Newly Converted Catholic here: I gained a new perspective on “only scripture” argument when I simply came to realization that the Bible has what we need to know but it does not have everything known to God in it. Protestants pray for wisdom and guidance and their prayers are often answered….which is technically…. Wisdom from God outside scripture. I’m so grateful protestants and Catholics are having more of these conversations! Amen❤️
Amen... Also.... What did Christians followed before the bible was available? TRADITION.... And.... Who put the bible together? Catholics.... The title of this video.... Is wrong.... I'm Catholic still
don't think this video is true because as a true Roman Catholic would know that the "Eastern Orthodox" church not the Roman Catholic Church was the first. I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but the Roman Catholics split from the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm prodestant but I'm visited the Eastern Orthodox. Hey, I get it--you like the Catholic Church, but for factual sake look up the history and you'll see Eastern Orthodox Church was the first Church. Look it up.
@@pluto4847 To say one Church or the other was first is technically inaccurate. Orthodoxy and Catholicism were essentially united until the rising tensions gave way to the the “Great Schism” and then the split intensified. We are actually more similar to each other than any other division in Christianity. I have much respect for Orthodox Christians and would love to attend their Church one day. :)
@@emilyperez8172 Well I do know that yes Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are similar, and one could also say some similar flaws, As a former Catholic (Now Prodestant) the flaws are as follow: 1) Worked based salvation--meaning once you are saved you have to work your way until you die so all sins are repented of; 2) The veneration of relics and images; and 3) praying to Mary and the Saints. I suppose if you want to pray to them--be my guest, but why would you need to if Jesus Christ is sufficient? Many a times I have been called a heretic because I believe in the sufficencey of Jesus Christ. One difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the belief in Purgatory. I know the Eastern Orthodox preach no such place and like the Prodestants there are only two destinations heaven and hell. Catholics believe in a third place, but Eastern Orthodox and Prodestants believe in SAnctification--meaning once you are saved God instills good works into you so you become more holy over time. The good works don't get ou into heaven. The good works demonstrate that one is saved already because if you were not saved you would not want to do good works at all. No offense to you and I'm not saving all Catholicism is bad, its just that I lean more toward Prodestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy--not Catholicism. Even the prodestent faith doesn't completely get it right.
@@pluto4847I’m familiar with the Orthodox beliefs. I must say though It’s surprising as a former Catholic yourself how misinformed you are about your Faith with all due respect. I’m a former Protestant and spent many months in study and prayer before becoming Catholic and most of your claims are very much misguided but understandable because this is the narrative I believed for so long. Catholics do not believe by works alone you are saved but instead that good works are a natural consequence of the grace instilled into you from your faith by God. You would be in a state of venial imperfection if you did works for the sol purpose of salvation. What you did on this Earth does matter though to God and you can see that in several passages. Example: “Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” Matthew 7: 17-19
Low key, one of the primary reasons I'm no longer protestant is because I looked into the Church history and couldn't justify the removal of the deuterocanonical books. And even if they don't have hugely game changing doctrine in them, to believe in Sola scriptura and simultaneously be ditching 7 books of scripture just seemed too wild to me. And then I started looking into other doctrines, and realizing how much of a historical minority I was in, and how modern my "traditional reformed theology" really was
the original KJV included them but at the bottom literally it says NOT the inspired word of God. The only reason they were INCLUDED originally is because England was VERY catholic as just conformed over to Protestantism so they didn’t want to upset the majority of people. So even in the original KJV never had it as the inspired word of God, it’s fake, a hoax, It never was & never will be the inspired word of God, keep believing in a false gospel which teaches a works based salvation which is what Catholics believe & teach I mean in the video the catholic & Calvinist both say “it’s not by faith alone” complete herecy they are false teachers. Mark & avoid. I pray you repent(change your mind) on what the true gosepl is. It’s by faith alone. Nothing else the life you live has nothing to do with eternal life. There is no Jesus+be baptized+eat the flesh to be saved it’s believe in Jesus only. Put your FULL trust in the life he lived for you not the life you live for God.
So I'm not sure what research you did on cannon, but a lot of these discussions seem to be shaded in a way that is inherently disingenuous. There was no one cannon before protestants came along and made one (they were the first to really make cannon a big deal). The catholic church had many cannons not one single cannon. The Protestants went with one of the earliest historical cannons the one that was essentially the one that basically everyone agreed on, they even kept Hebrews and Revelation despite there being some dispute on those, because they were so used historically and they didn't feel they had the right to remove them even though many of the leaders didn't think they should be part of cannon (Hebrews because the author is unknown and Revelation because it is such a hard book to understand especially in the western 16th century context the protestants were formed in) The Protestant position has not been that if it isn't cannon its untrue, its simply that the cannon is one they can be absolute sure of I agree with the Protestant position that if the author of the book is unknown it better be very clearly holy spirit attested via the acceptation by the congregation as led by the spirit, that is not to say if a book isn't scripture it isn't useful or shouldn't be read, I love 1st Enoch but it isn't scripture and it shouldn't be considered as such, same for the 7 books that were promoted to cannon (even though they weren't part of cannon before because it didn't exist and many were unaware of these books even in the catholic church). The religious debate of the time meant some of these Apocrypha got promoted mostly because it contained a theological point the Catholics wanted to push against the protestant opposition which seems to me to be the worst way to choose cannon, better to be cautious and accept less books then to accept dubious scripture.
@@jaredgilmore3102Also, to add further on to this, Catholics have an Authority to tell them what is Canon, the Church Magisterium. The Church that Promulgated the Canon that the Pr-ts use an edited version of. Pr-testants don’t have this, with Scripture Alone, there is no Scriptural, Divinely Inspired “Table of Contents”, so idk how you would possibly even know what is Scripture and what isn’t. Even modern scholarship isn’t good enough to tell you completely.
I went from Protestantism to Catholicism and I'm very happy with my decision. However I enjoy listening to a few non-catholic channels due to their fairness, charitability and insight into the faith. This channel is definitely one those. Keep it up, Ruslan!
@@G2eazy97 do you believe Scripture, gabriel? do you believe that our Creator and our Saviour sets the rule for us? if you do, i can show you clearly how catholicism isn't even Christianity. do you believe that God's church upholds (teaches, preaches, follows) Truth - as 1 Tim 3:15 clearly shows us? do you believe we show love to Jesus - as John 14:15, His own Words dictate? do you believe we know God - 1 John 2:3 and walk in Truth - 1 John 2:4 or are these merely suggestions?
@@MAJPhilipCrabtreeWhy would he do that when Orthodoxy didn't become a thing until after 1054? Without the magisterium, you have the broken communion we see amongst other Orthodox Churches. Russia for example. With that being said, I could never go back to a protestant denomination. At least the Orthodox and the Catholic church have a valid Eucharist and real apostolic secession from the apostles. I pray that both will share in the Eucharist again.
Yes it was rather simple at first… The apostles taught people about Jesus and guided their churches. But who was to guide the churches after they all died?
The church was around for at least 20 years before any of the new testament was even available to read. The Didache might even be older than revelation.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” What Peter said is the rock Jesus was referring to. The church is built on the foundation of Jesus himself. Also Peter himself affirms this: 1 Peter 2:4-8 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”
@@jettruth Hello brother. I appreciate your zeal, but you are unfortunately incorrect in this interpretation. Protestant theologians have long accepted that the "rock" CANNOT be Peter's confession because of the Greek itself. Dr. Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran theologian, remarked in his contribution to Gerhard Kittel’s "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" that: "The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." Peter's name (Cephas in Aramaic and Petros in Greek) literally means rock. It is clear here that Jesus is making a reference to Peter's name. Any scholarly Protestant exegesis will agree on that point. In fact, John Calvin himself even admitted that the Rock refers to Peter.
@GrandDan0is Thank you! This verse is totally misrepresented by the Catholic Church! Peter did nothing, the Holy Spirit revealed his answer to him. Then he was rebuked, as you just proved with scripture. He was rebuked later by Paul, and Peter never once mentioned himself as being above the others who began the church with him, let alone a pope. 😊
A straw man fallacy involves the deliberate distortion of another person's argument. By oversimplifying or exaggerating it, the other party creates an easy-to-refute argument and then attacks it. Made sense to me and most of us.
I’ve been praying that Catholics, orthodox and Protestants can have more meaningful dialogue and conversations and listen to one another in a calm and civilized manner. This is beautiful to see and that conversation between stuckey, farmer and owens is great.
Same and I think is happening now. We are all the body of Christ to those who do the will of God. I disagree with Catholics but if you’re a Catholic who lives a life surrender to God and not just a Catholic by tradition then you’re a brother to me. I had to correct myself in assuming that Catholics worship Mary or believe in second chances like purgatory. I now know that they don’t do such things. I may not agree with their views but I can now understand their reasoning.
I’d disagree with him that the Papacy is a later doctrine btw, I agree with your comment, but I want to make clear that, the Defining of a belief, does not mean it wasn’t believed beforehand. For example, the Church Defined the Trinity, this does not mean the Trinity wasn’t believed beforehand. This is just the Church, probably after an argument, Declaring that something is a belief that Catholics hold, generally something that was already held for centuries. Another thing is that yes, there is actual what we call doctrinal development, (a lot of practices and beleifs can be seen with the very early Church however), but doctrinal development basically means our understanding of Scripture and Tradition grows, whereas Tradition and Scripture remain the same. Absolutely thank you for praying for that.
@@kyrptonite1825 I mean, it was not really an early church doctrine right nor stated anywhere in the Bible the way the papacy is taught of today. In the early church, there were mainly bishops in each city. Rome obviously was a large influence and the Bishops were appointed. Then I believe in the 7th century, the Bishop felt that Rome was most important and wanted to be considered the 'univeral' bishop and then some form of struggle ensued until the office of the Pope and the traditions we see today were established. None of that is in the Bible. It was created by humans.
@@danielkim672 that is completely false, firstly papal supremacy can certainly be deducted from the bible but it doesn't need to be in order to be true. If you read any of the Church Fathers such as Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Cyprian, the list goes on and on, you will find papal supremacy and the importance of being in communion with whoever holds the chair of peter. You will find references to the capability of infallibility and how the chair of peter is fundamental to maintaining Church Unity. The first widespread canonical bible was literally convened under Pope Damasus I in the Council of Rome in 382.
@@caseycardenas1668 Completely false? And then you describe a Godly issue does not have to have directly Scripture support for it to be true? So who are we supposed to base this truth on? Humans? You say papal supremacy can be 'deducted' from the Bible, aka twist the Bible text to support your theology? Where does it teach this papal supremacy? When does this teaching come up in the actual early church? Just because humans decided to appoint a leader does not mean it has Scripture support. The first widespread canonical Bible was not convened in the council of Rome. All true early Christians new exactly which books were the true Words of God and which were not. No one needed a council to come up with that. They just rubberstamped it to make it clear the wrong letters out there, especially the various 2nd and 3rd century letters. The Council clearly got things wrong too as the evidence we have from the few codexes all are different. They contain different Aprocrypha books, but the interesting thing is that all of the codexes have the same books last the non catholic Bible. The Jewish Old Testament is all included and obviously the intact New Testament. Evidence will point to the fact that the the Jewish canon of 2023, was the canon of 1st century, and was canon of around 400BC when Malachi , the LAST PROPHET before John the Baptist wrote His letter.
Ruslan my family and I converted to Catholicism this Easter from a Protestant tradition. Although I don’t completely agree with you here on many subject thank you for not being afraid to talk about these things. One thing that has been so obvious to me in my conversion is both sides need to be much more charitable to each other! Keep it up!
@@danielkim672 actually Catholics call Protestants Christian’s. They just believe they don’t have the fullness of the faith that is found in the Catholic Church.
@@saltnpepperfire318 That was not the position of the Catholic church until recently correct? When did that position officially change? And many Catholics, especially those in higher positions still believe that no one is a real Christian unless they are part of the 'universal church'
@@danielkim672You'd be a tare if you didn't only worship Jesus and keep his commandments. But with the catholics church they pray to Mary and the dead and created a weird thing called a pope. They don't even come to Jesus to repent they go to a priest which makes even less sense. That's why Jesus says "my people perish for lack of knowledge."
I think it’s interesting how you say things like “this is how Catholics trap you”. If you talk to a good Catholic, it’s about explaining what we believe and why, not about “trapping”. I think it’s sad that so many of these conversations evoke a feeling of “gotcha” when they really should be taken as an opportunity (by both sides) to learn where the other is coming from. Not trying to convert, not trying to trap, not trying to do anything beyond asking questions, listening to answers and learning about how our different religions came to believe what we believe.
Exactly. The same people will talk about how Catholics don’t evangelise enough- so let me get this straight, the people who don’t preach their faith enough are also trying to trap you? It’s so wild how they act like free will isn’t a thing
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD RESTED on the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD BLESSED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD SANCTIFIED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD NAMED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD DECLARED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special??? Book, chapter and verse!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture. Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture. ; their teachings are merely human rules. Mark 7:7.> >>>> WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ taught the FIRST DAY of the WEEK that it was a REST day make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ taught that the FIRST DAY of the WEEK BLESSED to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ taught the FIRST DAY of the WEEK was BLESSED to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ that the FIRST DAY of the WEEK was Named to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ DECLARED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK by God as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@@mitchellosmer1293 The tone of your comment does not sound inviting to dialog. You’re asking a Catholic to do a lot of work here answering all your questions in writing while at the same time basically showing everyone that you are not open to hearing the beliefs and where they come from (proclaiming in advance that it will be “twisted”). I’d suggest a deep breath and some prayer to start your day. I hope you’re filled with blessings today.
@@ThatsNotReallyHowThisWorks Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture. Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture. ; their teachings are merely human rules. Mark 7:7.>
@@mitchellosmer1293 I’m not going to look these all up for you. Like I said, your tone does not suggest open dialog. However, if you go to Catholic sites like EWTN, etc, you will find answers to your questions and process them on your own. As an alternative idea, you can speak with a Catholic priest who can answer your questions about the biblical references for Catholic beliefs. Or, you can ponder the fact that a lot of Christian beliefs do not have book, chapter and verse references (for example, the word “trinity” is not in the Bible. The words “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” are not in the Bible). That doesn’t mean those beliefs are wrong, it just means there is no Biblical reference for those phrases. The teachings are still there (whether what we’re talking about is what you’re asking or what I mention above) even without the precise wording you are looking for. Many theological teachings require more than just a book, chapter, verse. They require research from people who can/did read the original texts written in Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
@@Hboogie182 he just spoke about things that are easy for discussion. when it comes to the intercession of Mary and the Saints, purgatory, or praying for the dead. These things you will not understand unless you dig deeper into the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic faith. I would look into their beliefs about the divine human nature of God while making this decision.
Chaotic? So calling a man holy father, despite God saying only he is holy, is NOT chaos? Sounds demonic to me. The very definition of chaos. You cannot save yourself, Mary cannot save you, saints cannot save you, the pope sure as heck can't. Only Christ, only faith in him, only him
@@deadboltzz5199 Ugh. Please don't make your fellow Protestants look bad by your lack of charity. By the way, the saints are all ALIVE in Christ. St. Paul says ask Christians to pray for you. When a person dies, and is "saved" as you Protestants put it, they are alive in heaven. They do not stop being Christians just because they die. Even Billy graham said that people who die and are in heaven are MORE alive than we are. You can see in the book of revelation that there are the saints offering up our prayers to God the Father. SO yes, they can hear us and see us and are even praying for us.
@@philipbolin6776holy just means "set apart", the revelation verse you are referring to just states that god is set apart from other nations deities, because God is real and they are not. So is the pope holy because he is set apart from other bishops? Obviously. You just misunderstand the word which can mean very different things in context
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 so you're willing to define words in that way. Ok how about call no man father, for God is your only Father. Or only God/Christ can forgive sins. Or no graven images? I can go on
In the book of Macabees you can find evidence of a saint who has passed interceding on behalf of Israel. Protestants don’t believe in the intercession of the saints while the apostolic churches, Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches do; so that is one way that the apocrypha affects theology and practice. There are Protestants who claim that saint intercessions are pagan accretions from when Christianity became the official religion of Rome but that is incorrect. Both the veneration and intercession of saints goes back to the Old Testament times within ancient Judaism.
Anything outside of scripture should be examined by scripture to make sure it’s true. Scripture should get the last say, ultimately. Just my opinion tho.
Amen ! Jesus literally is athe Word of GOD, We are told Scripture is Inspired by God and If True Believers Actually Read Those ' red words' in their Bibles' .. There Is no need for any of our own thoughts, efforts or self enlightenment/ knowledge or rituals....🙏❤️
I believe if it doesn't contradict scriptures it's okay it may be something that wasn't specifically done in scriptures but alot of the traditions let us better understand scripture
@@johnuzoka6124 But there are things that are done like the Beliefs about Mary? No Original Sin'? The deification of Saints? The Intercession of Priests when Jesus has Clearly stated those of us that are ' Born Again' are His ' priests' and He is ' Our High Priest' who intercedes to the Father on our Behalf, thus we don't need all this False Religion? It becomes Deception leads to Idolatory , herecy,.... Then if you Do Actually go ' down the Rabbit Hole'... You find out there is a Part of it that Is Organised by the Elite Satanic LUCIFERIAN Order..( But that's for a Whole other show!!! LOL!! 😉🥰🙏💖)
@@tmc1861that is communion of Saints… something that all Christians unanimously agreed on up until the Protestant reformation 500 years ago so try again.
@Lexy don't worry a lot of people in the comments refuse to acknowledge this and purposely straw man Catholics and Eastern Orthodox because they have to have the right opinion against those churches. Just look at the comments from TMC, above and probably the ones that will come after mine, they refuse to except what Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe.
For more clarity about Catholic doctrine read the letters of the early Church fathers. Then Google Marianic miracles and Eucharistic miracles for clarity concerning the Blessed Mother and transubstantiation.
After much study, I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. Best choice I ever made, because it is true. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, unworkable, and self-refuting.
I’d love to see Voddie talk with Scott Hahn. I appreciate them both, Voddie for his sermons and Scott for his talks. Anyways, both of them are far above the knowledge “league” so to speak of Allie and George, but that’s why we need them!😂
@Sarai Hope George Farmer seems to have a lot of questions and it does not seem like anyone is able to fully address it for him. So I believe teacher like Mr. Baucham will be able to help. Even thought I don't share everything Mr. Baucham believes in I believe George's question will be answered in detail.
The historical understanding is Luther wanted a couple of those 7 books removed because they mentioned the process of purgatory. Also, he wanted the book of James and Revelation removed from the NT. And he did add the word alone to the NT
Im german and whenever I read the Luther Bible I noticed how he conveniently translated to his benefit. For example, he translated "Church" from Matthew 16:18 as "Gemeinde", which is a Word that coule both mean "Community" as well as specifically religious Community. This obviously makes it sound like Christ established a community, when he actually established a Church. Of course if Luther admitted that there is such a thing as "a church of christ", he would never be able to compete with his manmade doctrine. When I want to check if a german Bible is BS, i check how they translate matthew 16:18
@nishisingh227 the thing is no one in protestantism looks at James that way. We see the works as a sign of faith there proof of a changed heart. We don't follow luthur. We measure him by the same standard. With scripture He wasn't perfect.and protestant don't claim he is. So non sequitur
After studying the splits and different bible translations my search for the original church led me right back to Catholicism. Now I'm much more grounded in the faith thank you Jesus.
It is so interesting seeing these comments, when I was born again, I felt a conviction about Catholicism and had to separate myself from it and just follow Jesus the way he told me to in the Bible
Jesus said Peter's the Rock (foundation), so that's that confirmed. I love reading people's comments here of converting to and properly understanding Catholicism. I'm what some may call, a 'born-again' Catholic. Born and raised Catholic - but I went wayward, downward, and got SO lost exploring other faith/church practices for many years including protestant. But miraculously when I was in the most complete dark despair in life, I found my faith again during a trip to Lourdes Grotto, France in 2008. Since then I have never looked back. I did my Confirmation in 2011 returning to the Catholic faith, and feel like a prodigal who finally returned home to the mother church. I have a strong devotion now to Mother Mary who interceded and comforted me to help guide my return. There is no more need for 'human-mind' arguments of holy scripture/teachings, or the 'who's right who's wrong debating' authority/division. There is now only love and salvation found again following the Catholic practice. It's just so beautiful when you finally come to realise and get to experience it - and in faith, hope and LOVE I really wish it for all, even if it's in the last day/min of your life.. come home.
Here is the formula according to Catholics: Tradition provided true scripture-- True Scripture confirms tradition-- No true scripture may violate tradition No tradition may violate true scripture
Check the Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 parallel. It shows what Jesus meant by the keys and binding and loosening. This made me start taking the papacy seriously.
You’re right on Sola Scriptura as one of the starting arguments of Catholicism. Because it’s easier to prove. And then it opens up all the church history writings supporting other doctrines such as Papal infallibility Irenaeus is the first church father I see defining Papal infallibility in Against the Heresies book III, Chapter 3. Written 180 AD.
@kellibuzzard9431 ad hoc So after all the sanhedrin and farasee tuaght the law.... And what happened. Christ admonished going against God's word... Christ said that in vain u do worship teaching the doctrine of man
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of man. The 66 table of contents of the Potestant bible is also made by man. 1,500's these traditions started.
@@CPATuttle yes and so is the pope and forced sacrements and confession to a priest. Christ directly admonishes teaching doctrines of man. And tells to refer to scripture. Just as the bible doesn't directly state trinity. Does it have to directly have to state sola scriptura. If ur tradition contradicts key word contradicts. Scripture. Trinity isn't said. But it doesn't contradict Sola scriptura is literally in agreement to christ saying to follow what is written
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Christ didn't mention anything about a bible, and particularly those 66 books. So you can't make that connection. This didn't start until 1535 English version after King Henry of England broke away from the Catholic church so he can committ adultry. All the bibles before then had different books. Protestantism starting point of belief is an error.
Why would you trust a computer to tell you anything true? GIGO is a known issue from before computing became a thing. All a machine can tell you is what it was programmed with, and information it can reference. THE Church was started by Jesus Christ and His Church is the body of those who believe in Him and His salvation by grace through faith. You can (possibly) have that through Catholicism (if you don't get distracted by all the... stuff) and you can have it through just belief in the Gospel. If you don't really understand that, rather than Siri, go ask the Ethiopian.
Weird how she says she doesn't believe that a Pope or a Council can come together and declare a doctrine that isn't "explicitly" stated in scripture. Yet, she accepts the canon of scripture declared by the church and she accepts the Trinity. Both of which are doctrinal developments based on the authority of the church and Sacred Tradition
I Encourage you to read one of the early Church Fathers's Ignatius of Antioch who learned directly from Peter and John. His writings on the Eucharist alone turned me Catholic. If you want to learn why Catholics believe what they do about the Eucharist, there is no better book to learn from than Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Dr. Brant Pitre. Also one of the books that removed were new testaments. James. Which contradicts Sola Fida which is why it was Luther Removed it.
@LlamasandBudgetsLuther wanted to remove it but was unsuccessful because unfortunately for him, many of his Protestant followers were more faithful to God than they were to him, the arch-heretic they professed to follow.
@@berwynsigns4115 stop accusing Luther of being a heretic. The only reason Martin Luther was called a heretic was because there was the idea that he wanted to split the Catholic Church. He never intended to split the Catholic Church.
Peter did have final authority among the apostles. Even when Paul got beef with Peter, it was in the context of Paul saying he stood up even to Peter. An organization must have a head. Christ assigned that authority to Peter. Read up on the Eliakim arguement
But He was not infallible or dont you remeber when Jesus said to Peter have you the biggstest faith of All and He said yes of course lord and then when they crufied him He denied jesus 3 times so how can you say He was infallible thats just false even saint Peter would say that thats because obviously the pope was never infallible He was just the head of the church in that sense yes but everyone had the same rights as a bishop and no one could decide on their own
@@tony1685 i name you Cephas, and upon this Cephas i will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Still think it's out of context?
@@AthanaSus a few things here actually: 1 - get a concordance -- Jesus clearly labeled Peter _'petras'_ - here, meaning 'pebble'. 2 - the Subject of this -verse- passage in Matt 16:13-20 is Jesus Christ , not Peter. 3 - it's labeled _'Peter's _*_CONFESSION_*_ '_ - not _'Peter's Promotion'_ 4 - there are many, many ways to prove this verse was not promoting Peter. 5 - here's just one -- see Matt 18 - just 2 chapters later, notice verse :1 - even the apostles didn't believe this nonsense. anyhow, headed to church now -- Jesus is there on the Lord's day, the 7th day Sabbath -- Luke 4:16, John 15:10 *Happy Sabbath!!!*
Luther also tried to remove James for the good works section and 1 corinthians because it was too close to purgatory. Do you guys thinkna man like that would remove the deuterocannon purely out of scholarly consideration? Or is it because theres prayers for the dead, purgatory, guardian angels, and haunaka his favorite jewish holiday. Still luther believed many of our marian dogmas and real presence in the eucharist so i guess hes not all bad lol. Still i wouldnt trust his version of the Canon his theology obviously comes first
Im German and the Lutherbible is a common Bible version around today. It translates some things very suspiciously vague, such as translating the Church on the Rock as "upon this rock I will build my community"
Jay Dyer is a little too strict in his view. His worldview, so to speak, hinges upon things like anti-Foundationalism, Coherentism, and presuppositionalism. I probably agree with his anti-foundationalism, but presuppositionalism is not convincing to me.
Saw this video of Ray Comfort having a conversation with a Catholic, or it might’ve been about Catholicism in general, and he mentioned that Catholicism actually took out the 2nd commandment that talks about idols and graven images and split the 10th which says to not covet. I’ve never heard anyone mention that about Catholicism
The focus of the commandments is not the order rather its the commandments that are important, read up on the 10 commandments all we did was combine the 1st with the 2nd. Ie we have . I AM THE LORD THY GOD: THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME. COMMANDS: faith, hope, love, and worship of God; reverence for holy things; prayer. FORBIDS: idolatry; superstition; spiritism; tempting God; sacrilege; attendance at false worship. This means the exact same thing as the same second commandment of not having any other God/ Idol. I do encourage everyone please study not only from anticatholics but from actual catholics. Then we split the commandment of coveting your neighbors goods versus wife, because your wife is not your property nor compared to property, neither is this what God said we as women are, we are coheirs to the kingdom of God. Ultimately we have all the original 10 commandment as it's 10. you shall not covet your neighbors goods. 9. you shall not covet your neighbors wife or spouse. 8. You shall not bear false witness. 7. You shall not steal. 6. You shall not commit adultery. 5. You shall not murder. 4. Honor your father and mother. 3. Keep the lords day holy. 2. Don't use the lords name in vain. 1. I am the lord your god, you shall have no other Gods before me. Feel free to ask me questions if you want, I will do my best to help people understand catholics and once more I encourage you and everyone to learn from learned catholics what catholics actually do. Have a blessed day.
@@nneomaimo2493 why?? Why did y'all have to do that. all that you said didn't give a justified reason to adjust the ten commandments, there is no justified reason. God wrote those with his fingers in that order so yes I would say it does matter the order and I would say God's commandments didn't need any adjustments, it was fine, he didn't make any mistakes. So whyyyyyyy? ( A genuinely concerned person)
@@BigRed28 no the order is not the focus, aside from the 1st, because as we know no sin is greater than the other, so it's not organized as saying this sin is greater than this sin, instead the basis of the commandments were to guide the jews as to how to act. This is the same way that. When jesus quoted the commandments in lk 18:18-20, he didn't place them in order instead he said you know the commandments. It's same way that paul spoke of individuals who were getting at believers for not being circumcised or pharasees saying you need to rest on sabath, in the same way God said to rest on the 7th day so shouldn't it have been so. Then why did Jesus say the sabath was made for man and not man for the sabath. Ie why focus on order which is not the focus of the commandments when you should focus on the commandments themselves. Did we remove a commandment if we did please get mad at us, rightfully so, but if we didn't such, then why do you see it as if we've thrown Gods words to the Ground. As with sabath and jesus telling them that they focus on something abritary and forget the importance of it being God. Same with the commandments the purpose is God not the order. Also it technically wasn't even reordered the 1st and the 2nd are just together and what was once the last commandment broken into two to delineate that a woman is not an object. Also christ came in and said the most important commandment is to love God and love your neighbor if we added those as 1 and 2 then wouldn't the others shift down. In reality there are 12 commandments. The order was mostly based on relevance as in relation to one another 1-4th relate to how we approach God, 5th is it's own category as it has a promise, and 6-10 relates to our relationships with those here with us on earth. Meaning this contextualization matters for the purpose of guiding us but no sin is greater than the other, other than the 1st. As such we still retain this contextualization.
@@nneomaimo2493 It does matter the order even If it's not the focus because GOD WROTE IT THAT WAY , and there is and will be no reasonable explanation for that church to make any adjustments BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT whyyyy BECAUSE GOD WROTE IT THAT WAY AND HE DOESN'T MAKE MISTAKES ( not shouting highlighting a point) regardless of whatever explaination, history or whatever. God wrote it with his own fingers Moses didn't, showing just how important this is , there was nothing wrong with it before so you didn't need to add, combine, separate or take away anything there is nothing that could justify it cause it's not like they were making it simple using synonyms so people could understand. Couldn't y'all just leave it the way it is, why feel the need to change and adjust .
Even though the word “Pope” is not found directly in the Bible, the underlying meaning of that word is. The word “Pope” is derived from the Greek word, “pappas,” which means, "father" (Latinized as “papa”). In Isaiah 22, verses 19-24, we see God telling Shebna, who was the chief minister of the House of David, that he will be replaced in his office by Eliakim, and that Eliakim will have authority and will be a “father” [papa; pope] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. Also in this passage, God says that Eliakim will have the key of the House of David and that he “shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” This passage from Isaiah was obviously on the Lord’s mind when he said to Peter, in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church...I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” Eliakim was the chief minister in the House of David. What is the new House of David? The Church. Who is the chief minister in the Church? Peter, and his successors - the Popes. Eliakim was given the key of the kingdom. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom. Eliakim had the authority to shut and to open. Peter had the authority to bind and loose. Eliakim was a father to the those in the House of David, just so Peter is a father to those in the new House of David - the Church. So, since Peter is a “father” to those in the Church, just as Eliakim was a “father” to those in the House of David; and the word “Pope” means “father;” then we can say that the underlying meaning of the word “Pope” is actually found in the Bible - right there in Isaiah 22. And, we can further say, that Catholic belief regarding the role of the Pope is also found right there in Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, as well as in other parts of Scripture. (from the bible christian society website) I think part of the problem is non-Catholic Christians don't understand that Jesus came to establish His Kingdom and where the Pope is in that Kingdom. For anyone who is interested in learning more, I share a link to an audio episode explaining it >>> The Gospel of Matthew "The King and His Kingdom" with Professor Tim Gray Epi 8 Peter's Confession The Father (God) revealed to Peter and he confessed to Jesus: "You are the Christ, and the Son of the living God What does it mean when Jesus said: " You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church."
Acts 15 actually has Peter speaking dogma, and James speaking discipline. The words that James said were flushing out the execution of what the words of Peter meant for going forward.
@@imamjimjamlawrence the gift of being infallible in interpretation is not the same as being impeccable in behavior. I have as a Catholic heard that there have been up to 50 popes, who were very poor on administrative judgment or personal behavior, but yet were valid popes, and the specific definition of infallibility was not compromised. People infallibility means someone who is pope speaking, universally to the entire church, about faith in morals, and making sure it is clear they are speaking from their office in the chair of Peter. None of them is a king, but only a Prime Minister to the king of kings and lord of lords. Sort of like Joseph in Egypt.
@@jembenjamin You mean like popes who purchased the authority, and killed people for it, and committed adultery in order to marry the women that they wanted? This is where I find another problem. That problem being that Paul says we shouldn't even eat with a self proclaimed brother who is living a blatantly sinful lifestyle, but it's okay for one who is living a blatantly sinful lifestyle to have all authority over the church? Sounds broken.
@@kellyanne7225 god defined scripture through his body The Church. This is just historical fact. Of course the Holy Spirit determined what is scripture and what is not . But it was done through the Church. Just as Christ told us , the Holy Spirit would accomplish much more than he was able to do while physically on earth. The Holy Spirit functions through the Church. Plain and simple. I encourage you to read on how the canon was formed
1&2 Maccabee’s is what Catholics use to defend their stance on purgatory. So in a sense the apocryphal books do change New Testament theology. Also the apocryphal books are not in the Hebrew Bible.
If I had to say the main thing that would never make me become protestant is Eucharist and Holy comunion I see it as center of our religion as a fulfilment of what makes our faith. I always thought my faith would be empty without it I would have no reason to stay
Your faith should be in Jesus alone and what he did on the cross. It has nothing to do with keeping a tradition no matter what branch of the church you follow
As a Protestant, I do agree with your comment! Although some Protestant traditions (Lutheran and some Anglican) attempt to keep the Eucharist the focus, most do not and have strayed away from even the original reformers. I long for the Eucharist to be at the center!
@@elle9082 so by definition the eucharist is to practice cannibalism, as opposed to context in scripture where eating His flesh and drinking His blood was strictly a symbolic representation of the new covenant. Let that sink in.
@@arcguardian encourage you to check out what the early church had to say about it. it was near unanimously believed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, which is why many older Protestant traditions still believe it.
I think the main concern is that if the bible isn't the main authority anyone in charge of a church will make up rules and say that you need to follow those rules to be closer to God or to get to heaven.
Mary did not conceive Jesus, she only carried him. He was incarnated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:35). His body being connected to Mary, and thus her DNA, but she was in a way a surrogate mother. God entrusted His Son to them (and Joseph) to grow as a man on this Earth. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mary is the mother of God, because God is before time and Mary is created. When Jesus was on the cross, He separated himself completely from her, calling her a woman and entrusting her to John the Apostle as her son, and she his mother (John 19:25-27). Mary inherited the Adamic seed of sin (Romans 5:12). Jesus no, for he was not conceived by man, but was borne in man (in Mary). For this reason he was not supposed to have a physical father either. Mary is not the mother of God, just as Joseph is not the father of God. Just as some adoptive parents are parents to some degree, but in essence, they are not really the child's parents. No man could live righteously before God and thus be the Savior of humanity. If he was conceived from Mary (her DNA) then He would also have inherited the sinful Adamic seed, which is blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His divine nature (Romans 8:3, Hebrews 4:15). Revelation 12:1, 2 (read in context) refers to Israel giving birth to the Messiah, and does not refer to any "queen", which would be Mary. The only man through whom we have access to God, be it salvation, intercession, or the forgiveness of sins, is the Man Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:5). The elevation of Mary led (and leads) to her idolization and together with her came to the idolization of other saints, relics and objects with a religious tone. This error opened the door to justified idolatry. Idolatry leads to Hell (Galatians 5:19-21, Colossians 3:5-7, 1 John 5:21).
@@LazarAndrei-VNI You’ve misunderstood the way HE used the word “woman” at the cross. It has a deeply reverent and symbolic meaning that you’re not comprehending most likely due to your own culture, language and spiritual blindness.
Hi, I am Roman Catholic. Really like these videos. Thank you. I remember in either 1st or 2nd Maccabees Judas Maccabeus and those other Israelis prayed for those who died, who carried idols they weren't supposed to have, that they might be delivered from their sin. That is related to the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences. It is quite shocking for me that these other books were taken out as well. I know Wisdom is very interesting book. Sirach gives many details from earlier books such as Exodus and Genesis. That is a lot of books to let go of. I know 1 & 2 Maccabees actually happened because that is where Hanukkah comes from. So that does still deal with a major historical event. The Maccabees reigned all of the way until Jesus came when Herod the Great took over. The book of Maccabees is really important book. I think if I were a Protestant, I would read actual historical books such as Maccabees before I read other fake books that are out there. I don't think anyone can read Book of Maccabees and waste their time, even if it is just for a historical lesson. May Christ's peace be with you!
Great dialogue and video! I think in these dire times with all the evil we see in our culture, it’s of the utmost importance that all Christians stay United. I think it’s great when these conversations can be held that challenge us while remaining respectful. That being said, I hope if Ruslan ever sees this that he’ll consider reading about the different Eucharistic miracles. The miracle of the Holy Eucharist is enough to make me want to remain in the Catholic faith. ❤️🙏🏼
One of the concerns is that the evil one will pretend to be from God and we have people going astray and believing in false things. Can you provide Scripture support about the Holy Eucharist the same way the Magisterium describes it?
@@danielkim672 Please read John 6 where Jesus compares Himself to manna and the body and blood that We need to be part of Him. Also ask yourself if the Eucharist was insignificant, why does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11:27, that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ?
@@DavidLTJ I never said that what we are provided with as an example during the Last Supper is insignificant. What I said was the way the magisterium describes what happens during the roman catholic eucharist is not Biblical, not supported by Scripture. Correct me if I am wrong, but the teaching is that during the Eucharist, the bread actually turns to flesh and the wine turns to actual real blood. That CLEARLY does not happen nor is it taught in the Bible. That is what I am trying to say. I am not sure why bringing Semitic culture has to do with this discussion.
@@danielkim672 Jesus said: "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of me". Many turned away from him. then He asked the twelve, "Do you also wish to depart from me?".... What makes you believe that Jesus didn't leave this instruction for us all? And Why should we not believe its the true presence of His Body and Blood? You have the freedom to believe otherwise, of course. God bless.
to my Protestant brothers and sisters questioning the nature of Mary and her immaculate conception these are a few thing Martin Luther said about her… “[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531 and in another sermon he said, “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” As far as his opinion on the eucharist being the REAL presence not just a symbol, "in which the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially (vere et substantialiter) present, offered, and received with the bread and wine." The time between the first christian church/mass celebration to the reformation period was 1550 years. So, if the reformers were correct then you would also have to accept that Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles lead the early people into a false church and the Christians before the reformation were all abandoned by God. However Jesus promises they keys to the kingdom to Peter and He promises He will never abandon or forsake them (mt. 16, 18 & deut. 31:6). If the premise is true that the catholic church was always wrong then every christian church today would also be wrong since the Protestant denominatinons were just a rejection of select catholic teachings - i prefer to believe that Jesus and Peter did not lead the people into a false church days after His death.
This view point concerns me because it can and does allow for false doctrine to be crept into your learning about the bible thus leading you astray. It's concerning
What is even more concerning than everyone having their own autonomy in faith is Catholicism becoming like the Jews of Jesus’ day, with their doctrines of men
@@mesafamily5830 But in the end its every man who must answer to God, your analogy makes no sense the Jews of Jesus day were highly hierarchical and legalistic. I'm not saying this as an insult but objectively the Catholic church is quite a lot more similar to the politics and structure of 2nd temple Judaism then any of the Protestant churches are.
I’m so grateful I had returned to the one true Church, the Catholic Church, many years ago. For a few years I attended several of the 40,000 different protestant sects. All differing with one another. Christ is the one that gave us the supreme authority on Earth, the Pope. Christ established the Chair of Peter. That way we have a magisterium, the teaching authority, and a visible leader. Not a bunch of mass confusion and 10,000 different ways to interpret holy Scripture.
Im happy with your fair take on this Ruslan. I’ve been studying Church history and was startled to find Luther removed books. It’s important to remember that Catholics justify purgatory from one of the Deutero-canon books that was removed. However, orthodox Christians don’t believe in purgatory but still have those books. Other than that, I think it doesn’t really change anything.
Jerome, the one who created the Vulgate, didn't want the Deuterocanon books included based on them not being in the original Tanak. Jerome relented and included them against his wishes due to the authority of the Church that was commissioning his work. The Deuterocanonical books were added to the OT when the Septuagint was created, possibly at the request of Ptolemy II, for historical reasons. While the books aren't meaningless, some apostles quoted from them, such as Jude, the books aren't on the same level of authority as the other OT books that were part of the Tanak. The Protestants just went back to including only the OT books that were in the Tanak albeit in a different order, and some books split into two like the Book of Kings.
Orthodox Christians don't believe in Purgatory in the same sense as Catholics do but they do believe in the concept of Tollhouses (the only major theological opponent of this idea in Orthodoxy was Seraphim Rose), which is similar to Purgatory in the sense that the soul must be purified of its sins before reaching Heaven.
@@willl676 Seems like for every Catholic doctrine the orthobros have a way of semantically teaching something that sounds different but is actually the same.
We see from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Deuterocanon was asserted by more than just the Septuagint. The fact is that the Deuterocanon became scripture shortly after much of its writing, as many of them were written within 400BC-1AD. The 1-2 that weren't were initially rejected due to Theology of Talmudic Judaism. Jerome, while true that he rejected the Deuterocanon at first, he was a minority figure, as most other contemporaries would often quote from them, such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. The fact is that the Canon was settled in Christian circles until the 4th-5th century, where the Council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo, the Councils of Carthage asserted the Catholic Canon, which later Councils supported. These came about, alongside Jerome's inclusion of the Deuterocanon, by request of the Popes at the time.
The Apocrypha wasn't included because there had always been debate about whether they were divinely inspired. I think Dr. Ortlund from Truth Unites did a video where he went over the writings of the church fathers on this.
There was a debate before the Council of Rome in 382 AD, but after that nobody questioned it. The Jews use a different Canon (they came up with their canon centuries after Christ, and didn’t use Septuagint Books, because Christians read from the Septuagint, the Apostles also quote from it, the Septuagint is the collection of Greek Translated Scripture and stuff), and he basically tried to claim that since there’s a Bible verse about the Scriptures coming from the Jews, this means that they are somehow the authority on the Bible Canon, despite them also ,you know, not accepting the New Testament. Luther got rid of it and tried to get rid of other Books like James because they taught things he didn’t like.
@@kyrptonite1825 i don’t think Paul is attacking anyone or being aggressive here. Although protestants see the deuterocanonical books as apocryphal even tho it isn’t.
I sure can! I couldn’t care less about that dude. Like he was the only guy who met Jesus? He never wrote scripture did he? The Apostles wrote the NT. You Catholics put so much emphasis on one random person and what he wrote outside of the Bible, while deliberately ignoring what the God says. It’s mind blowing. Following the doctrines of man, you are. That’s how I cannot be a Catholic. I don’t listen to men. I follow the Word of God as we are commanded to. Not go outside of scripture. 1 Col 4:6.
@@kellyanne7225 St Ignatius is a random person? You Protestants never do your research St Ignatius was a disciple of the St John the Apostle. you know the one that wrote 4 books in the Bible.
@@Kirksville_Boi Yes, I know that, but so what? What about the rest of my comment? Does this mean he needs to be followed? His writings, which are not only not in scripture thankfully, but go against scripture? Do your research on that. You are still following the doctrines of men. Period. But never mind that, right? Let’s just give credit to one human man. 🤦♀️
I used to be Protestant, but after studying church history and theology, I could no longer be in good conscience remain as a protestant. I became Orthodox, but it's a no-brainer to me that Catholicism is significantly more legitimate to the early church than Protestantism is.
Being an early church doesn’t mean there wasn’t corruption. Nothing in scripture supports a pope or pastors being called father, or and especially purgatory. They also changed the 10 commandments.
I am catholic that went to diferente nominations, including new age ( I repent million times) the thing that brings me back to the Catholic was that I saw evil, I know that are good exorcist in the Catholic church, Catholic church has sacraments, has hierarchy like the heaven, wen I study the origin of the first disciple Jesus, he past the gospel, then he passed the gospel to other disciple (tradition) then he passed othe disciple, then the 5 th o 6th disciple found the Catholic church arises with pope, -diácono -, then they write the bible, the bible was made by the Catholic church, other point we have tradition that last 2000 years, mártires, and. many people that supports Cristian costume, Mary lead to Jesus perfectly
Hi, Catholic here. Im always curious how protestants argue against Jesus saying Peter is the Rock upon which he will build his Church? (Matthew 16 18).
The concern with Catholicism is the teaching of a false gospel. We are not saved by being physically being baptized or by participating in mass. We are not saved by any works. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone! I don't pray to Mary. I pray to Jesus Christ! 🙏❤
*James 2:14-26* 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
The above objection for mingling works into faith for salvation is the same scripture used by Mormons. The protestant understanding of this scripture is that James is making a distinction between saving faith and a false faith wheras Paul's "not saved by works but by faith alone so that only God can receive glory"type of message. The faith Paul mentions is saving faith. Which Paul even later says will bear fruit in keeping with repentance elsewhere which is just as James describes. Paul also says "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling for it is God who works in you" which also fits with James' definition of saving faith. True faith will produce works. Now, if a catholic were to agree with this it seems that protestants are using salvation to describe justification and catholics are using the word salvation to describe sanctification. I'd like to know what catholics make of their definitions for these terms: justification, salvation, and sanctification. More discussion is needed to know whether we're defining things the same. I think maybe we tend to think we're using the same words when really our definitions are different.
@@xeroxyde3397 We are not saved by our works. We are saved by faith alone. Works is a result of our salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
@@daltonnelson94 yeah catholics believe it that way too. James isnt speaking at all about salvation of eternal condemnation or how to "prove" youre saved either. He speaks of justification before men and how to live out faith towards others and thus being saved from earthly consecuence and justified as a man of God before others
the ONLY reason im not catholic, is because they worship mary and the saints. I know catholics say “its not worship its veneration”, but i refuse to put mary in the place of respect that Jesus belongs in. I dont want to get caught up in worshipping creation i want to worship Creator. If the catholic church also stopped saying the pope has equal authority to the bible i would trust it more. It just seems like catholicism has too much idolatry being rampant in it.
I am a Catholic and converted about 17 years ago. The idea of sola scriptura was the tipping point for me. Isn't it obvious that if the. Catholic Church canonised scripture in 392-397 AD, that Martin Luther took a Catholic book and removed books from it that had been there for almost 1200 years? Why would we follow him? Why would we join any Protestant faith when it's simply a descendent of Martin Luther? It's just historically ignorant to be Protestant and makes no sense at all. 1Timothy 3:15 tells us the Church is the ultimate authority NOT scripture alone. That's a Catholic verse that simply makes no sense as a Protestant. John 6 clearly explains that Jesus is the "bread of life and that unless we eat His flesh and drink his blood, we have no life in us." So let me ask you this Protestants, are you "eating His flesh and drinking His blood."?? If that does not explain the Eucharist, then why not?
Jesus' church is everyone who believes in Him! He would have never let any church kill that many people instead of healing them and accumulate that much wealth as the Catholics did through the millenias. Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins, not Mary or the priests. Everyone is a priest who believes in Him. Get saved before its late and make your mind about Catholicism. Unfortunately a very false teaching. I love you brother I hope this message gets to you and make you think.
@@Csorbanorbertjanos Hypocrite is what you are. You mean to tell me that you Protestants don't accumulate ANY wealth with your "Get Rich Prosperity Gospel" and buying your fancy mansions and limos, and private jets? You Protestants don't accumulate any wealth? Right... your are a liar. And You Protestants never killed many people? Let's see,.... was it not you Protestant Southern Baptists that used the bible to justify the slavery of hundreds of thousands of BLACKS and then kept enslaving and murdering their offspring for hundreds of years of slavery? Was it not YOU Protestants that started the KKK ( answer is yes, it was you all) and killed and terrorized thousands of non whites? Was it not you Protestants who got on board with the abortion thus enabling the murder of millions of black babies? YES- It was all YOU. And yet you have the gall to talk about Catholics as if you are free of all sin- you are a hypocrite. If you want to defend your hypocrisy, please try, I have a lot more that I can accuse you of and prove it historically too.
The Bible actually does mention “solas scripturas” or whatever the term is “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.” 1 Corinthians 4:6
@@damonm7541 right we all learn from each other but it’s different when any of us go outside the scriptures to explain. Like for example: When we speak about women teaching- many will say well actually at that time the women in that church and city were doing (fill in the blank) and that’s why they were not allowed to teach. When Paul never mentioned this at all.
@@Stellalovely1the person mentioned that because ppl are leaving to go to the Orthodox Church because of him. She isn’t saying the pope is good in anyway.
Matthew 16:18-19 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”
The Masoretic text came long after the Septuagint. I find it odd that the Jews can say something isn’t inspired by God and then yet celebrate a feast established in those texts to this very day.
Teaching, rebuking, and correcting is not authority. Authority was given to the church, the church is pillar and ground of truth (1 TIM 3:15). Without the church, there is no Canon of Scriptures / holy bible. FACT. Jesus never declared sola scriptura and handed out protestant bibles. The Canon of Scriptures/ holy bible was codified and canonized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century to dispel gnostic heretical gospels circulating during that period
From what I understand Protestants returned to only the books Jews accept in their Hebrew Bibles. So they were attempting to return to a more original canon of the Old Testament. Also the apocryphal books were included in the Bible but there was still a distinction made between them and the fully agreed upon inspired books. So if you look at canon list from the earliest days many of the apocryphal books weren’t included. They were considered helpful to read but not on the same level as other books. It is also a tricky conversation because books did not exist in the way we think about them. So they didn’t have wrapped and bound books in the way we think about them today. Certain communities had various scrolls that they read. So it’s hard to figure out what was authoritative and what was just apart of their scroll collection. There’s a deep rabbit hole of questions we could go down honestly. But the Protestant decisions weren’t arbitrary. The canon of the New Testament by Bruce metzger is a helpful book on this topic.
Many argue on various differences between Protestants and the CC, but perhaps those are almost moot points. The main issue is that of authority. Premise 1: You cannot read the Bible without interpreting it. No matter who is reading, the mere act of reading, thinking, talking about it is an act of interpretation. That interpretation is based on a tradition (e.g., culture, education in faith, your point in the spiritual journey, etc...) Premise 2: Therefore, with most Protestant vs. Catholic argument, it really comes down to whose interpretation (or authority) you subscribe. Premise 3: You are either following the authority given by Christ or you're not. There is no middle ground (different than "sort of right" or "sort of wrong"). Premise 4: Christ didn't give authority to a set of books, but to His Church. Argument 1: The early Church was oral tradition passed from person to person. And the authority to teach and definitively decide right from wrong was passed on from bishop to bishop (as the CC calls them). That tradition and authoritative body gave birth to (put together) the canon we call the Bible today. And that's why the CC teaches the trifecta of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, which are complimentary and not independent. Argument 2: You CANNOT accept the Bible as authority without acknowledging the authority of the Church. If you insist on doing that, you're not really acknowledging the Bible's authority, but rather your own authority (making yourself God). The Bible independent of the Church's authority (Tradition and Magisterium) has no authority. This is evident by the 40,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming Sola Scriptura or Bible as the final authority, yet all disagree. Argument 3: If you are interpreting the Bible on your own (or a pastor) outside of the Church's teachings/authority, and therefore, reject the authority of the Church to whom Christ gave it, then you are worshiping your own version or flavour of Jesus - in effect, you created your own God (some may even go as far as comparing it close to being idolatry). One might call this Cafeteria Christianity where you pick and choose what you like or want to believe. Faith isn't up to what we want, but what God has chosen to revealed to us. Side note: The CC does teach though that it contains the fullness of truth and many Christian (Protestant) denominations contain some of those truths. And an honest (intellectually and spiritually) person who genuinely is convinced of their Protestant faith is not damned. However, someone who suspects that they should learn about or dig further into the teachings of the CC, but neglects it out of willful ignorance commits grave sin (sin against faith).
Ruslan you brought up an interesting point about 2 Tim 3:16-17 referring to OT scripture because at that time the NT was not completed, and I agree. BUT we also know that Peter was already referring to Paul’s letters as scripture and Peter builds on this in 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Peter 3:16-17, he also warns of the dangers of twisting scripture and accepting doctrine outside of the OT and the letters of Paul.
Ruslan I really want to recommend Gavin Ortlund to you. His videos aren't like high energy so they reacting to them might not make for the best content, but he's very informative on defending Protestantism from a deep scholarly point of view.
Here’s the thing, its very very important to notate there’s a difference between the nature of scripture vs canon or rule of scripture. People often conflate the two. They are both important but not the same.😊
Ruslan: "Notice he doesn't address the pope initially." Actual video: Cadence - George, "Let's start with sola scriptura." And George himself, makes a note that Allie mentioned all the Pope stuff, almost as if that's what he wanted to start with until his wife told him to start with sola scriptura. And stop saying that Catholics are attacking a straw-man. The debate is more serious than that. At the end of the day Protestants have to live with the fact that a group of men got together and said, this is the Bible (never mind that you guys actually believe that that original group was wrong and that men in the 1600s corrected it). If only the Bible is the final authority, then by what authority did those early Christians have to say what the Bible is? How can we be sure that they are right and didn't make a mistake? Because if you do not have any criteria for when a group of humans can be infallible, then you have to question the very origin of the Bible and ask yourself, did they get it wrong? In other words, if only the scripture (Bible) is infallible, then we can't be sure that the early, Christians were right when they decided.
@@arcguardian As Trent Horn says Protestants argue like atheists. The question would be are the deuterocanonicals contradictory? No, just like how atheists argue the protestant Bible is filled with contradictions. The question would be are those true contradictions or rather perceived contradictions? Also if what you said is correct then that would mean the Holy Spirit let the Church be wrong in cannon, and preach the wrong scriptures for 1500 years until Protestants rediscovered the truth. I don't think the Lord would allow us to be mistaken like that.
And thank the lord it did. People who say that Catholicism isn’t biblical don’t understand scripture and don’t understand what the Catholics believe and why.
I will argue that I’ve met many protestant Christians who read their Bible I can tell because when I hear them talk, they’re literally bringing up scripture . This was new to me because when I was Catholic, we mainly only memorized prayers like the Hail Mary, and the only scripture as Catholic was Our Father .
Did you ever go to Mass? Did you hear the mass readings every Sunday? Because ALL of those readings are BIBLE READINGS...? And by the way- the HAIL MARY is straight from SCRIPTURE. Did you ever pay attention to the words? so it turns out that you did in fact memorixe Scripture. And EVRYTHING in the MASS is FROM SCRIPTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you ever pray the Rosary? Because EVRYTHING in the Rosary is from Scripture- as a matter of fact-the Rosary is the GOSPELS on beads. --- You are truly an ignorant person if you missed all of this.
I think you guys should do a vid on why the books were removed. I think the point of them being removed and leaving it there can make people think that it was removed for no reason, even though it was rightfully removed because of the content being anti scriptural. We can say the same thing about the gospel of Thomas and other manuscripts not added to the bible
I did research on this recently but basically they were removed bc they have not been considered as “God breathed/inspired” but more as historical texts. There is more to it than that, Id put the link to the article I read but ruslan prob doesn’t allow links. But if you type in “Did Martin Luther Remove Books from the Bible? A Pastor’s Answer pastorunlikely” the article will come up.
Lol "rightly removed." Everyone is waiting on Protestants to give us the criteria by which the decide which book should be included in the Old Testament. What ever criteria you use to disqualify the deuterocanon, the same can be applied to other books of the Old Testament.
@@CovocNexus we do that with all historical text. We validate whether something is authentic and based on evidence and historical knowledge it’s determined if it should be believed
It’s one reason I now tell people I’m more Catholic or orthodox than evangelical. I feel some evangelical circles have this absolute mindset that everything is found in scripture even regarding the mysteries of God. Its hard to have a conversation without a lot of these presuppositions brought by the Americanized church. It’s even apparent that a group of scholastic Jewish rabbis are in the process of revising parts of the Torah. At least it’s in discussion regarding certain ceremonial laws. I think we should be open-minded about some of these things.
I'm a Catholic and my toddlers attend Cubbies (Awanas) at a Baptist Church while I attent a Bible study during that time there as well on Wednesdays. On Sunday, my kids go to a Montessori-based learning called CGS, to learn Tradition, and about Holy Mass. Then, we all attend Holy Mass as a family after, as I believe it to be the highest form of worship, going back to Cavalry and the cross. I do not discriminate and believe we All have something Really right, and we are All lacking in a department or another. Next year, they will be attending a class geared towards preparation for the Eucharist at my church; but it is invaluable to interact with other denominations and Garner what you can from each other. God bless you, Ruslan for building bridges 🙏
@mikeeng957. I am a convert to Catholicism. I am not sure why you are attending bible study in a Baptist church. You probably know that different Christian denominations interpret the bible differently. But the Apostles stick to what Jesus taught and this interpretation is backed up by Heavek in Matt 18:18 and passed down through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is perhaps good to know what other denominations think but this doesn't really matter cos as Catholics we stick to what Jesus taught. God bless !
19:19 The Apocrypha was actually kept in early protestant Bibles, Luther didn't remove them as he saw them as good secondary readings jist not God inspired and they were moved to the back of the Bible and was only removed due to paper costs. 1 and 2 Macabees isn't God inspired but it's a good worthwhile read for example to know more history leading up to the political state of the nation at that time.
Luther also was a believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and honoring her. He also believed in the Eucharist, which was the center of the church service for the first about 1500 years. The Eucharist was removed and the sermon became the center of the service by Ulrich Zwingli. Also if you read Matthew 16, 17-19 you get a better context on why Catholics believed Peter was the first Pope. Not saying that Catholics are correct on this or many other practices they have. But as the one man said in the video, a lot of Protestants don’t read their Bible, but just regurgitate parts of what they hear their pastors and other church members say.
@@larryjake7783 The Jews didn't consider it scripture, thus the church fathers didn't either. Doesn't mean it isn't true or historical. I just don't want to take theology from it, that was the same positions as most Jews of the second temple period and the early church fathers.
@IIOO Luther didn't it was decided by the church leaders, Luther was probably listened to but many of his opinions on Cannon (such as removing James) were ignored.
@@jaredgilmore3102Incorrect, certain Church Fathers were on the side of it being Canon, others were not. The claim that the J-s not acc-pting them (th-y only started this centuries after Christ due to Chr-sti-ns quoting the Septuagint), magically means that we shouldn’t accept them as Scripture is nonsensical. The Process Culminated in the Council of Rome which decided they were.
As a Catholic, I just want to say that I love my protestant brothers and sisters, and that I do not doubt their love for our Lord, Jesus Christ. I do not know how true it is, but I think I recall hearing that there are old King James bibles out there that include the same books they we Catholics have, but due to cost effectiveness in printing these books started to be left out over time. That while they were in there, they were still set aside as noncanonical. I ask one thing, when understanding something about the Church, please learn about it from a reputable Catholic source. Please pray for me Uncle Ed - I just got word that the docs found spots on his lymph nodes and at least one lung. I believe in the Church militant (us), suffering (souls destined for heaven, but are in purgatory), and the Church triumphant (those in heaven), aka the communion of saints, and as I head to bed, I will be praying for the communion of saints to be praying for me Uncle. Peace be with you
I had prayed to Jesus I asked him to prove himself and in return I would devote my life to him & on the way out of the church I received a small static shock thru the holy water in the catholic church & after heavy research I have returned Catholic 🙏 🌎🕊
I would define “sola scriptura” as a doctrine of final authority rather than the “only authority.” Respectfully, I think all of you guys make grievous errors in this reaction video.
Mat 18:15-19 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Teaching purposely any wrong doctrine is also a sin so who is the final authority here?
Isn't that an overgeneralization? I'm pretty sure a lot of protestants know a lot about church history and while we don't engage orthodoxy like Catholicism in many cases its because we don't really consider it to be an issue, I actually don't see the same problems in the Orthodox church that I see in Catholic, that might be because they are less common and there are less nominal orthodox where I live then nominal Catholics but every one I've talked to could rationally explain their position on cannon (its not a hard set of documents like in the Protestant or Catholic churches), Icons or praying to the saints. I also see a lot more emphasis on Jesus prayers addressed to Jesus from laity and a lot less weird theology around Mary. Now if a Orthodox want to talk theology I'm happy to, but since they don't really keep a strict hold of the western rational theology like Catholics and protestants and verge more into emphasizing the mystery and mysticism of the faith (not a critique I think its a valid position and quite interesting) such discussions tend to break down, the approaches are just so different.
@@jaredgilmore3102 my point in saying that is that church history refute Protestantism. The presuppositions such as Sola Scriptura are simply not present. For example: Baptismal Regeneration is a consensus doctrine from the point of even earliest Christian fathers. Jesus established a church -> his apostles spread that church -> people who knew his apostles wrote down their teachings, practiced them, and preserved the Scriptures -> unbroken line of lifespan overlap that goes back to Christ to this day = either Jesus failed to communicate the very basics of the faith to the apostles, the apostles failed to communicate the very basics of Christianity to their students, or the most likely option: if our beliefs don’t resemble their beliefs, we are the ones with the incorrect understanding of Christianity.
I was raised by mother in Catholicism and Father as Protestant. I feel very comfortable in both settings but settled into Catholicism as an adult. John is my favorite Gospel so it seemed like the natural choice. Whatever brings you to true repentance and surrender to Christ is alright with me. 😊
Peters relationship to Catholicism? Peter was crucified in Rome under Emperor Nero. His execution was ordered by the Roman Emperor Nero, who blamed the city's Christians for a terrible fire that had ravaged Rome. Peter requested to be crucified upside down, as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ. Who was pope during Nero? Pope Linus (/ˈlaɪnəs/ ( listen), Greek: Λῖνος, Linos; died c. AD 76) was the bishop of Rome from c.
11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 2 Corinthians
Each Bishop, just as James in Jerusalem, has a jurisdiction over a diocese & would speak for that diocese. Saint Peter did not have to w/ the Council in Jerusalem. The Papacy may look different even today given all the different variables in the landscape but Popes in the early church were looked to as a supreme Bishop & even spoke for the Church. This holy faith was set in order via the Councils & the early church practiced Catholic practices such as holy tradition & the sacraments, Christendom is Catholicism, history is explicit, peace
This is an important point. The “James spoke instead of Peter” argument appears to be a nonstarter for Protestants. He was the bishop. (Thanks to Ruslan for these discussions!)
I think we can get too distracted by the nuances of doctrine. As a protestant, my core beliefs are summed up in The Apostles' Creed, which, I think, is common to most Catholic and Protestant denominations (I know the word "Catholic" is in the Creed but Protestants interpret it differently). A lot of the various doctrines that sit on top of that (e.g. the points of Calvinism), to me, have always seemed speculative, divisive, and wrong-headed. And I think it's very important, especially in these days when there is so much anti-Christian persecution, that there be unity among Christians.
you hit the nail on the head with the “final authority” point. If a person reads their Bible, and interprets something a certain way. Let’s say your interpretation goes against majority church fathers, generations of traditions, etc. The Catholics and Orthodox will say this is why you cannot rely on your own individual interpretation to *be* that final authority. In a sense, no one can functionally do “sola Scriptura” since it is filtered through the understanding of the individual. The rebuttal is, well can the majority consensus of the church ever be wrong? Perhaps so, and maybe even at times in history it was, since the human being is the fallible object here.
We believe however, that the Catholic Church Magisterium (Teaching Office), this specifically, is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. That way, we have an Infallible Interpreter for an Infallible Book, so we know how to Interpret the Bible, after a controversy. We believe Christ left the Church for this reason, and that the Church is the “Bullwork of Truth and Righteousness” as the Bible says. It’s a bit complicated how it all works though. But in short, no that isn’t a problem.
@@kyrptonite1825 There is no teaching in the Bible of an infallible interpreter the Magisterium. The infallible interpretor does reside in us, through the Holy Spirit. We must endeavor to test Scripture with Scripture. WE wont always get it right, as we still sin and are human, but that is equal to say the Magisterium does not always get it right either as they are humans and fallible as well. There is no issue to have disagreements, that is how we learn. Now, when one side says they are infallible, there we have an issue as only ONE IS INFALLIBLE that lived on Earth. Jesus Christ our Lord.
@@danielkim672 @Daniel Kim In gospel of John when Jesus talks about sending the Spirit od Truth he talks to eleven apostles. (Judas left to betray Jesus) He doesn't talk to all his followers or to crowds of people. He talks to a very narrow group. To the people that are given by him special authority. We would argue that this group has it's continuation through apostolic succesion in magisterium. This passage also talks about Spirit of Truth being given for eternity so it's not like it can just disapear for some time and pop up somewhere else. What is the use of infallible interpretor residing in you if you still come up with fallible interpretation ? I would also add that you are confusing being granted infallibility by God durring some action with impeccability. We both believe that God protected gospel writters from error while they were writting gospels that does not mean that they never made any mistake.
@@Mila-kz8tt I am having a hard time following you as most of what you said is not in the Bible, but stuff created by the Magestiurim. So you agree, that in Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives the keys to the disciples? To ALL JESUS followers really. When you read Matthew 18:17 and 18:19 you believe that teaching and direction is ONLY for the disciples that were there in His presence? Not to all current and future believers and followers of Christ? That would make ZERO sense. Those teaches are for all believers in Christ Jesus our Lord. Crystal Clear. The Truth through the Holy Spirit is in ALL Believers. There is zero teaching about 'apostolic succession' made up story by the magisterium in the Bible.
If the Bible is the final authority. We don’t need no pastor no man No theologian no expert no preacher. Just me and my Bible. Yet Protestants Have all those people
I think one of the main arguments for removing deuterocanonical books was that they were not included in the Hebrew Bible canon recognized by mainstream Judaism.
That's why Protestants label themselves Judeo-Christians and they are Zionists . Catholics are not Judeo-Christians . We're just Christians . This makes a lot of sense .
Newly Converted Catholic here: I gained a new perspective on “only scripture” argument when I simply came to realization that the Bible has what we need to know but it does not have everything known to God in it. Protestants pray for wisdom and guidance and their prayers are often answered….which is technically…. Wisdom from God outside scripture.
I’m so grateful protestants and Catholics are having more of these conversations! Amen❤️
Amen... Also.... What did Christians followed before the bible was available? TRADITION.... And.... Who put the bible together? Catholics.... The title of this video.... Is wrong.... I'm Catholic still
don't think this video is true because as a true Roman Catholic would know that the "Eastern Orthodox" church not the Roman Catholic Church was the first. I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but the Roman Catholics split from the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm prodestant but I'm visited the Eastern Orthodox. Hey, I get it--you like the Catholic Church, but for factual sake look up the history and you'll see Eastern Orthodox Church was the first Church. Look it up.
@@pluto4847 To say one Church or the other was first is technically inaccurate. Orthodoxy and Catholicism were essentially united until the rising tensions gave way to the the “Great Schism” and then the split intensified. We are actually more similar to each other than any other division in Christianity. I have much respect for Orthodox Christians and would love to attend their Church one day. :)
@@emilyperez8172 Well I do know that yes Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are similar, and one could also say some similar flaws, As a former Catholic (Now Prodestant) the flaws are as follow: 1) Worked based salvation--meaning once you are saved you have to work your way until you die so all sins are repented of; 2) The veneration of relics and images; and 3) praying to Mary and the Saints. I suppose if you want to pray to them--be my guest, but why would you need to if Jesus Christ is sufficient? Many a times I have been called a heretic because I believe in the sufficencey of Jesus Christ.
One difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the belief in Purgatory. I know the Eastern Orthodox preach no such place and like the Prodestants there are only two destinations heaven and hell. Catholics believe in a third place, but Eastern Orthodox and Prodestants believe in SAnctification--meaning once you are saved God instills good works into you so you become more holy over time. The good works don't get ou into heaven. The good works demonstrate that one is saved already because if you were not saved you would not want to do good works at all.
No offense to you and I'm not saving all Catholicism is bad, its just that I lean more toward Prodestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy--not Catholicism. Even the prodestent faith doesn't completely get it right.
@@pluto4847I’m familiar with the Orthodox beliefs. I must say though It’s surprising as a former Catholic yourself how misinformed you are about your Faith with all due respect. I’m a former Protestant and spent many months in study and prayer before becoming Catholic and most of your claims are very much misguided but understandable because this is the narrative I believed for so long.
Catholics do not believe by works alone you are saved but instead that good works are a natural consequence of the grace instilled into you from your faith by God. You would be in a state of venial imperfection if you did works for the sol purpose of salvation. What you did on this Earth does matter though to God and you can see that in several passages.
Example:
“Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Matthew 7: 17-19
Low key, one of the primary reasons I'm no longer protestant is because I looked into the Church history and couldn't justify the removal of the deuterocanonical books. And even if they don't have hugely game changing doctrine in them, to believe in Sola scriptura and simultaneously be ditching 7 books of scripture just seemed too wild to me.
And then I started looking into other doctrines, and realizing how much of a historical minority I was in, and how modern my "traditional reformed theology" really was
the original KJV included them but at the bottom literally it says NOT the inspired word of God. The only reason they were INCLUDED originally is because England was VERY catholic as just conformed over to Protestantism so they didn’t want to upset the majority of people. So even in the original KJV never had it as the inspired word of God, it’s fake, a hoax, It never was & never will be the inspired word of God, keep believing in a false gospel which teaches a works based salvation which is what Catholics believe & teach I mean in the video the catholic & Calvinist both say “it’s not by faith alone” complete herecy they are false teachers. Mark & avoid. I pray you repent(change your mind) on what the true gosepl is. It’s by faith alone. Nothing else the life you live has nothing to do with eternal life. There is no Jesus+be baptized+eat the flesh to be saved it’s believe in Jesus only. Put your FULL trust in the life he lived for you not the life you live for God.
So I'm not sure what research you did on cannon, but a lot of these discussions seem to be shaded in a way that is inherently disingenuous. There was no one cannon before protestants came along and made one (they were the first to really make cannon a big deal). The catholic church had many cannons not one single cannon. The Protestants went with one of the earliest historical cannons the one that was essentially the one that basically everyone agreed on, they even kept Hebrews and Revelation despite there being some dispute on those, because they were so used historically and they didn't feel they had the right to remove them even though many of the leaders didn't think they should be part of cannon (Hebrews because the author is unknown and Revelation because it is such a hard book to understand especially in the western 16th century context the protestants were formed in)
The Protestant position has not been that if it isn't cannon its untrue, its simply that the cannon is one they can be absolute sure of I agree with the Protestant position that if the author of the book is unknown it better be very clearly holy spirit attested via the acceptation by the congregation as led by the spirit, that is not to say if a book isn't scripture it isn't useful or shouldn't be read, I love 1st Enoch but it isn't scripture and it shouldn't be considered as such, same for the 7 books that were promoted to cannon (even though they weren't part of cannon before because it didn't exist and many were unaware of these books even in the catholic church). The religious debate of the time meant some of these Apocrypha got promoted mostly because it contained a theological point the Catholics wanted to push against the protestant opposition which seems to me to be the worst way to choose cannon, better to be cautious and accept less books then to accept dubious scripture.
@@jaredgilmore3102Luther literally tried to get rid of Books like James because they didn’t support his doctrine
@@jaredgilmore3102Also, to add further on to this, Catholics have an Authority to tell them what is Canon, the Church Magisterium. The Church that Promulgated the Canon that the Pr-ts use an edited version of.
Pr-testants don’t have this, with Scripture Alone, there is no Scriptural, Divinely Inspired “Table of Contents”, so idk how you would possibly even know what is Scripture and what isn’t. Even modern scholarship isn’t good enough to tell you completely.
@@jaredgilmore3102How do you know 1st Enoch isn’t Scripture
I went from Protestantism to Catholicism and I'm very happy with my decision. However I enjoy listening to a few non-catholic channels due to their fairness, charitability and insight into the faith. This channel is definitely one those. Keep it up, Ruslan!
clearly you didn't comprehend what the protest was/is all about, friend.
catholicism is certainly not Christianity.
@@tony1685 why not?
@@G2eazy97 do you believe Scripture, gabriel? do you believe that our Creator and our Saviour sets the rule for us?
if you do, i can show you clearly how catholicism isn't even Christianity.
do you believe that God's church upholds (teaches, preaches, follows) Truth - as 1 Tim 3:15 clearly shows us?
do you believe we show love to Jesus - as John 14:15, His own Words dictate?
do you believe we know God - 1 John 2:3
and walk in Truth - 1 John 2:4
or are these merely suggestions?
Idolatry worshipers
considering pope authority is a heresy, true teachings and doctrines of Yeshua are only preserved in eastern churches
I think this is helping me confirm my move from Protestantism to becoming Catholic.
Amen
You should look at Orthodoxy. I converted from Protestantism
Amen
@@MAJPhilipCrabtree which orthodox church?
@@MAJPhilipCrabtreeWhy would he do that when Orthodoxy didn't become a thing until after 1054? Without the magisterium, you have the broken communion we see amongst other Orthodox Churches. Russia for example. With that being said, I could never go back to a protestant denomination. At least the Orthodox and the Catholic church have a valid Eucharist and real apostolic secession from the apostles. I pray that both will share in the Eucharist again.
Cardinal Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease to become Protestant". He was a Protestant and became Catholic.
John Calvin and Martin Luther was Catholic...
I was a Catholic too, and became Protestant.
@@nightowl7066 Did you do your homework studying history?
@@user55to57x8 did you do your homework studying the Bible?
@@nightowl7066 Since you are now a Protestant, you have been influenced by their hatred theology.
Things like this make me realize how complicated ppl made Christianity
Yes it was rather simple at first… The apostles taught people about Jesus and guided their churches. But who was to guide the churches after they all died?
The church was around for at least 20 years before any of the new testament was even available to read. The Didache might even be older than revelation.
@@Jerome616 Apostoles successors aka priests would lead and did.
@@snokehusk223 that’s what I believe. 😄
@@Jerome616 I misunderstood you than. Sorry.
“You are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
-Jesus Christ (nuff said)
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
What Peter said is the rock Jesus was referring to. The church is built on the foundation of Jesus himself.
Also Peter himself affirms this:
1 Peter 2:4-8
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and
“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”
@@jettruth Amen I will never return to Catholic Church. I left that when I was 19.
@@jettruth Hello brother. I appreciate your zeal, but you are unfortunately incorrect in this interpretation.
Protestant theologians have long accepted that the "rock" CANNOT be Peter's confession because of the Greek itself.
Dr. Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran theologian, remarked in his contribution to Gerhard Kittel’s "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" that:
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."
Peter's name (Cephas in Aramaic and Petros in Greek) literally means rock. It is clear here that Jesus is making a reference to Peter's name. Any scholarly Protestant exegesis will agree on that point. In fact, John Calvin himself even admitted that the Rock refers to Peter.
@@jettruthortodoxy
@GrandDan0is Thank you! This verse is totally misrepresented by the Catholic Church!
Peter did nothing, the Holy Spirit revealed his answer to him.
Then he was rebuked, as you just proved with scripture.
He was rebuked later by Paul, and Peter never once mentioned himself as being above the others who began the church with him, let alone a pope. 😊
Ruslan is addicted to calling everything a “straw man” like bruh just cause it’s a good point doesn’t mean it’s a straw man.
Honestly.
A straw man fallacy involves the deliberate distortion of another person's argument. By oversimplifying or exaggerating it, the other party creates an easy-to-refute argument and then attacks it. Made sense to me and most of us.
@@MyriamBernard13 remove the word “deliberate” And you have it just about right.
@@Jerome616 exactly. It is a straw man! Nothing wrong with stating it when it’s true
I'm just not sure what he means by straw man. It seems like it depends on the context.
I’ve been praying that Catholics, orthodox and Protestants can have more meaningful dialogue and conversations and listen to one another in a calm and civilized manner.
This is beautiful to see and that conversation between stuckey, farmer and owens is great.
Same and I think is happening now. We are all the body of Christ to those who do the will of God.
I disagree with Catholics but if you’re a Catholic who lives a life surrender to God and not just a Catholic by tradition then you’re a brother to me.
I had to correct myself in assuming that Catholics worship Mary or believe in second chances like purgatory. I now know that they don’t do such things. I may not agree with their views but I can now understand their reasoning.
I’d disagree with him that the Papacy is a later doctrine btw, I agree with your comment, but I want to make clear that, the Defining of a belief, does not mean it wasn’t believed beforehand. For example, the Church Defined the Trinity, this does not mean the Trinity wasn’t believed beforehand. This is just the Church, probably after an argument, Declaring that something is a belief that Catholics hold, generally something that was already held for centuries. Another thing is that yes, there is actual what we call doctrinal development, (a lot of practices and beleifs can be seen with the very early Church however), but doctrinal development basically means our understanding of Scripture and Tradition grows, whereas Tradition and Scripture remain the same. Absolutely thank you for praying for that.
@@kyrptonite1825 I mean, it was not really an early church doctrine right nor stated anywhere in the Bible the way the papacy is taught of today. In the early church, there were mainly bishops in each city. Rome obviously was a large influence and the Bishops were appointed. Then I believe in the 7th century, the Bishop felt that Rome was most important and wanted to be considered the 'univeral' bishop and then some form of struggle ensued until the office of the Pope and the traditions we see today were established. None of that is in the Bible. It was created by humans.
@@danielkim672 that is completely false, firstly papal supremacy can certainly be deducted from the bible but it doesn't need to be in order to be true. If you read any of the Church Fathers such as Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Cyprian, the list goes on and on, you will find papal supremacy and the importance of being in communion with whoever holds the chair of peter. You will find references to the capability of infallibility and how the chair of peter is fundamental to maintaining Church Unity. The first widespread canonical bible was literally convened under Pope Damasus I in the Council of Rome in 382.
@@caseycardenas1668 Completely false? And then you describe a Godly issue does not have to have directly Scripture support for it to be true? So who are we supposed to base this truth on? Humans? You say papal supremacy can be 'deducted' from the Bible, aka twist the Bible text to support your theology? Where does it teach this papal supremacy? When does this teaching come up in the actual early church? Just because humans decided to appoint a leader does not mean it has Scripture support.
The first widespread canonical Bible was not convened in the council of Rome. All true early Christians new exactly which books were the true Words of God and which were not. No one needed a council to come up with that. They just rubberstamped it to make it clear the wrong letters out there, especially the various 2nd and 3rd century letters. The Council clearly got things wrong too as the evidence we have from the few codexes all are different. They contain different Aprocrypha books, but the interesting thing is that all of the codexes have the same books last the non catholic Bible. The Jewish Old Testament is all included and obviously the intact New Testament. Evidence will point to the fact that the the Jewish canon of 2023, was the canon of 1st century, and was canon of around 400BC when Malachi , the LAST PROPHET before John the Baptist wrote His letter.
Ruslan my family and I converted to Catholicism this Easter from a Protestant tradition. Although I don’t completely agree with you here on many subject thank you for not being afraid to talk about these things. One thing that has been so obvious to me in my conversion is both sides need to be much more charitable to each other! Keep it up!
I agree that we all need to be charitable to each other for sure. Both sides call each other not true Christians.
@@danielkim672 actually Catholics call Protestants Christian’s. They just believe they don’t have the fullness of the faith that is found in the Catholic Church.
@@saltnpepperfire318 That was not the position of the Catholic church until recently correct? When did that position officially change? And many Catholics, especially those in higher positions still believe that no one is a real Christian unless they are part of the 'universal church'
@@danielkim672You'd be a tare if you didn't only worship Jesus and keep his commandments. But with the catholics church they pray to Mary and the dead and created a weird thing called a pope. They don't even come to Jesus to repent they go to a priest which makes even less sense. That's why Jesus says "my people perish for lack of knowledge."
@@deadboltzz5199 It is all a bunch of man made confusion the roman catholic church has made up.
I think it’s interesting how you say things like “this is how Catholics trap you”. If you talk to a good Catholic, it’s about explaining what we believe and why, not about “trapping”. I think it’s sad that so many of these conversations evoke a feeling of “gotcha” when they really should be taken as an opportunity (by both sides) to learn where the other is coming from. Not trying to convert, not trying to trap, not trying to do anything beyond asking questions, listening to answers and learning about how our different religions came to believe what we believe.
Exactly. The same people will talk about how Catholics don’t evangelise enough- so let me get this straight, the people who don’t preach their faith enough are also trying to trap you? It’s so wild how they act like free will isn’t a thing
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD RESTED on the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD BLESSED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD SANCTIFIED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD NAMED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD DECLARED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special???
Book, chapter and verse!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse
I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture.
Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse
I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture.
; their teachings are merely human rules. Mark 7:7.>
>>>>
WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ taught the FIRST DAY of the WEEK that it was a REST day make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ taught that the FIRST DAY of the WEEK BLESSED to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ taught the FIRST DAY of the WEEK was BLESSED to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ that the FIRST DAY of the WEEK was Named to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say Christ DECLARED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK by God as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@@mitchellosmer1293 The tone of your comment does not sound inviting to dialog. You’re asking a Catholic to do a lot of work here answering all your questions in writing while at the same time basically showing everyone that you are not open to hearing the beliefs and where they come from (proclaiming in advance that it will be “twisted”). I’d suggest a deep breath and some prayer to start your day. I hope you’re filled with blessings today.
@@ThatsNotReallyHowThisWorks Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse
I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture.
Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse
I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture.
; their teachings are merely human rules. Mark 7:7.>
@@mitchellosmer1293 I’m not going to look these all up for you. Like I said, your tone does not suggest open dialog. However, if you go to Catholic sites like EWTN, etc, you will find answers to your questions and process them on your own. As an alternative idea, you can speak with a Catholic priest who can answer your questions about the biblical references for Catholic beliefs. Or, you can ponder the fact that a lot of Christian beliefs do not have book, chapter and verse references (for example, the word “trinity” is not in the Bible. The words “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” are not in the Bible). That doesn’t mean those beliefs are wrong, it just means there is no Biblical reference for those phrases. The teachings are still there (whether what we’re talking about is what you’re asking or what I mention above) even without the precise wording you are looking for. Many theological teachings require more than just a book, chapter, verse. They require research from people who can/did read the original texts written in Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
Sounds like Ruslan is helping people convert to Catholicism.
he should
Or like he's not afraid of conversation
He's not catholic though. He's a protestant who's just open for discussion. I respect that.
@@Hboogie182 he just spoke about things that are easy for discussion. when it comes to the intercession of Mary and the Saints, purgatory, or praying for the dead. These things you will not understand unless you dig deeper into the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic faith. I would look into their beliefs about the divine human nature of God while making this decision.
This is what bugs me about him! He seems willing to side with whatever is popular! People have to be spiritually illiterate to buy in to it!
I’m a Roman Catholic and I really like your videos, you’re very charitable 👍
I am too. Ruslan is the only Prot I enjoy watching.
I will pray for your salvation
@@moxie_babe Thank you, it’s a very easy thing to lose
Same ♥️ Roman Catholic school girl -present Catholic Woman here and proud of it
I found him to be very rude. Won't be liking or reposting this video.
I love being Catholic. Everything else seem to chaotic.
Yep praying to Mary and other dead people is definitely not chaotic
Chaotic? So calling a man holy father, despite God saying only he is holy, is NOT chaos? Sounds demonic to me. The very definition of chaos. You cannot save yourself, Mary cannot save you, saints cannot save you, the pope sure as heck can't. Only Christ, only faith in him, only him
@@deadboltzz5199 Ugh. Please don't make your fellow Protestants look bad by your lack of charity. By the way, the saints are all ALIVE in Christ. St. Paul says ask Christians to pray for you. When a person dies, and is "saved" as you Protestants put it, they are alive in heaven. They do not stop being Christians just because they die. Even Billy graham said that people who die and are in heaven are MORE alive than we are. You can see in the book of revelation that there are the saints offering up our prayers to God the Father. SO yes, they can hear us and see us and are even praying for us.
@@philipbolin6776holy just means "set apart", the revelation verse you are referring to just states that god is set apart from other nations deities, because God is real and they are not.
So is the pope holy because he is set apart from other bishops? Obviously. You just misunderstand the word which can mean very different things in context
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 so you're willing to define words in that way. Ok how about call no man father, for God is your only Father. Or only God/Christ can forgive sins. Or no graven images? I can go on
In the book of Macabees you can find evidence of a saint who has passed interceding on behalf of Israel. Protestants don’t believe in the intercession of the saints while the apostolic churches, Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches do; so that is one way that the apocrypha affects theology and practice. There are Protestants who claim that saint intercessions are pagan accretions from when Christianity became the official religion of Rome but that is incorrect. Both the veneration and intercession of saints goes back to the Old Testament times within ancient Judaism.
Anything outside of scripture should be examined by scripture to make sure it’s true. Scripture should get the last say, ultimately. Just my opinion tho.
Amen ! Jesus literally is athe Word of GOD, We are told Scripture is Inspired by God and If True Believers Actually Read Those ' red words' in their Bibles' .. There Is no need for any of our own thoughts, efforts or self enlightenment/ knowledge or rituals....🙏❤️
I believe if it doesn't contradict scriptures it's okay it may be something that wasn't specifically done in scriptures but alot of the traditions let us better understand scripture
2 Thessalonians 2:15 says oral traditions and written epistles
@@johnuzoka6124 But there are things that are done like the Beliefs about Mary? No Original Sin'? The deification of Saints? The Intercession of Priests when Jesus has Clearly stated those of us that are ' Born Again' are His ' priests' and He is ' Our High Priest' who intercedes to the Father on our Behalf, thus we don't need all this False Religion? It becomes Deception leads to
Idolatory , herecy,.... Then if you Do Actually go ' down the Rabbit Hole'... You find out there is a Part of it that Is Organised by the Elite Satanic LUCIFERIAN Order..( But that's for a Whole other show!!! LOL!! 😉🥰🙏💖)
This is why I’m Catholic
As a catholic/ Christian us catholics pray in the name of Jesus. Please do better research. God bless you all in Jesus name❤
When they are praying to angels, virgins and others, there’s no Jesus there.
@@tmc1861 They're not.
@@tmc1861that is communion of Saints… something that all Christians unanimously agreed on up until the Protestant reformation 500 years ago so try again.
@Lexy don't worry a lot of people in the comments refuse to acknowledge this and purposely straw man Catholics and Eastern Orthodox because they have to have the right opinion against those churches.
Just look at the comments from TMC, above and probably the ones that will come after mine, they refuse to except what Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe.
@@lepanto3607 but we were ment to worship God and not the saints.. that's what's in the bible
For more clarity about Catholic doctrine read the letters of the early Church fathers. Then Google Marianic miracles and Eucharistic miracles for clarity concerning the Blessed Mother and transubstantiation.
After much study, I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. Best choice I ever made, because it is true.
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, unworkable, and self-refuting.
@@elwynnforest1452 No they cannot. That, in fact, is just not true.
It was Matthew the Apostle in Ethiopia, not Mark. Also, Would be interesting to see George Farmer and Candace do this segment with Mr. Voddie Baucham.
I’d love to see Voddie talk with Scott Hahn. I appreciate them both, Voddie for his sermons and Scott for his talks. Anyways, both of them are far above the knowledge “league” so to speak of Allie and George, but that’s why we need them!😂
@Sarai Hope George Farmer seems to have a lot of questions and it does not seem like anyone is able to fully address it for him. So I believe teacher like Mr. Baucham will be able to help. Even thought I don't share everything Mr. Baucham believes in I believe George's question will be answered in detail.
The historical understanding is Luther wanted a couple of those 7 books removed because they mentioned the process of purgatory. Also, he wanted the book of James and Revelation removed from the NT. And he did add the word alone to the NT
Im german and whenever I read the Luther Bible I noticed how he conveniently translated to his benefit.
For example, he translated "Church" from Matthew 16:18 as "Gemeinde", which is a Word that coule both mean "Community" as well as specifically religious Community.
This obviously makes it sound like Christ established a community, when he actually established a Church.
Of course if Luther admitted that there is such a thing as "a church of christ", he would never be able to compete with his manmade doctrine.
When I want to check if a german Bible is BS, i check how they translate matthew 16:18
weird how these books were not part of the vulgate but came in later....
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 Ekklesia is not The Church but more a community of believer, call to assemble would be a better translation
Not only those 7 books in the OT. Luther also wanted to remove certain books in the NT that affirmed works, negating faith alone (sola fide)
Like James and Revelation.
Yeah, that was the Epistle of James because it says no one is saved by faith alone.
@nishisingh227 the thing is no one in protestantism looks at James that way.
We see the works as a sign of faith there proof of a changed heart.
We don't follow luthur.
We measure him by the same standard.
With scripture
He wasn't perfect.and protestant don't claim he is.
So non sequitur
After studying the splits and different bible translations my search for the original church led me right back to Catholicism. Now I'm much more grounded in the faith thank you Jesus.
It is so interesting seeing these comments, when I was born again, I felt a conviction about Catholicism and had to separate myself from it and just follow Jesus the way he told me to in the Bible
Jesus said Peter's the Rock (foundation), so that's that confirmed. I love reading people's comments here of converting to and properly understanding Catholicism. I'm what some may call, a 'born-again' Catholic. Born and raised Catholic - but I went wayward, downward, and got SO lost exploring other faith/church practices for many years including protestant.
But miraculously when I was in the most complete dark despair in life, I found my faith again during a trip to Lourdes Grotto, France in 2008. Since then I have never looked back. I did my Confirmation in 2011 returning to the Catholic faith, and feel like a prodigal who finally returned home to the mother church. I have a strong devotion now to Mother Mary who interceded and comforted me to help guide my return.
There is no more need for 'human-mind' arguments of holy scripture/teachings, or the 'who's right who's wrong debating' authority/division. There is now only love and salvation found again following the Catholic practice. It's just so beautiful when you finally come to realise and get to experience it - and in faith, hope and LOVE I really wish it for all, even if it's in the last day/min of your life.. come home.
Here is the formula according to Catholics:
Tradition provided true scripture--
True Scripture confirms tradition--
No true scripture may violate tradition
No tradition may violate true scripture
Amen
Check the Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 parallel. It shows what Jesus meant by the keys and binding and loosening. This made me start taking the papacy seriously.
You’re right on Sola Scriptura as one of the starting arguments of Catholicism. Because it’s easier to prove. And then it opens up all the church history writings supporting other doctrines such as Papal infallibility
Irenaeus is the first church father I see defining Papal infallibility in Against the Heresies book III, Chapter 3. Written 180 AD.
Yeah, how did we get Scripture? The Church.
@kellibuzzard9431 ad hoc
So after all the sanhedrin and farasee tuaght the law....
And what happened.
Christ admonished going against God's word...
Christ said that in vain u do worship teaching the doctrine of man
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of man. The 66 table of contents of the Potestant bible is also made by man. 1,500's these traditions started.
@@CPATuttle yes and so is the pope and forced sacrements and confession to a priest.
Christ directly admonishes teaching doctrines of man.
And tells to refer to scripture.
Just as the bible doesn't directly state trinity.
Does it have to directly have to state sola scriptura.
If ur tradition contradicts key word contradicts. Scripture.
Trinity isn't said. But it doesn't contradict
Sola scriptura is literally in agreement to christ saying to follow what is written
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Christ didn't mention anything about a bible, and particularly those 66 books. So you can't make that connection. This didn't start until 1535 English version after King Henry of England broke away from the Catholic church so he can committ adultry. All the bibles before then had different books. Protestantism starting point of belief is an error.
“ challenge to protestants “ ask siri who started your church then ask siri who started the catholic church
I’d rather ask the Bible. I’ll get the truth from there instead of AI.
Why would you trust a computer to tell you anything true? GIGO is a known issue from before computing became a thing. All a machine can tell you is what it was programmed with, and information it can reference. THE Church was started by Jesus Christ and His Church is the body of those who believe in Him and His salvation by grace through faith. You can (possibly) have that through Catholicism (if you don't get distracted by all the... stuff) and you can have it through just belief in the Gospel.
If you don't really understand that, rather than Siri, go ask the Ethiopian.
@@kellyanne7225 Jesus started the Catholic Church
@@wishihadavette2392 You need to prove this in scripture, and you’re unable to. 🤷♀️
@@kellyanne7225 Mathew 16:18. This is the Catholic Church as we know it today
Weird how she says she doesn't believe that a Pope or a Council can come together and declare a doctrine that isn't "explicitly" stated in scripture. Yet, she accepts the canon of scripture declared by the church and she accepts the Trinity. Both of which are doctrinal developments based on the authority of the church and Sacred Tradition
I Encourage you to read one of the early Church Fathers's Ignatius of Antioch who learned directly from Peter and John. His writings on the Eucharist alone turned me Catholic. If you want to learn why Catholics believe what they do about the Eucharist, there is no better book to learn from than Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Dr. Brant Pitre. Also one of the books that removed were new testaments. James. Which contradicts Sola Fida which is why it was Luther Removed it.
I second this. The early Church Fathers are what brought me home!
Martin Luther also wanted to remove James, Hebrews Jude and revelation
@LlamasandBudgetsLuther wanted to remove it but was unsuccessful because unfortunately for him, many of his Protestant followers were more faithful to God than they were to him, the arch-heretic they professed to follow.
@@berwynsigns4115 stop accusing Luther of being a heretic. The only reason Martin Luther was called a heretic was because there was the idea that he wanted to split the Catholic Church. He never intended to split the Catholic Church.
Should definitely have Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, or Steve Ray on
Trent Horn
Peter did have final authority among the apostles. Even when Paul got beef with Peter, it was in the context of Paul saying he stood up even to Peter.
An organization must have a head. Christ assigned that authority to Peter.
Read up on the Eliakim arguement
But He was not infallible or dont you remeber when Jesus said to Peter have you the biggstest faith of All and He said yes of course lord and then when they crufied him He denied jesus 3 times so how can you say He was infallible thats just false even saint Peter would say that thats because obviously the pope was never infallible He was just the head of the church in that sense yes but everyone had the same rights as a bishop and no one could decide on their own
no he did not! Christ did not assign Peter -- totally out of context.
@@tony1685 i name you Cephas, and upon this Cephas i will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Still think it's out of context?
@@AthanaSus a few things here actually:
1 - get a concordance -- Jesus clearly labeled Peter _'petras'_ - here, meaning 'pebble'.
2 - the Subject of this -verse- passage in Matt 16:13-20 is Jesus Christ , not Peter.
3 - it's labeled _'Peter's _*_CONFESSION_*_ '_ - not _'Peter's Promotion'_
4 - there are many, many ways to prove this verse was not promoting Peter.
5 - here's just one -- see Matt 18 - just 2 chapters later, notice verse :1 - even the apostles didn't believe this nonsense.
anyhow, headed to church now -- Jesus is there on the Lord's day, the 7th day Sabbath -- Luke 4:16, John 15:10
*Happy Sabbath!!!*
@@tony1685 happy sabbath friend. Jesus used aramaic. There is no gender distinction in the word Cephas
Luther also tried to remove James for the good works section and 1 corinthians because it was too close to purgatory. Do you guys thinkna man like that would remove the deuterocannon purely out of scholarly consideration? Or is it because theres prayers for the dead, purgatory, guardian angels, and haunaka his favorite jewish holiday. Still luther believed many of our marian dogmas and real presence in the eucharist so i guess hes not all bad lol. Still i wouldnt trust his version of the Canon his theology obviously comes first
Im German and the Lutherbible is a common Bible version around today. It translates some things very suspiciously vague, such as translating the Church on the Rock as "upon this rock I will build my community"
Also revelation. His description of revelation is downright heretical. He also wanted to remove Jude and others
Bring someone Orthodox on! You'll be surprised by the richness and beauty of Orthodox theology. Jay Dyer would probably love to be on your show!
@Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer is a little too strict in his view. His worldview, so to speak, hinges upon things like anti-Foundationalism, Coherentism, and presuppositionalism. I probably agree with his anti-foundationalism, but presuppositionalism is not convincing to me.
I was about to leave this comment!
I’d love to see Trent Horn back on here with all three of these guys.
Saw this video of Ray Comfort having a conversation with a Catholic, or it might’ve been about Catholicism in general, and he mentioned that Catholicism actually took out the 2nd commandment that talks about idols and graven images and split the 10th which says to not covet. I’ve never heard anyone mention that about Catholicism
No, no, no my friend. That's not a good argument, coming from a Protestant
The focus of the commandments is not the order rather its the commandments that are important, read up on the 10 commandments all we did was combine the 1st with the 2nd. Ie we have . I AM THE LORD THY GOD: THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME.
COMMANDS: faith, hope, love, and worship of God; reverence for holy things; prayer.
FORBIDS: idolatry; superstition; spiritism; tempting God; sacrilege; attendance at false worship.
This means the exact same thing as the same second commandment of not having any other God/ Idol. I do encourage everyone please study not only from anticatholics but from actual catholics.
Then we split the commandment of coveting your neighbors goods versus wife, because your wife is not your property nor compared to property, neither is this what God said we as women are, we are coheirs to the kingdom of God.
Ultimately we have all the original 10 commandment as it's 10. you shall not covet your neighbors goods. 9. you shall not covet your neighbors wife or spouse. 8. You shall not bear false witness. 7. You shall not steal. 6. You shall not commit adultery. 5. You shall not murder. 4. Honor your father and mother. 3. Keep the lords day holy. 2. Don't use the lords name in vain. 1. I am the lord your god, you shall have no other Gods before me.
Feel free to ask me questions if you want, I will do my best to help people understand catholics and once more I encourage you and everyone to learn from learned catholics what catholics actually do. Have a blessed day.
@@nneomaimo2493 why?? Why did y'all have to do that. all that you said didn't give a justified reason to adjust the ten commandments, there is no justified reason. God wrote those with his fingers in that order so yes I would say it does matter the order and I would say God's commandments didn't need any adjustments, it was fine, he didn't make any mistakes. So whyyyyyyy? ( A genuinely concerned person)
@@BigRed28 no the order is not the focus, aside from the 1st, because as we know no sin is greater than the other, so it's not organized as saying this sin is greater than this sin, instead the basis of the commandments were to guide the jews as to how to act. This is the same way that. When jesus quoted the commandments in lk 18:18-20, he didn't place them in order instead he said you know the commandments. It's same way that paul spoke of individuals who were getting at believers for not being circumcised or pharasees saying you need to rest on sabath, in the same way God said to rest on the 7th day so shouldn't it have been so. Then why did Jesus say the sabath was made for man and not man for the sabath. Ie why focus on order which is not the focus of the commandments when you should focus on the commandments themselves. Did we remove a commandment if we did please get mad at us, rightfully so, but if we didn't such, then why do you see it as if we've thrown Gods words to the Ground. As with sabath and jesus telling them that they focus on something abritary and forget the importance of it being God. Same with the commandments the purpose is God not the order. Also it technically wasn't even reordered the 1st and the 2nd are just together and what was once the last commandment broken into two to delineate that a woman is not an object. Also christ came in and said the most important commandment is to love God and love your neighbor if we added those as 1 and 2 then wouldn't the others shift down. In reality there are 12 commandments. The order was mostly based on relevance as in relation to one another 1-4th relate to how we approach God, 5th is it's own category as it has a promise, and 6-10 relates to our relationships with those here with us on earth. Meaning this contextualization matters for the purpose of guiding us but no sin is greater than the other, other than the 1st. As such we still retain this contextualization.
@@nneomaimo2493 It does matter the order even If it's not the focus because GOD WROTE IT THAT WAY , and there is and will be no reasonable explanation for that church to make any adjustments BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT whyyyy BECAUSE GOD WROTE IT THAT WAY AND HE DOESN'T MAKE MISTAKES ( not shouting highlighting a point) regardless of whatever explaination, history or whatever. God wrote it with his own fingers Moses didn't, showing just how important this is , there was nothing wrong with it before so you didn't need to add, combine, separate or take away anything there is nothing that could justify it cause it's not like they were making it simple using synonyms so people could understand. Couldn't y'all just leave it the way it is, why feel the need to change and adjust .
Even though the word “Pope” is not found directly in the Bible, the underlying meaning of that word is. The word “Pope” is derived from the Greek word, “pappas,” which means, "father" (Latinized as “papa”). In Isaiah 22, verses 19-24, we see God telling Shebna, who was the chief minister of the House of David, that he will be replaced in his office by Eliakim, and that Eliakim will have authority and will be a “father” [papa; pope] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah.
Also in this passage, God says that Eliakim will have the key of the House of David and that he “shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.”
This passage from Isaiah was obviously on the Lord’s mind when he said to Peter, in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church...I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
Eliakim was the chief minister in the House of David. What is the new House of David? The Church. Who is the chief minister in the Church? Peter, and his successors - the Popes. Eliakim was given the key of the kingdom. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom. Eliakim had the authority to shut and to open. Peter had the authority to bind and loose. Eliakim was a father to the those in the House of David, just so Peter is a father to those in the new House of David - the Church.
So, since Peter is a “father” to those in the Church, just as Eliakim was a “father” to those in the House of David; and the word “Pope” means “father;” then we can say that the underlying meaning of the word “Pope” is actually found in the Bible - right there in Isaiah 22. And, we can further say, that Catholic belief regarding the role of the Pope is also found right there in Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, as well as in other parts of Scripture. (from the bible christian society website)
I think part of the problem is non-Catholic Christians don't understand that Jesus came to establish His Kingdom and where the Pope is in that Kingdom. For anyone who is interested in learning more, I share a link to an audio episode explaining it >>> The Gospel of Matthew "The King and His Kingdom" with Professor Tim Gray
Epi 8 Peter's Confession
The Father (God) revealed to Peter and he confessed to Jesus: "You are the Christ, and the Son of the living God What does it mean when Jesus said: " You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church."
Acts 15 actually has Peter speaking dogma, and James speaking discipline. The words that James said were flushing out the execution of what the words of Peter meant for going forward.
Agreed
Nobody is infallible though. Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians for being wrong about what he was doing. Thoughts?
@@imamjimjamlawrence the gift of being infallible in interpretation is not the same as being impeccable in behavior. I have as a Catholic heard that there have been up to 50 popes, who were very poor on administrative judgment or personal behavior, but yet were valid popes, and the specific definition of infallibility was not compromised. People infallibility means someone who is pope speaking, universally to the entire church, about faith in morals, and making sure it is clear they are speaking from their office in the chair of Peter. None of them is a king, but only a Prime Minister to the king of kings and lord of lords. Sort of like Joseph in Egypt.
@@jembenjamin You mean like popes who purchased the authority, and killed people for it, and committed adultery in order to marry the women that they wanted? This is where I find another problem. That problem being that Paul says we shouldn't even eat with a self proclaimed brother who is living a blatantly sinful lifestyle, but it's okay for one who is living a blatantly sinful lifestyle to have all authority over the church? Sounds broken.
@@jembenjamin Dare I say, in need of a reformation
This woman doesn’t realize there’s no canon of scripture without church councils defining what the canon of scripture actually is
God defined HIS scripture. He is the author and creator of HIS book. No scripture is defined my men.
@@kellyanne7225 god defined scripture through his body The Church. This is just historical fact. Of course the Holy Spirit determined what is scripture and what is not . But it was done through the Church. Just as Christ told us , the Holy Spirit would accomplish much more than he was able to do while physically on earth. The Holy Spirit functions through the Church. Plain and simple. I encourage you to read on how the canon was formed
@@kellyanne7225 protestantism = relativism, subjectivism
@@nicolasbascunan4013 I believe I just proved otherwise. You just proved your about subjective opinions. Prove it with scripture.
Otherwise, be quiet.
@@kellyanne7225 You didn't prove anything. Your opinion was refuted by @stephenmaddox1.
1&2 Maccabee’s is what Catholics use to defend their stance on purgatory. So in a sense the apocryphal books do change New Testament theology.
Also the apocryphal books are not in the Hebrew Bible.
Scripture is tradition in written form.
It’s not tradition alone, it’s not scripture alone.
It’s both.
If I had to say the main thing that would never make me become protestant is Eucharist and Holy comunion I see it as center of our religion as a fulfilment of what makes our faith. I always thought my faith would be empty without it I would have no reason to stay
Your faith should be in Jesus alone and what he did on the cross. It has nothing to do with keeping a tradition no matter what branch of the church you follow
As a Protestant, I do agree with your comment! Although some Protestant traditions (Lutheran and some Anglican) attempt to keep the Eucharist the focus, most do not and have strayed away from even the original reformers. I long for the Eucharist to be at the center!
@@MrWaves-oj9ge FUN FACT!
Eucharist= Real presence of Jesus Christ/ His body and blood.
So the center of the Catholic faith is ALWAYS Jesus/God
@@elle9082 so by definition the eucharist is to practice cannibalism, as opposed to context in scripture where eating His flesh and drinking His blood was strictly a symbolic representation of the new covenant. Let that sink in.
@@arcguardian encourage you to check out what the early church had to say about it. it was near unanimously believed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, which is why many older Protestant traditions still believe it.
I think the main concern is that if the bible isn't the main authority anyone in charge of a church will make up rules and say that you need to follow those rules to be closer to God or to get to heaven.
💯
Mary did not conceive Jesus, she only carried him. He was incarnated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:35).
His body being connected to Mary, and thus her DNA, but she was in a way a surrogate mother. God entrusted His Son to them (and Joseph) to grow as a man on this Earth.
Therefore, it cannot be said that Mary is the mother of God, because God is before time and Mary is created.
When Jesus was on the cross, He separated himself completely from her, calling her a woman and entrusting her to John the Apostle as her son, and she his mother (John 19:25-27).
Mary inherited the Adamic seed of sin (Romans 5:12). Jesus no, for he was not conceived by man, but was borne in man (in Mary). For this reason he was not supposed to have a physical father either.
Mary is not the mother of God, just as Joseph is not the father of God. Just as some adoptive parents are parents to some degree, but in essence, they are not really the child's parents.
No man could live righteously before God and thus be the Savior of humanity.
If he was conceived from Mary (her DNA) then He would also have inherited the sinful Adamic seed, which is blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His divine nature (Romans 8:3, Hebrews 4:15).
Revelation 12:1, 2 (read in context) refers to Israel giving birth to the Messiah, and does not refer to any "queen", which would be Mary.
The only man through whom we have access to God, be it salvation, intercession, or the forgiveness of sins, is the Man Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:5).
The elevation of Mary led (and leads) to her idolization and together with her came to the idolization of other saints, relics and objects with a religious tone. This error opened the door to justified idolatry.
Idolatry leads to Hell (Galatians 5:19-21, Colossians 3:5-7, 1 John 5:21).
@@LazarAndrei-VNI You’ve misunderstood the way HE used the word “woman” at the cross. It has a deeply reverent and symbolic meaning that you’re not comprehending most likely due to your own culture, language and spiritual blindness.
@@LazarAndrei-VNI This goes against the early Church and the Old Testament typology. Also kind of blasphemous...
@@natnat8199Yep but Jesus didn't call her "mother" theirs no goddesses buddy
Hi, I am Roman Catholic. Really like these videos. Thank you.
I remember in either 1st or 2nd Maccabees Judas Maccabeus and those other Israelis prayed for those who died, who carried idols they weren't supposed to have, that they might be delivered from their sin. That is related to the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences.
It is quite shocking for me that these other books were taken out as well. I know Wisdom is very interesting book. Sirach gives many details from earlier books such as Exodus and Genesis. That is a lot of books to let go of.
I know 1 & 2 Maccabees actually happened because that is where Hanukkah comes from. So that does still deal with a major historical event. The Maccabees reigned all of the way until Jesus came when Herod the Great took over. The book of Maccabees is really important book. I think if I were a Protestant, I would read actual historical books such as Maccabees before I read other fake books that are out there. I don't think anyone can read Book of Maccabees and waste their time, even if it is just for a historical lesson.
May Christ's peace be with you!
We nazarene jews believe in the Septuagint which actually includes what you guys call the Apocrypha and we believe in 1 enoch.
Interesting! I stopped by Nazareth some years ago when I went to Israel!
Great dialogue and video! I think in these dire times with all the evil we see in our culture, it’s of the utmost importance that all Christians stay United. I think it’s great when these conversations can be held that challenge us while remaining respectful. That being said, I hope if Ruslan ever sees this that he’ll consider reading about the different Eucharistic miracles. The miracle of the Holy Eucharist is enough to make me want to remain in the Catholic faith. ❤️🙏🏼
Agreed ❤
One of the concerns is that the evil one will pretend to be from God and we have people going astray and believing in false things. Can you provide Scripture support about the Holy Eucharist the same way the Magisterium describes it?
@@danielkim672 Please read John 6 where Jesus compares Himself to manna and the body and blood that We need to be part of Him. Also ask yourself if the Eucharist was insignificant, why does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11:27, that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ?
@@DavidLTJ I never said that what we are provided with as an example during the Last Supper is insignificant. What I said was the way the magisterium describes what happens during the roman catholic eucharist is not Biblical, not supported by Scripture. Correct me if I am wrong, but the teaching is that during the Eucharist, the bread actually turns to flesh and the wine turns to actual real blood. That CLEARLY does not happen nor is it taught in the Bible. That is what I am trying to say.
I am not sure why bringing Semitic culture has to do with this discussion.
@@danielkim672 Jesus said: "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of me". Many turned away from him. then He asked the twelve, "Do you also wish to depart from me?".... What makes you believe that Jesus didn't leave this instruction for us all? And Why should we not believe its the true presence of His Body and Blood? You have the freedom to believe otherwise, of course. God bless.
to my Protestant brothers and sisters questioning the nature of Mary and her immaculate conception these are a few thing Martin Luther said about her…
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”
Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531 and in another sermon he said, “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
As far as his opinion on the eucharist being the REAL presence not just a symbol, "in which the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially (vere et substantialiter) present, offered, and received with the bread and wine."
The time between the first christian church/mass celebration to the reformation period was 1550 years. So, if the reformers were correct then you would also have to accept that Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles lead the early people into a false church and the Christians before the reformation were all abandoned by God. However Jesus promises they keys to the kingdom to Peter and He promises He will never abandon or forsake them (mt. 16, 18 & deut. 31:6). If the premise is true that the catholic church was always wrong then every christian church today would also be wrong since the Protestant denominatinons were just a rejection of select catholic teachings - i prefer to believe that Jesus and Peter did not lead the people into a false church days after His death.
And he was wrong
@@kedb621 Just like he was wrong about starting the whole Protestant Revolt and breaking up Christendom.
This view point concerns me because it can and does allow for false doctrine to be crept into your learning about the bible thus leading you astray. It's concerning
What is even more concerning than everyone having their own autonomy in faith is Catholicism becoming like the Jews of Jesus’ day, with their doctrines of men
@@mesafamily5830 But in the end its every man who must answer to God, your analogy makes no sense the Jews of Jesus day were highly hierarchical and legalistic. I'm not saying this as an insult but objectively the Catholic church is quite a lot more similar to the politics and structure of 2nd temple Judaism then any of the Protestant churches are.
Only if you don’t read , study God’s word diligently, Berean minded 🙌🏻
Jesus is the only way , not Catholicism
I’m so grateful I had returned to the one true Church, the Catholic Church, many years ago. For a few years I attended several of the 40,000 different protestant sects. All differing with one another. Christ is the one that gave us the supreme authority on Earth, the Pope. Christ established the Chair of Peter. That way we have a magisterium, the teaching authority, and a visible leader. Not a bunch of mass confusion and 10,000 different ways to interpret holy Scripture.
Im happy with your fair take on this Ruslan. I’ve been studying Church history and was startled to find Luther removed books. It’s important to remember that Catholics justify purgatory from one of the Deutero-canon books that was removed. However, orthodox Christians don’t believe in purgatory but still have those books. Other than that, I think it doesn’t really change anything.
Jerome, the one who created the Vulgate, didn't want the Deuterocanon books included based on them not being in the original Tanak. Jerome relented and included them against his wishes due to the authority of the Church that was commissioning his work. The Deuterocanonical books were added to the OT when the Septuagint was created, possibly at the request of Ptolemy II, for historical reasons. While the books aren't meaningless, some apostles quoted from them, such as Jude, the books aren't on the same level of authority as the other OT books that were part of the Tanak. The Protestants just went back to including only the OT books that were in the Tanak albeit in a different order, and some books split into two like the Book of Kings.
Orthodox Christians don't believe in Purgatory in the same sense as Catholics do but they do believe in the concept of Tollhouses (the only major theological opponent of this idea in Orthodoxy was Seraphim Rose), which is similar to Purgatory in the sense that the soul must be purified of its sins before reaching Heaven.
@@willl676 Seems like for every Catholic doctrine the orthobros have a way of semantically teaching something that sounds different but is actually the same.
@@alexanderbadillo704Precisely
We see from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Deuterocanon was asserted by more than just the Septuagint. The fact is that the Deuterocanon became scripture shortly after much of its writing, as many of them were written within 400BC-1AD. The 1-2 that weren't were initially rejected due to Theology of Talmudic Judaism. Jerome, while true that he rejected the Deuterocanon at first, he was a minority figure, as most other contemporaries would often quote from them, such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. The fact is that the Canon was settled in Christian circles until the 4th-5th century, where the Council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo, the Councils of Carthage asserted the Catholic Canon, which later Councils supported. These came about, alongside Jerome's inclusion of the Deuterocanon, by request of the Popes at the time.
The Apocrypha wasn't included because there had always been debate about whether they were divinely inspired. I think Dr. Ortlund from Truth Unites did a video where he went over the writings of the church fathers on this.
The Apocrypha has never been in the Bible, do you mean the Deuterocanonical?
There was a debate before the Council of Rome in 382 AD, but after that nobody questioned it. The Jews use a different Canon (they came up with their canon centuries after Christ, and didn’t use Septuagint Books, because Christians read from the Septuagint, the Apostles also quote from it, the Septuagint is the collection of Greek Translated Scripture and stuff), and he basically tried to claim that since there’s a Bible verse about the Scriptures coming from the Jews, this means that they are somehow the authority on the Bible Canon, despite them also ,you know, not accepting the New Testament. Luther got rid of it and tried to get rid of other Books like James because they taught things he didn’t like.
@@paul_321Be courteous here, don’t just go on the attack, from another Catholic
@@kyrptonite1825 You’re not Catholic, know your place Judas.
@@kyrptonite1825 i don’t think Paul is attacking anyone or being aggressive here. Although protestants see the deuterocanonical books as apocryphal even tho it isn’t.
I don’t know how you can be Protestant after Reading St Ignatius of Antioch’s (met Jesus in person) writings and other early church fathers.
I sure can!
I couldn’t care less about that dude. Like he was the only guy who met Jesus?
He never wrote scripture did he? The Apostles wrote the NT.
You Catholics put so much emphasis on one random person and what he wrote outside of the Bible, while deliberately ignoring what the God says. It’s mind blowing.
Following the doctrines of man, you are.
That’s how I cannot be a Catholic.
I don’t listen to men. I follow the Word of God as we are commanded to. Not go outside of scripture. 1 Col 4:6.
@@kellyanne7225 St Ignatius is a random person? You Protestants never do your research St Ignatius was a disciple of the St John the Apostle. you know the one that wrote 4 books in the Bible.
@@Kirksville_Boi Yes, I know that, but so what?
What about the rest of my comment? Does this mean he needs to be followed? His writings, which are not only not in scripture thankfully, but go against scripture? Do your research on that.
You are still following the doctrines of men. Period.
But never mind that, right? Let’s just give credit to one human man.
🤦♀️
You realize the Bible was put together by men. So before the Bible how would they know Jesus teachings? Sola Scriptura is literally hersey.
@@Emmanuel_EEE You just proved your knowledge of the Bible. Zilch! 👍🏼
Troll someplace else.
I used to be Protestant, but after studying church history and theology, I could no longer be in good conscience remain as a protestant. I became Orthodox, but it's a no-brainer to me that Catholicism is significantly more legitimate to the early church than Protestantism is.
You’re mistaken. Roman catholicism went astray. Rome with her false gospel is not significantly closer to the early church
based
I became EO too.
Being an early church doesn’t mean there wasn’t corruption. Nothing in scripture supports a pope or pastors being called father, or and especially purgatory. They also changed the 10 commandments.
@@1amG1G1nothing in the bible supports sola scriptura as well 😂 oral tradition is key to early church theology
I am catholic that went to diferente nominations, including new age ( I repent million times) the thing that brings me back to the Catholic was that I saw evil, I know that are good exorcist in the Catholic church, Catholic church has sacraments, has hierarchy like the heaven, wen I study the origin of the first disciple Jesus, he past the gospel, then he passed the gospel to other disciple (tradition) then he passed othe disciple, then the 5 th o 6th disciple found the Catholic church arises with pope, -diácono -, then they write the bible, the bible was made by the Catholic church, other point we have tradition that last 2000 years, mártires, and. many people that supports Cristian costume, Mary lead to Jesus perfectly
No.
@@angelirohival6270 Yes.
Hi, Catholic here. Im always curious how protestants argue against Jesus saying Peter is the Rock upon which he will build his Church? (Matthew 16 18).
That’s all they do is argue.
They never define a doctrine
They can’t
They have no authority to do so
They argue that "he didn't really mean it" essentially. Likewise with the rest of the sacraments we've always observed.
Luke 6:21
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
The concern with Catholicism is the teaching of a false gospel. We are not saved by being physically being baptized or by participating in mass. We are not saved by any works. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone!
I don't pray to Mary. I pray to Jesus Christ! 🙏❤
*James 2:14-26*
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble!
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
If only all your strawman was correct then that would've been enough reason not to stay Catholic, yes
The above objection for mingling works into faith for salvation is the same scripture used by Mormons. The protestant understanding of this scripture is that James is making a distinction between saving faith and a false faith wheras Paul's "not saved by works but by faith alone so that only God can receive glory"type of message. The faith Paul mentions is saving faith. Which Paul even later says will bear fruit in keeping with repentance elsewhere which is just as James describes. Paul also says "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling for it is God who works in you" which also fits with James' definition of saving faith. True faith will produce works. Now, if a catholic were to agree with this it seems that protestants are using salvation to describe justification and catholics are using the word salvation to describe sanctification. I'd like to know what catholics make of their definitions for these terms: justification, salvation, and sanctification. More discussion is needed to know whether we're defining things the same. I think maybe we tend to think we're using the same words when really our definitions are different.
@@xeroxyde3397 We are not saved by our works. We are saved by faith alone. Works is a result of our salvation.
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
@@daltonnelson94 yeah catholics believe it that way too. James isnt speaking at all about salvation of eternal condemnation or how to "prove" youre saved either. He speaks of justification before men and how to live out faith towards others and thus being saved from earthly consecuence and justified as a man of God before others
the ONLY reason im not catholic, is because they worship mary and the saints. I know catholics say “its not worship its veneration”, but i refuse to put mary in the place of respect that Jesus belongs in. I dont want to get caught up in worshipping creation i want to worship Creator. If the catholic church also stopped saying the pope has equal authority to the bible i would trust it more. It just seems like catholicism has too much idolatry being rampant in it.
I am a Catholic and converted about 17 years ago. The idea of sola scriptura was the tipping point for me.
Isn't it obvious that if the. Catholic Church canonised scripture in 392-397 AD, that Martin Luther took a Catholic book and removed books from it that had been there for almost 1200 years?
Why would we follow him?
Why would we join any Protestant faith when it's simply a descendent of Martin Luther?
It's just historically ignorant to be Protestant and makes no sense at all.
1Timothy 3:15 tells us the Church is the ultimate authority NOT scripture alone.
That's a Catholic verse that simply makes no sense as a Protestant.
John 6 clearly explains that Jesus is the "bread of life and that unless we eat His flesh and drink his blood, we have no life in us."
So let me ask you this Protestants, are you "eating His flesh and drinking His blood."??
If that does not explain the Eucharist, then why not?
Jesus' church is everyone who believes in Him! He would have never let any church kill that many people instead of healing them and accumulate that much wealth as the Catholics did through the millenias. Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins, not Mary or the priests. Everyone is a priest who believes in Him. Get saved before its late and make your mind about Catholicism. Unfortunately a very false teaching. I love you brother I hope this message gets to you and make you think.
@@Csorbanorbertjanos Hypocrite is what you are. You mean to tell me that you Protestants don't accumulate ANY wealth with your "Get Rich Prosperity Gospel" and buying your fancy mansions and limos, and private jets? You Protestants don't accumulate any wealth? Right... your are a liar. And You Protestants never killed many people? Let's see,.... was it not you Protestant Southern Baptists that used the bible to justify the slavery of hundreds of thousands of BLACKS and then kept enslaving and murdering their offspring for hundreds of years of slavery? Was it not YOU Protestants that started the KKK ( answer is yes, it was you all) and killed and terrorized thousands of non whites? Was it not you Protestants who got on board with the abortion thus enabling the murder of millions of black babies? YES- It was all YOU. And yet you have the gall to talk about Catholics as if you are free of all sin- you are a hypocrite. If you want to defend your hypocrisy, please try, I have a lot more that I can accuse you of and prove it historically too.
Jesus said to Peter, “Upon this rock you will build my church” or something along this lines
The Bible actually does mention “solas scripturas” or whatever the term is
“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
1 Corinthians 4:6
@@damonm7541 right we all learn from each other but it’s different when any of us go outside the scriptures to explain. Like for example: When we speak about women teaching- many will say well actually at that time the women in that church and city were doing (fill in the blank) and that’s why they were not allowed to teach. When Paul never mentioned this at all.
Eastern Orthodoxy is growing so much!!
Glory to God ☦️
Thanks to Pope Francis
@@mil-ns3rc false teacher.
@@Stellalovely1the person mentioned that because ppl are leaving to go to the Orthodox Church because of him. She isn’t saying the pope is good in anyway.
@@Stellalovely1we are all aware
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”
The Masoretic text came long after the Septuagint. I find it odd that the Jews can say something isn’t inspired by God and then yet celebrate a feast established in those texts to this very day.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16.
Teaching, rebuking, and correcting is not authority. Authority was given to the church, the church is pillar and ground of truth (1 TIM 3:15). Without the church, there is no Canon of Scriptures / holy bible. FACT. Jesus never declared sola scriptura and handed out protestant bibles. The Canon of Scriptures/ holy bible was codified and canonized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century to dispel gnostic heretical gospels circulating during that period
Can I ask what does that mean to you?
From what I understand Protestants returned to only the books Jews accept in their Hebrew Bibles. So they were attempting to return to a more original canon of the Old Testament.
Also the apocryphal books were included in the Bible but there was still a distinction made between them and the fully agreed upon inspired books. So if you look at canon list from the earliest days many of the apocryphal books weren’t included. They were considered helpful to read but not on the same level as other books.
It is also a tricky conversation because books did not exist in the way we think about them. So they didn’t have wrapped and bound books in the way we think about them today. Certain communities had various scrolls that they read. So it’s hard to figure out what was authoritative and what was just apart of their scroll collection.
There’s a deep rabbit hole of questions we could go down honestly. But the Protestant decisions weren’t arbitrary. The canon of the New Testament by Bruce metzger is a helpful book on this topic.
Many argue on various differences between Protestants and the CC, but perhaps those are almost moot points. The main issue is that of authority.
Premise 1: You cannot read the Bible without interpreting it. No matter who is reading, the mere act of reading, thinking, talking about it is an act of interpretation. That interpretation is based on a tradition (e.g., culture, education in faith, your point in the spiritual journey, etc...)
Premise 2: Therefore, with most Protestant vs. Catholic argument, it really comes down to whose interpretation (or authority) you subscribe.
Premise 3: You are either following the authority given by Christ or you're not. There is no middle ground (different than "sort of right" or "sort of wrong").
Premise 4: Christ didn't give authority to a set of books, but to His Church.
Argument 1: The early Church was oral tradition passed from person to person. And the authority to teach and definitively decide right from wrong was passed on from bishop to bishop (as the CC calls them). That tradition and authoritative body gave birth to (put together) the canon we call the Bible today. And that's why the CC teaches the trifecta of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, which are complimentary and not independent.
Argument 2: You CANNOT accept the Bible as authority without acknowledging the authority of the Church. If you insist on doing that, you're not really acknowledging the Bible's authority, but rather your own authority (making yourself God). The Bible independent of the Church's authority (Tradition and Magisterium) has no authority. This is evident by the 40,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming Sola Scriptura or Bible as the final authority, yet all disagree.
Argument 3: If you are interpreting the Bible on your own (or a pastor) outside of the Church's teachings/authority, and therefore, reject the authority of the Church to whom Christ gave it, then you are worshiping your own version or flavour of Jesus - in effect, you created your own God (some may even go as far as comparing it close to being idolatry). One might call this Cafeteria Christianity where you pick and choose what you like or want to believe. Faith isn't up to what we want, but what God has chosen to revealed to us.
Side note: The CC does teach though that it contains the fullness of truth and many Christian (Protestant) denominations contain some of those truths. And an honest (intellectually and spiritually) person who genuinely is convinced of their Protestant faith is not damned. However, someone who suspects that they should learn about or dig further into the teachings of the CC, but neglects it out of willful ignorance commits grave sin (sin against faith).
Ruslan you brought up an interesting point about 2 Tim 3:16-17 referring to OT scripture because at that time the NT was not completed, and I agree. BUT we also know that Peter was already referring to Paul’s letters as scripture and Peter builds on this in 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Peter 3:16-17, he also warns of the dangers of twisting scripture and accepting doctrine outside of the OT and the letters of Paul.
Ruslan I really want to recommend Gavin Ortlund to you. His videos aren't like high energy so they reacting to them might not make for the best content, but he's very informative on defending Protestantism from a deep scholarly point of view.
Gavin Ortlund is highly recommended too. Very deep and enlightening, and had similar teaching to our pastor.
Here’s the thing, its very very important to notate there’s a difference between the nature of scripture vs canon or rule of scripture. People often conflate the two. They are both important but not the same.😊
Ruslan: "Notice he doesn't address the pope initially."
Actual video: Cadence - George, "Let's start with sola scriptura."
And George himself, makes a note that Allie mentioned all the Pope stuff, almost as if that's what he wanted to start with until his wife told him to start with sola scriptura.
And stop saying that Catholics are attacking a straw-man. The debate is more serious than that. At the end of the day Protestants have to live with the fact that a group of men got together and said, this is the Bible (never mind that you guys actually believe that that original group was wrong and that men in the 1600s corrected it). If only the Bible is the final authority, then by what authority did those early Christians have to say what the Bible is? How can we be sure that they are right and didn't make a mistake? Because if you do not have any criteria for when a group of humans can be infallible, then you have to question the very origin of the Bible and ask yourself, did they get it wrong? In other words, if only the scripture (Bible) is infallible, then we can't be sure that the early, Christians were right when they decided.
Do u think the books were decided arbitrarily? I'm sure they removed anything contradictory, as God doesn't contradict Himself.
@@arcguardian As Trent Horn says Protestants argue like atheists. The question would be are the deuterocanonicals contradictory? No, just like how atheists argue the protestant Bible is filled with contradictions. The question would be are those true contradictions or rather perceived contradictions? Also if what you said is correct then that would mean the Holy Spirit let the Church be wrong in cannon, and preach the wrong scriptures for 1500 years until Protestants rediscovered the truth. I don't think the Lord would allow us to be mistaken like that.
And thank the lord it did. People who say that Catholicism isn’t biblical don’t understand scripture and don’t understand what the Catholics believe and why.
Scripture clearly puts peters voice above others, he is referred to much More and his voice through letters show authority
I will argue that I’ve met many protestant Christians who read their Bible I can tell because when I hear them talk, they’re literally bringing up scripture . This was new to me because when I was Catholic, we mainly only memorized prayers like the Hail Mary, and the only scripture as Catholic was Our Father .
Yes. I have met many devote Catholics that do not even pray other than cite memorized stuff by the catholic church
Did you ever go to Mass? Did you hear the mass readings every Sunday? Because ALL of those readings are BIBLE READINGS...? And by the way- the HAIL MARY is straight from SCRIPTURE. Did you ever pay attention to the words? so it turns out that you did in fact memorixe Scripture. And EVRYTHING in the MASS is FROM SCRIPTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you ever pray the Rosary? Because EVRYTHING in the Rosary is from Scripture- as a matter of fact-the Rosary is the GOSPELS on beads. --- You are truly an ignorant person if you missed all of this.
In before Ruslan comes out as Roman Catholic
I think you guys should do a vid on why the books were removed. I think the point of them being removed and leaving it there can make people think that it was removed for no reason, even though it was rightfully removed because of the content being anti scriptural. We can say the same thing about the gospel of Thomas and other manuscripts not added to the bible
Or just plain historical error
I did research on this recently but basically they were removed bc they have not been considered as “God breathed/inspired” but more as historical texts. There is more to it than that, Id put the link to the article I read but ruslan prob doesn’t allow links. But if you type in “Did Martin Luther Remove Books from the Bible? A Pastor’s Answer pastorunlikely” the article will come up.
Lol "rightly removed." Everyone is waiting on Protestants to give us the criteria by which the decide which book should be included in the Old Testament. What ever criteria you use to disqualify the deuterocanon, the same can be applied to other books of the Old Testament.
Did you know ow that Luther tried to remove 1 corinthians and the book of James from the NT as well?
@@CovocNexus we do that with all historical text. We validate whether something is authentic and based on evidence and historical knowledge it’s determined if it should be believed
It’s one reason I now tell people I’m more Catholic or orthodox than evangelical. I feel some evangelical circles have this absolute mindset that everything is found in scripture even regarding the mysteries of God. Its hard to have a conversation without a lot of these presuppositions brought by the Americanized church. It’s even apparent that a group of scholastic Jewish rabbis are in the process of revising parts of the Torah. At least it’s in discussion regarding certain ceremonial laws. I think we should be open-minded about some of these things.
I'm a Catholic and my toddlers attend Cubbies (Awanas) at a Baptist Church while I attent a Bible study during that time there as well on Wednesdays.
On Sunday, my kids go to a Montessori-based learning called CGS, to learn Tradition, and about Holy Mass. Then, we all attend Holy Mass as a family after, as I believe it to be the highest form of worship, going back to Cavalry and the cross.
I do not discriminate and believe we All have something Really right, and we are All lacking in a department or another.
Next year, they will be attending a class geared towards preparation for the Eucharist at my church; but it is invaluable to interact with other denominations and Garner what you can from each other.
God bless you, Ruslan for building bridges 🙏
@mikeeng957. I am a convert to Catholicism. I am not sure why you are attending bible study in a Baptist church. You probably know that different Christian denominations interpret the bible differently. But the Apostles stick to what Jesus taught and this interpretation is backed up by Heavek in Matt 18:18 and passed down through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is perhaps good to know what other denominations think but this doesn't really matter cos as Catholics we stick to what Jesus taught. God bless !
19:19 The Apocrypha was actually kept in early protestant Bibles, Luther didn't remove them as he saw them as good secondary readings jist not God inspired and they were moved to the back of the Bible and was only removed due to paper costs. 1 and 2 Macabees isn't God inspired but it's a good worthwhile read for example to know more history leading up to the political state of the nation at that time.
What makes you think 1 and 2 macabes isn't God inspired?
Luther also was a believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and honoring her. He also believed in the Eucharist, which was the center of the church service for the first about 1500 years. The Eucharist was removed and the sermon became the center of the service by Ulrich Zwingli. Also if you read Matthew 16, 17-19 you get a better context on why Catholics believed Peter was the first Pope. Not saying that Catholics are correct on this or many other practices they have. But as the one man said in the video, a lot of Protestants don’t read their Bible, but just regurgitate parts of what they hear their pastors and other church members say.
@@larryjake7783 The Jews didn't consider it scripture, thus the church fathers didn't either. Doesn't mean it isn't true or historical. I just don't want to take theology from it, that was the same positions as most Jews of the second temple period and the early church fathers.
@IIOO Luther didn't it was decided by the church leaders, Luther was probably listened to but many of his opinions on Cannon (such as removing James) were ignored.
@@jaredgilmore3102Incorrect, certain Church Fathers were on the side of it being Canon, others were not. The claim that the J-s not acc-pting them (th-y only started this centuries after Christ due to Chr-sti-ns quoting the Septuagint), magically means that we shouldn’t accept them as Scripture is nonsensical. The Process Culminated in the Council of Rome which decided they were.
6:23 Sola Scriptura is a pillar of Protestantism so how is that low laying fruit?
Get Fr. Mike Schmitz on the podcast.
That man is a genius
As a Catholic, I just want to say that I love my protestant brothers and sisters, and that I do not doubt their love for our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I do not know how true it is, but I think I recall hearing that there are old King James bibles out there that include the same books they we Catholics have, but due to cost effectiveness in printing these books started to be left out over time. That while they were in there, they were still set aside as noncanonical.
I ask one thing, when understanding something about the Church, please learn about it from a reputable Catholic source.
Please pray for me Uncle Ed - I just got word that the docs found spots on his lymph nodes and at least one lung. I believe in the Church militant (us), suffering (souls destined for heaven, but are in purgatory), and the Church triumphant (those in heaven), aka the communion of saints, and as I head to bed, I will be praying for the communion of saints to be praying for me Uncle.
Peace be with you
I had prayed to Jesus I asked him to prove himself and in return I would devote my life to him & on the way out of the church I received a small static shock thru the holy water in the catholic church & after heavy research I have returned Catholic 🙏 🌎🕊
I would define “sola scriptura” as a doctrine of final authority rather than the “only authority.” Respectfully, I think all of you guys make grievous errors in this reaction video.
Mat 18:15-19 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Teaching purposely any wrong doctrine is also a sin so who is the final authority here?
None of this is a problem in Eastern Orthodoxy. Protestants ignore so much of church history.
Isn't that an overgeneralization? I'm pretty sure a lot of protestants know a lot about church history and while we don't engage orthodoxy like Catholicism in many cases its because we don't really consider it to be an issue, I actually don't see the same problems in the Orthodox church that I see in Catholic, that might be because they are less common and there are less nominal orthodox where I live then nominal Catholics but every one I've talked to could rationally explain their position on cannon (its not a hard set of documents like in the Protestant or Catholic churches), Icons or praying to the saints. I also see a lot more emphasis on Jesus prayers addressed to Jesus from laity and a lot less weird theology around Mary.
Now if a Orthodox want to talk theology I'm happy to, but since they don't really keep a strict hold of the western rational theology like Catholics and protestants and verge more into emphasizing the mystery and mysticism of the faith (not a critique I think its a valid position and quite interesting) such discussions tend to break down, the approaches are just so different.
@@jaredgilmore3102 my point in saying that is that church history refute Protestantism. The presuppositions such as Sola Scriptura are simply not present. For example: Baptismal Regeneration is a consensus doctrine from the point of even earliest Christian fathers. Jesus established a church -> his apostles spread that church -> people who knew his apostles wrote down their teachings, practiced them, and preserved the Scriptures -> unbroken line of lifespan overlap that goes back to Christ to this day = either Jesus failed to communicate the very basics of the faith to the apostles, the apostles failed to communicate the very basics of Christianity to their students, or the most likely option: if our beliefs don’t resemble their beliefs, we are the ones with the incorrect understanding of Christianity.
Thank you for your intellectual honesty.
I was raised by mother in Catholicism and Father as Protestant. I feel very comfortable in both settings but settled into Catholicism as an adult. John is my favorite Gospel so it seemed like the natural choice. Whatever brings you to true repentance and surrender to Christ is alright with me. 😊
Peters relationship to Catholicism?
Peter was crucified in Rome under Emperor Nero.
His execution was ordered by the Roman Emperor Nero, who blamed the city's Christians for a terrible fire that had ravaged Rome. Peter requested to be crucified upside down, as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ.
Who was pope during Nero?
Pope Linus (/ˈlaɪnəs/ ( listen), Greek: Λῖνος, Linos; died c. AD 76) was the bishop of Rome from c.
I don't get to catch everything you do but I like how you are on so many platforms ...keep it pushing which I know you will.
9:12 Peter has final word after James corrected him.
Ruslan, since you had Trent Horn on your channel, you should have Gavin Ortlund as well.
Steven Rey would be good
11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 2 Corinthians
Each Bishop, just as James in Jerusalem, has a jurisdiction over a diocese & would speak for that diocese. Saint Peter did not have to w/ the Council in Jerusalem. The Papacy may look different even today given all the different variables in the landscape but Popes in the early church were looked to as a supreme Bishop & even spoke for the Church. This holy faith was set in order via the Councils & the early church practiced Catholic practices such as holy tradition & the sacraments, Christendom is Catholicism, history is explicit, peace
This is an important point. The “James spoke instead of Peter” argument appears to be a nonstarter for Protestants. He was the bishop. (Thanks to Ruslan for these discussions!)
I think we can get too distracted by the nuances of doctrine. As a protestant, my core beliefs are summed up in The Apostles' Creed, which, I think, is common to most Catholic and Protestant denominations (I know the word "Catholic" is in the Creed but Protestants interpret it differently). A lot of the various doctrines that sit on top of that (e.g. the points of Calvinism), to me, have always seemed speculative, divisive, and wrong-headed. And I think it's very important, especially in these days when there is so much anti-Christian persecution, that there be unity among Christians.
you hit the nail on the head with the “final authority” point.
If a person reads their Bible, and interprets something a certain way. Let’s say your interpretation goes against majority church fathers, generations of traditions, etc.
The Catholics and Orthodox will say this is why you cannot rely on your own individual interpretation to *be* that final authority.
In a sense, no one can functionally do “sola Scriptura” since it is filtered through the understanding of the individual.
The rebuttal is, well can the majority consensus of the church ever be wrong? Perhaps so, and maybe even at times in history it was, since the human being is the fallible object here.
We believe however, that the Catholic Church Magisterium (Teaching Office), this specifically, is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. That way, we have an Infallible Interpreter for an Infallible Book, so we know how to Interpret the Bible, after a controversy. We believe Christ left the Church for this reason, and that the Church is the “Bullwork of Truth and Righteousness” as the Bible says. It’s a bit complicated how it all works though. But in short, no that isn’t a problem.
That is my rebuttal to your argument*
@@kyrptonite1825 There is no teaching in the Bible of an infallible interpreter the Magisterium. The infallible interpretor does reside in us, through the Holy Spirit. We must endeavor to test Scripture with Scripture. WE wont always get it right, as we still sin and are human, but that is equal to say the Magisterium does not always get it right either as they are humans and fallible as well. There is no issue to have disagreements, that is how we learn. Now, when one side says they are infallible, there we have an issue as only ONE IS INFALLIBLE that lived on Earth. Jesus Christ our Lord.
@@danielkim672 @Daniel Kim In gospel of John when Jesus talks about sending the Spirit od Truth he talks to eleven apostles. (Judas left to betray Jesus) He doesn't talk to all his followers or to crowds of people. He talks to a very narrow group. To the people that are given by him special authority. We would argue that this group has it's continuation through apostolic succesion in magisterium. This passage also talks about Spirit of Truth being given for eternity so it's not like it can just disapear for some time and pop up somewhere else.
What is the use of infallible interpretor residing in you if you still come up with fallible interpretation ?
I would also add that you are confusing being granted infallibility by God durring some action with impeccability. We both believe that God protected gospel writters from error while they were writting gospels that does not mean that they never made any mistake.
@@Mila-kz8tt I am having a hard time following you as most of what you said is not in the Bible, but stuff created by the Magestiurim. So you agree, that in Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives the keys to the disciples? To ALL JESUS followers really. When you read Matthew 18:17 and 18:19 you believe that teaching and direction is ONLY for the disciples that were there in His presence? Not to all current and future believers and followers of Christ? That would make ZERO sense. Those teaches are for all believers in Christ Jesus our Lord. Crystal Clear.
The Truth through the Holy Spirit is in ALL Believers. There is zero teaching about 'apostolic succession' made up story by the magisterium in the Bible.
It clearly says in the Bible Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Argument demolished...
If the Bible is the final authority.
We don’t need no pastor no man
No theologian no expert no preacher.
Just me and my Bible. Yet Protestants
Have all those people
I think one of the main arguments for removing deuterocanonical books was that they were not included in the Hebrew Bible canon recognized by mainstream Judaism.
That's why Protestants label themselves Judeo-Christians and they are Zionists . Catholics are not Judeo-Christians . We're just Christians . This makes a lot of sense .
You all are taking an L on the apocrypha. Do some research on why those books were removed
I've read each one as a Protestant. They are incredible
Who has the authority to remove them ?
@@PInk77W1who had the authority to add them?
@@judegrant4769 the Roman Catholic Church