Pope Gregory the Great, Bishop Julinius, Bishop Primasius, Anatasius of Antioch, Leontius
8th Century: John of Damascus, Venerable
Bede
9th Century: Alcuin, Nicephorus of Constaniople, Agobard of Lyons, Walafrid Strabo, Haymo of Halberstadt, Ambrose of Autpert
10th Century: Radulphus Flavicencius
12th Century: Zonaras, Rupert of Tuits, Peterus Mauritius, Hugo and Richard of St.
Victor, John Beleth, Bishop John of Salisbury, Honorius of Autun, Peter Comestor, Peter Mauritius, Adam Scotus, Philip of Harvengt
13th Century: Glossa Ordinaria ("the tongue of Scripture" and "the bible of scholasticism" (The New Catholic
Encyclopedia), Archbishop Johannes de Columna, Nicholas of Lira, William Occham, Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher 15th Century: Archbishop Antoninus, Bishop Alphonsus Tostatus, Cardinal/ Archbishop Francis Ximenius, Jacob Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Alonso Tostado, Dionysius the Carthusian, Thomas Walden 16th Century: Jean Driedo, John Ferus, Cardinal Cajetan, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis.
Those who voted against the inclusion of the Apocryphal books at Trent. Cardinal Seripando, Bishop Bertano, Bishop Nacchianti, "the Servite general" (Bonuccio), Cardinal Madruzzo, Bishop Fonseca, "the Carmelite general" (Nicholas Audet), Bishop of Agde, and the Bishop of Carole.
Check out @ProtestantNotes on insta for more.
Additionally, the earliest canon list, made by Melito of Sardis had no apocryphal books. 39 OT, 21 NT (exclusion of the NT “antiligomena”)
Josephus, a second Temple Jew, uses the 39 book OT.
Eusebius records the Protestant Canon as his.
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty that's great. Individuals don't determine the canon, councils do.
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty that's great.
Melito of Sardis asked the Jews what the canon was. Melito's Canon INCLUDES the book of Wisdom and EXCLUDES Esther.
Please note that the Council of Trent is considered as an ecumenical council. Consult the lower portion of my previous post to see those who voted against the apocryphal books at Trent.
The 39 book proto canon has never been contested. The apocryphal books always have been questioned, even in the council that declared them as canon.
Well done for perservering in the discussion!
1.Which Jews is Roman's 3:3? The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Those that followed Jesus were all Jews and used those books.2. Jesus and the Apostle quoted from the Dueterocanonicals. 3.Their were Prophets around Prophetess Anna, so their were Prophets he stated their were no Prophets for 400 years before Christ, so he is in error. 4 Jews did accept and some didn't. 5 Josephus belonged to the Pharisees. So he accepted only certain books but the Sadducees accepted 5, Essenes accepted the Septuagint, Bereans accepted the Septuagint. AND Timothy accepted the Septuagint too.
You did a great bro.
@Catholic truth. Bryan taught him nicely in their debate. You may listen to their debate.
I just started watching it and I unfortunately will have to listen to it in bits and pieces because I’m tied up with several things but this dude from @needGodnet, starting at around 2:26, commits the biggest flaw that Protestants have. They use a crippled bible in the KJB. First of all they deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals as they were removed, if I’m not mistaken in 1825 by some British printing company. Martin Luther didn’t like them however, they were still included in the KJB but not as part of it; just something that made a good read. ML and others didn’t believe they were inspired, that is why they go all over the place with their own interpretations and form their own churches, splitting over and over and over, ad infinitum. He seems to be comparing the CC to the Mormons. He says He goes to the Jewish people, but they deny Jesus, so does he want to follow their footsteps? If so, then he also should deny Jesus.
Protestants fail to understand that King James had NO, absolutely NO authority to have a new version of the bible written. The CC canonized the bible WITH THE AUTHORITY given to Her by Jesus Christ. King Jimmy was a secular leader. It’s just like as if there had been a bible authorized by President Obama and calling it the true bible and he removed several books. Luther didn’t think the Letter of James or even Revelations should be part of the bible but they were kept anyway.
This dude lacks wisdom as the Book of Wisdom was removed from the True bible and he hasn’t studied it, or maybe he has, but since he has, as I said, a crippled bible, he will not believe anything that is written in them. The CC canonized the bible in 382 AD and approved by Pope Damasus and the CC Bible has remained the same since then. Those that protested didn’t like what was in them as they would have had to remain Catholic.
BTW this dude from @needGod.org was spanked in a debate with Alex from voice of reason.
We can have a moral certainty of salvation. If a person dies in a state of Grace, we can at least expect to receive the purification of soul before entering Heaven. Jesus expects us to obey him, we need to be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins, be his sheep by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner. If one just says the sinners prayer and fully believes in his sacrifice that he died for one's forgiveness, then not obey him, one cannot have have any certainty of salvation. Obedience is key to salvation, your faith depends on your obedience.
This is what i say all the time, but i get ignored, or criticised.
@@aussierob7177 blessed are you when that happens as annoying as it feels in the moment.
Ryan explains away James 2 by saying it’s about being justified before man, but I have to ask, who cares about being justified before man?
right?! no where does it say justified before men there either and he uses the same abraham verse paul uses in romans that they love to quote.
@@kwing6017 At best they'll try to point to how James says "I will show you my faith by my works" to a hypothetical person saying "you have faith and I have works" as if the point of works is simply to boast before other men how much better your faith is than theirs, but also God doesn't care about it at all (perhaps this is an uncharitable understanding). The common protestant way of explaining James 2 is that works are merely evidence of faith, rather than something that genuinely plays a part in our being made right before God (in that it completes grace and faith). But the only reason I can think of for being justified (made right) before man is so that other men can trust you as someone credible, like if you're teaching something (which is simply not the point of James 2).
@@kreatillion1718 no sir. At best we will say you are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!! **
Wonderful job dealing with his initial talking points on the canon. I find that the vast majority of the reasons he cites to reject the deuterocanon are arbitrarily drawn up and applied (i.e. he doesn't have an objective way of grounding the criteria or of applying it only to the deuterocanon). Ex: He says none of the deuterocanon were cited or alluded to by Jesus or the Apostles (debatable). Yet, when we point out instances we think are alluding to what is written in a deuterocanonical book they say "well just because it's alluded to/cited doesn't mean it's Scripture." Or when we point out that books like Esther are no where cited in the NT, their criteria all of a sudden shifts.
Not sure if NeedGod addressed this in the video, but: We know that citation doesn't equate inspiration. For example, the apocryphal Enoch is cited, but is referenced as a cultural work. Paul also quotes an invocation to Zeus within Greek poetry, "In him we live and breathe and have our being," but of course it's not affirming the canonicity of a pagan work.
Esther, on the other hand is counted among the OT canon even in the Second Temple period before any of the NT was written. It's been accepted as canon for thousands of years.
@@lucaskaufman1725 In your view what would indicate something is inspired? Also, Esther was disputed by the Jews in the Second Temple period. There isn’t a single copy of Esther in the Dead Sea Scrolls when we have fragments of every other book of the Bible including the deuterocanonical books that had been written at that time. The dispute of Esther’s canonicity by even the post-NT Jews occurred for the first at least 3 centuries. That’s part of the reason why it was disputed by some early Christians. Nonetheless, the truth won out by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the whole canon of 73 books was included in the Bible.
@@thecatechumen My indication that something is inspired differs from yours because I don't believe a book is made inspired by the authority of the pope or a council, but by its authoritative presentation, preservation, and agreement with the redemptive and theological themes of Scripture.
As for Esther, it was widely accepted among the Jews, though there was consideration in their Council of Jamnia in 90 AD in which, as I'm reading now, they solidified and confirmed the Hebrew canon, which notably included Esther but rejected the Maccabees as canonical and inspired Scripture.
My point still stands, that just because something is cited in Scripture does not confirm its inspiration and canonicity, as we have already seen.
@@lucaskaufman1725 Guess what? The Catholic Church doesn't teach that a book is MADE inspired by the Pope or a Council or by the Church. Your criteria that would apparently indicate something as inspired is kind of vague, no? "its authoritative presentation, preservation, and agreement with the redemptive and theological themes of Scripture." So, you assume the existence of Scripture as a criteria indicating something is Scripture? That's a logical fallacy.
Esther was disputed by the Jews as were some other books. The Holy Spirit guided the Church to accept it along with the deuterocanon just like the Essenes, the Alexandrian Jews, and the Jews of Qumran who used the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jews involved in the so-called Council of Jamnia (assuming that actually happened) were the Jews who rejected Christ. Their teaching authority was abrogated and inherited by the Church (who confirmed the deuterocanon).
@@thecatechumen My criteria is based on what it is that the apostles teach, consistent with the themes of Scripture, tested by Scripture. It was enough for the early church and it's enough for me.
What is fallacious is to believe that anything cited in scripture is immediately canon and God-breathed.
Great job Ryan! We will pray for this Catholics salvation! Trust in Jesus %100!
We’re praying for you guys actually
Yes, in the time of the apostles and after Jesus’ crucifixion, the term “Church” referred to the community or assembly of believers-those who followed Jesus Christ and His teachings. The Greek word used in the New Testament for “church” is “ekklesia”, which means “assembly” or “called-out ones.” It did not refer to a physical building but rather to the collective body of Christ’s followers.
The early Christian Church was understood as the Body of Christ, a spiritual community made up of all believers, regardless of location. This idea is expressed in several of Paul’s letters, such as in Ephesians 5:23, where Paul describes Christ as the “head of the Church” and the Church as His body.
Jesus is said to be coming back for His Church, which, in biblical terms, means the group of people who have put their faith in Him-His followers, or the faithful community of believers, rather than a physical institution or structure. This is sometimes referred to as the “Bride of Christ” (Revelation 19:7-9), symbolizing the Church’s close relationship with Jesus and the expectation of His return.
Heads up, don’t let them call the Deuterocanonical book apocryphal. Apocrypha means hidden and was specific to the “Gnostic” writings. The 7 books they removed were never hidden and not connected at all with Gnostics.
Also don’t use Maccabees for purgatory. That was before Jesus’s resurrection so it doesn’t apply to Christians.
Keep up the great work
This "needgod" dude fails the physiognomy test
Real
Well done, man! Keep up the good work.
Faith alone saves you at the initial justification. Thereafter one has to live out that faith otherwise if you fall away you could possibly lose your salvation. It's actually all over in the bible. This 'once saved always saved' doctrine is a dangerous belief which thankfully not all protestants adhere to.
Regarding the cabin:
1) the text cited if Josephus is written in a polemic against pagans. Obviously he is going to steel man the Jewish position by claiming a uniformity that is clearly not there based on the Sadducees rejection of resurrection and the dead sea scrolls
2) he mentions the "law and the prophets" and says the deuterocannocial does not fit into that. But neither does the mutual history books we accept like kings and chronicles
3) he states that the oracles were received by the Jews.
That's all.
We all agree that the Jews wrote and received the deuterocannocial.
But scripture doesn't say the Jews will DETERMINE or infallibly discern the canon.
So therefore the argument assumes this... Unfairly
To use a metaphor:
St Paul: "the groceries were delivered to the Jews"
That doesn't mean Bob put all the groceries in the cupboard. It means all the groceries were given to bob 🤷♂️
Ryan’s question at 33:30, basically if you trust in God today but later you sin 5 times and then die, do you still go to heaven? In one sense this severely underestimates the fact that sin offends God and that it leads to death, mortal sin in particular. This question is like asking “today I trust in you God” then tomorrow committing murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and blasphemy all in the same day and still expecting to be saved. That’s obviously insane, because Ezekiel tells us how you can’t be expected to be saved for your righteousness today if tomorrow you turn to wickedness as if your past good deeds compensate for your present evil deeds. The other sense of this question is that you sin venially out of your human weakness but still trying to remain a friend of God. In that sense yes you can still go to heaven (with some cleaning up to do first). But I don’t think Ryan makes that distinction.
22:19, 1 John: we love because he first loved us.
What does it mean to be saved by faith alone? Faith is a trust in revealed truth. The question I may have is how does this trust itself save us? First, what exactly are we trusting in? We put trust in something by assenting to it (that’s at least part of it). Assenting to _what_ exactly? That by Jesus dying for our sins and rising to eternal life and by our coming into communion with him, we can rise to life even if we die. That’s perhaps one precise thing to assent to. Is it now the case that this assent alone is good enough to merit righteousness? Surely trusting in this is more than just intellectual assent? Real trust impacts how you act, so if you don’t act in accord to your assent, it can’t be a meritorious trust. We also must trust that in order to love god we must keep his commandments. After all, we are told that we will be judged according to our works. It is sin which leads to death, and sin is an act, so how do we have good acts to be judged by instead? We are saved by being righteous, the question is how to become righteous? Firstly those sins need to be removed, and then life in righteousness must be lived out. Obviously it can’t be done all on our own apart from grace, because we can’t earn God’s infinite favor no matter how many deeds we may heap up, as if we can boast of our own goodness. Sin is only wiped away and genuine good deeds are done in response to the promptings of God’s grace (not prior to it, but after it). I return to the question of how faith relates to this, which is what I’m curious about. We perhaps know these promptings of grace through faith, ie trust in the claims that sins can be forgiven by a crucified man and that that good deeds are in fact meritorious for life in heaven. Because who in their right mind would feed a hungry man instead of themselves if there was no merit to be gained from it regarding life in heaven? You first have to be moved by grace to do that. I think there’s a sense in which we are righteous by our deeds (in the sense that we’ll be judged by them) and there’s another sense in which we are righteous by grace (in the sense that we cannot be righteous without it). Equivocating is what causes all the disputation.
TL;DR me thinking out loud
Keep doing what you’re doing. Debating is an acquired skill and, sadly, being right doesn’t mean you’re gonna win. Don’t be fooled by the Protestants who follow a perversion of Christianity which has come forth in the last few hundred years… Keep up the good work. It is hard to undo heresy that a person has built his entire Christian life upon…The entire Protestant view of God, Christianity, salvation, is warped.
About a question he asked:
“If God has judged you based on how you’ve lived, would you go to heaven or hell?” I see what he’s trying to ask, but is this not just the same question as “are you going to go to heaven or hell?” I say this because God DOES judge off based on how we’ve lived. Needgotdotnet proposes this idea as if it’s a hypothetical 😂
The thing is, while how we’ve lived does include sin, it also includes turning away from that sin and choosing God and staying in Gods grace. God isn’t only judging us based of our sins… If God isn’t judging us based off of our lives, what is He judging us on??? If He sees we have lived a sanctified life, then He will reward us. If He sees that we have lived a life of unrighteousness to the very end, then He will not. Am I missing something? The answer to Ryan’s question in this context would be yes…right?
I`m unsure why a gen0cidaI, baby murdering, sIavery c0nd0ning, invisibIe man w0uId have any right t0 pass judgement 0n any0ne
given that adam and eve are fictiti0us, as dna c0nfirms, I cann0t be heId resp0nsibIe f0r the aIIeged acti0ns 0f fictiti0us characters,
in the same way I am n0t resp0nsibIe f0r the murder 0n the 0rient express
f0r instance
erg0, I am n0t a "sinner" have never sinned against an invisibIe man
Thought you started off weak but dude I was wrong. Bravo 👏
Such a straw man to say we believe that our actions amount to anything compared to God's mercy. But what they do is express walking in Christ and building a *relationship* with him. To be part of his body
Read Cañons 24 and 32 of Trent.
Not to ruffle feathers but thanks to the reformation we got multiple denominations, bible mistranslations, and over all degradation of christian core values. Not to mention the removal of many verses and now some Protestants saying Jesus sinned or the removal of key words
Which Protestant denomination teaches that Jesus sinned?
@Zuungie actually only a select few but many are mislead by these John 7:8 were in some bibles Jesus lied about going to a feast, there's also the argument some have said since some say Mary wasn't full of grace aka without sin that Jesus would have original sin. Protestant is often an umbrella term which I should apologize on too. That's why I like using different bibles
Ps he didn't lie just some translations mistranslated that's all
@@rockykramer9134 Interesting -- I've never heard that argument before about Jesus lying in John 7.8. Clearly, He wasn't, because of v9, which makes it clear He followed His word. Thanks for sharing.
@Zuungie yeah, thank you, and it's best for both parties to learn these passages in case they come up, there are a few other translation craziness too like the word begotten is often mistranslated or misused in more modern Bibles that KJV doesn't
Faith alone appears in the boble only once, where in James 2:24, it says a person is considered righteous not by faith alone (NIV)
“To say faith + works is to say, Christ, you didn’t do enough to get me to heaven” WRONG! That’s totally not what Catholics say or believe. Rather, our “how do I get to Heaven” answer is “by remaining IN Christ up to our death”. Our good works and our sufferings are meaningless by themselves, but for the one who is IN Christ they become His good works and His sufferings too, which means they are anything but meaningless and are actually salvific grace playing into our lives. In this profound way, as Paul wrote, we are completing what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ! (Col 1:24). WHAT? Yep, Jesus loves us so much that he left us room to personally participate in his perfect sacrifice. And by doing so we are IN him!
Jesus celebrates the Feast of Dedication, which is Hanukkah, in the New Testament. The only other place the feast of dedication is mentioned is 2 Maccabees.. It's scripture
The Catholic Church did not outright ban the translation of the Bible into the common vernacular. However, they did restrict and prohibit the possession, reading, and use of certain editions and translations of the Bible. The Church preferred to keep the Latin language as the liturgical language, even when no one else spoke it. They also provided only a few difficult-to-access "chained Bibles" and forbade Bible translations in the vernacular. The modern belief that medieval Catholicism opposed translation of scripture into the vernacular is largely exaggerated and misleading.
Incorrect. Wiliam Tyndale was burned and strangled for doing so.
Agreed you were literally put to death for translating the Bible into anything other than the Latin Vulgate
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty What just like the martyr St. Thomas More for us Catholics brave solider of Jesus Christ who stood against the tyranny of a king even though he lived a life of comfort in that kings court.
Killed for being Catholic and faithful to the true faith, a smart faithful man of God who could see that King Henry 8th was taking England down an ungodly path by make his own Christianity.
The Catholics when England turned to the Anglican religion had all there property and wealth taken from them if they didn't convert, most lost their very lives. Centuries of religious persecution, catholic were not allow to meet together to celebrate mass until the 1800s.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty No William Tyndale was a troublemaker with wild ideas and got what was coming to him.
It was thanks to him that King Henry 8th decided that England will become a theocracy under a King, and there for gave himself the right to stealing property, wealth, and the lives from the Catholics living in his country.
You're not fooling anyone that knows history with your appeals to emotion.
William Tyndale wasn't executed because he translated the Bible. He was executed for sedition and possible regicide amongst many other charges.
So you're the one that is incorrect.
@@TryingToFollowChrist37Trading atrocity for atrocity does not detract from the point that your original comment is a blatant lie. Also research John Wycliffe and the execution of Jan Hus.
Iglesia ni Cristo is not even considered as christian for not believing in the Holy Trinity, so it should not be compared to the Catholic church. INC does not believe in Jesus' Divinity and would be considered as an indigenous protestant church.
The concept of "assurance of salvation" is kind of an highpoint of arrogance. There is a verse that protestants often use and that is 1 John 5:13 "13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
With this verse, they claim the concept of "assurance of salvation" by only believing in the Son of God. So if we look at verses 1 to 12 (the verses verse 13 is talking about) we get this:
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. (already we see that believing and loving is DOING, "OBEYING his commands", " KEEPING his commands", NOT just believing without doing, mere faith, faith alone) 4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. (Overcoming the world is a requirement that is obtained by carrying out and keeping God's commands? hmm..). And this is the victory that has overcome the world-our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (so we see that belief and faith go hand in hand with DOING His commands)
6 This is he who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.(how do we HAVE the Son? Simple, let's go back to verse 2 and 3: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. So if you are sure that you are KEEPING God's commands, by OBEYING His commands, you can know that you have eternal life. (verse 13).
It's a pretty bald statement to claim that you are fully obeying God's commands, especially for those who are outside of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ (which is in itself disobedience to our LORD). Instead of having the arrogance of claiming your "assurance of salvation", I'd rather pray to my LORD and say: LORD Jesus Christ, Son of the living GOD, have mercy on me, a sinner! I trust that you have saved me, that you are saving me right now and that you will keep me safe until my death. All I have is You and without Your finished work all I have is assurance of damnation. Because none of us can keep Your commandments perfectly, I pray that You keep us in Your grace and mercy and that You help us all to keep Your commandments. Help us to pick us our cross and follow You. My LORD and My God, have mercy on us, and on the whole world. Amen.
I litteraly ear some protestant claiming that you cant lose salvation even if you reject Jesus
TL;DR, claiming eternal assurance of your salvation is the sin of presumption, which is against the first commandment.
We don’t have nobody to guide us besides Jesus
Brother as a fellow Catholic I appreciate u defending are beliefs.. but u gotta press em on that whole free will thing God endowed us with. an Jesus himself saying not everyone who says Lord Lord will be in my Kingdom .but those who follow my father's will.. that already right there is action.protestants dance around the world doin works so much an say you gotta do basically the same thing as Catholic doctrine.. but say but acting out ur faith by doin as Christ isn't doin anything jus believing.. I guess all those christiansfor the first 1500 years are wrong
Nice first effort if I was you I would watch some of Bob Sungenis debates and read of his books
Can I debate you as well? I am a reformed protestant.
You rely on Christ and my life on how Christ asked me to live here.
We are saved by faith not by works. The Catholic Church does not believe our works get us into heaven. That has never been the Catholic Church's stance. This is a pointless "debate" because we believe the same thing. Here's what both these guys are missing. Yes we are saved by Christ but that doesn't mean we cant fall away from faith with him. This is where good works comes in. We do good works to STAY IN FAITH with Christ because if we don't then we are not true followers of Christ. For example, say if you go the protestant route and go faith alone. Are you still not a sinner? Nothing imperfect enters Heaven. What if you believe in Jesus and have faith but your faith falls on the last day of your life and you chose to murder someone and didnt repent? Do you think you'll be in Heaven after committing a breaking of the Lord's commandment? We must live out our faith by doing good works so we don't lose it. Otherwise we open the door to sin and turn ourselves away from God. The works themselves dont get you into heaven but the faith behind them does and the works are just helping you to sustain that faith.
Ex-Catholics For Christ
Question:
You said "THE Greek Septuagint" talking to this man.... Are you aware that there were at the least 3 different Greek Septuagint's (with differing canon lists) during the first and second century or was that a tactic to avoid what they "Laid Up in the Temple" in order to introduce confusion?
Sounds to me like even more confusion about exactly what books were canonical for 1st century Jews, thus making it harder for Protestants to claim their canon was THE Jewish canon. How about we trust the church?
Whole family was Catholic highly recommend looking at the information from read also from the Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible from your perspective and not from you where taught
Hopefully, the Protestant branch of Christianity can all agree on something and find some unity of Doctrine.
My whole family was Catholic also. They now “know better” because they read the Bible for themselves and are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are you a JW? Maybe a Mormon like my neighbor who also used to be a Catholic? Possibly a very Liberal Evangelical like my coworker???
The church has defined its interpretation of the Bible. Its called the catechism, creed.
The parts that it thinks matter anyway or the parts people have been heretical about. Squeaky wheel gets the grease kinda thing.
This Ryan dude is nice but way off on his arguments. Please join an apostolic faith!!!
45:55 outside the Catholic which denomination is the correct one when they interpret themselves?
This wasn't a debate, and it was barely a "discussion", which you also say it is. This is you hijacking a Q&A session, trying to steamroll. If you want a debate, arrange it properly with someone who agrees to debate you.
It was a discussion. An informal debate.
It was who hijaciikg the discussion?
You have to research more on grace faith and works. You did your best, but honestly can be better
Good stuff that you went to debate with him, but NeedGod definitely won this, good effort though
Skini looked dumb wit his faith alone interpretation
Both of you guys dont even know how to enter heaven. Both of yall are just worshipping christ in vain
how to get to heaven?
How am i doing today? Do you think i have a chance? Is my worship proper these days?
did you have the blessing of your Bishop to debate him?
Whole lotta yapping and stuttering from your part. I suppose you haven’t been into Catholic teaching for longer than a few months yet.
Less catechism, more Bible.
@@delroy.9709 Told everyone instantly in the video, **First live debate**
It’s all good though man.
@delroy - Why, the catechism and the Bible come from the same source and the catechism is properly referenced with Bible quotes for those that read it. 🤷🏽♂
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
they killed tyndale,catholic get out of your nonsense
Ryan cooked you.
you're non-ironically using the word "cooked" in a theological discussion. I doubt any opinions you hold are of any importance.
"Ryan cooked you" , is this language the fruit of your faith? Or perhaps we don't need to be Christian when we write an anonymous comment on the internet?
Aw yes, the guy I agreedex with won!, now get everyone to agree with your theology so we can have 1 faith and one baptism
lol this Catholic kid sounds like he’s just reading off of Wikipedia articles
“To say faith + works is to say, Christ, you didn’t do enough to get me to heaven” WRONG! That’s totally not what Catholics say or believe. Rather, our “how do I get to Heaven” answer is “by remaining IN Christ up to our death”. Our good works and our sufferings are meaningless by themselves, but for the one who is IN Christ they become His good works and His sufferings too, which means they are anything but meaningless and are actually salvific grace playing into our lives. In this profound way, as Paul wrote, we are completing what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ! (Col 1:24). WHAT? Yep, Jesus loves us so much that he left us room to personally participate in his perfect sacrifice. And by doing so we are IN him!