Can i please beg you to please read the teachings of the early fathers, this might take a long time but do it before you make another video, there is alot of information that you need to learn before you make another video, read, read, and read follow the trail to the path of the true church up to today and tell me where you get
"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler." Valentinian III A.D. 445
Total agreement? No. but there is a general consensus among the fathers concerning catholic doctrine. It should also be pointed out that the terminology with which the church uses to describe different mysteries of the faith developed over time so a church father living in the first century might not describe something in the precise terms as an ecumenical council centuries later, but a basis for the belief was still there
@OneTrueChurch As a Protestant I agree with you whole heartedly. Within the church Fathers there are teachings that the RCC would not agree with. But I will not condemn all RCC's because as ST.Augustine said: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, but in all things Charity. May our Triune God open our eys ti His truth. Amen.
Mark, when St. Augustine talked about non-essentials he was talking about theological positions which were not official doctrine or disciplinary practices which might vary depending on where one lives. He was not putting any official doctrine in the "non-essential" category. btw, who has the authority to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential?
citations please? btw all of these fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity, the sinlessness of mary, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the authority of the bishop etc. So if you are going to allege that these men believed in sola scriptura, then you would have to affirm all of these things!
I don't have a problem with the idea of material sufficiency of scripture which states that all catholic doctrine can be supported by scripture either explicitly or implicitly which is what these fathers are saying. Or with the idea that we should compare things to what the scriptures say. And yes, we should accept what is in scripture and reject what is foreign but it is the church that has the authority to tell us what the scriptures teach
It is the protestant idea, however, that one can interpret the scriptures apart from tradition and apart from what the church teaches and to put them in opposition to church teaching. All of these church fathers recognized that the church has authority in and of itself and also taught the divine authority of tradition. And yes, they taught that scriptures are "the measure of every tenant", but they must be understood in light of tradition and church teaching
"...the Church alone has, through the grace of God, received the means necessary to realize such end [world peace and holiness]" (Leo XIII, On Christians as Citizens, 25).
No one can, however, without risk to faith, foster any doubt as to the Church alone having been invested with such power of governing souls as to exclude altogether the civil authority (Leo XIII, On Christians as Citizens, 27).
@October31st1517 Scripture is only said to be sufficent to the "man of GOD" which would imply that one has the spirit of truth with them...which in turn will "teach you all things"...scripture without the spirit(aka sola scriptura) will kill you and is no good for anyone "the letter kills"...Satan had scripture did it alone save him?...nope!
We are seeking individuals for Ordination into the Orthodox Catholic Church World Wide Orthodox Catholic Ministry. The Sovereign Order of O.C.C. is a worldwide, lay, diplomatic religious order which seeks to glorify the Creator by promoting the sanctification of each member through his or her work with the sick and the poor and witness of the faith and to protect The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
@christorthodox the orthodox are heretics, they were the first protestants rejecting Papal Authority in 1054,
If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Correction the orthodox group(notice i said group because there is only one true Church,The Catholic Church) got started in 1054, they rejected the papacy, and yes they do teach error. Such as they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception or purgatory. Basically anyone that is not Catholic are cherry pickers.
@MysticalCity The Orthodox Church did not start in 1054. It was the Latin church that separated from the Orthodox in 1054. Papal infallibility, immaculate conception, the filioque etc. are all added changes that are not part of the early church's teachings and traditions. It is the Orthodox Churches that have not deviated from the true faith.
@vasilyjc1955 a man was excommunicated in 1054 by Pope Leo, hence the orthodox got started, EVERYTHING the church fathers taught back then The Catholic Church teaches today, you reject the papacy, purgatory, the filioque, Immaculate Conception etc.. i can provide proof for all this via scripture, also there are like 20 different sects regarding orthodox, just like protest-ants you guys are no different, every sect teaches something different.
@MysticalCity Since Pope Leo excommunicated the Orthodox, hence separating themselves from the East, isn't Rome that got started in 1054? You are talking nonsense, without any knowledge of early church history or theology. Papal infallibility became reality at Vatican I, and was not part of the early church.The filioque addition goes against the Seven Ecumenical Councils decisions. It is not even in Scriptures.
@vasilyjc1955 proof for the Filioque,AGAIN St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON.
@vasilyjc1955 You fail to see the apostolic lineage to Pope Benedict from the very east you attempt to separate from the Catholic Church. Your argument just doesn't work. When you review the history, the east and west were united until the schism, when a portion of the eastern Church left the seat of Peter. But most of the east is still in union with The Bishop of Rome. ALL the church fathers said The Holy Ghost proceeds from both, all talked about purgatory etc. you rejected this in 1054
@MysticalCity It was Cardinal Humbert , along with his delegation, that excommunicated the East, Constantinople. Days later, the east excommunicated the Latin west. No early church Father wrote about a double procession, hence the filioque.
@MysticalCity The Orthodox Church are not various "sects", but all united by the same faith and communion. To state otherwise is plain ignorant of the facts.
@vasilyjc1955 really? russian orthodox, greek orthodox and what else, coptic orthodox?? you guys have no whats the word? this is exactly what happens when you have no unity to the bishop of Rome AKA the pope, you end up having 200 bishops all stating their opinion, would you like scripture on the filioque?
@MysticalCity That was the way the early church was set up and functioned. by a collegiate system of bishops. There existed no central authority in the early church. Papal universal authority only became realty at the First Vatican Council in 1868. At least the Orthodox are united under one faith and in communion. Look at all the independent , old and traditional catholic jurisdictions not under the pope of Rome. The filioque is not in Scriptures.
@vasilyjc1955 r u kidding me? The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS had the final authority, The Church is called Catholic, not a sect known as "orthodox" ANYONE that was not under communion with the bishop of Rome, was a heretic or schismatic PERIOD. These councils were Catholic, orthodox got started in1054,study your history. Find me one single quote from an early Church father during the first five centuries of the Church who believed that “Peter’s honor was not passed down to his successor.”
@MysticalCity You better reread and study church history. To continue to state that the Orthodox started in 1054 is just plain ignorant and delusional. The entire church was both catholic and Apostolic and orthodox in doctrines. The word "orthodox" was used to designate those churches that continued to followed the teachings and doctrines of the early church. All the five Patriarchates have Apostolic succession.
@vasilyjc1955 you better read what your sect teaches, you guys don't believe in The Immaculate Conception, purgatory, the filioque and reject the papacy, so you guys split, and started in 1054 period. Its common sense, Only The pope has The keys no one else, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
@MysticalCity Peter founded the churches in Antioch and Alexandria . He was bishop in Antioch for about seven years. They hold the "keys" as well. It was Rome who split from the East. You have your history confused. The Orthodox are from from some sect. To state such nonsense is nothing but being ignorant.
The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Rome made a canonical error. The Orthodox do not reject the pope, just the universal infallibility.
@vasilyjc1955 Wrong, St.Peter was bishop of many places, But Rome always held the authority, please give me one church father quote from the first 5 centuries that denies Rome, didn't i just give you scripture on the filioque? how many times are orthodox going to avoid that verse!??? give me one quote from a church father that says the Holy Ghost proceeds ONLY from the Father?? The first 2 ecumenical councils did not say it proceeds alone, the filioque is in the Athanasius Creed.
@MysticalCity The Orthodox reject papal infallibility. That verse from Scriptures has nothing to do with the filioque. There is nothing in Scriptures that supports the filioque and no Ecumenical Council approved the addition.
@vasilyjc1955 "That verse from scriptures has nothing to do with the filioque"? REALLY! let me dumb it down for you.St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON. UNDENIABLE PROOF!!!
@vasilyjc1955 Sry but "In Christ Jesus is the FULLNESS OF THE DIVINITY" Colossians 2:9 If you say the holy spirit doesn't proceed from the FULLNESS OF THE DIVINITY I feel very sad for you.
@gtepp031387 Colossians 2:9, states, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily". The Godhead being the Father the source.So He is the fulness of the divinity of the Spirit, proceeding from the fullness of the divinity of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father, not of the divine essence. Nowhere in Scriptures does it state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ. I feel very sad for you because you do not understand each Persons of the Holy Trinity
@vasilyjc1955 Ok if we are to look at the persons Jesus is the very WORD OF GOD...no one disputes that the father generates and is the origen of the spirit...but tell me how can the holy spirit proceed forth without the LOGOS???
@gtepp031387 Logos is the Word of God, Jesus Christ, which became flesh and dwelt amongst us. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the origin. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father shows the mystical inner relations of the Persons in God and the life of God within Himself.The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at the time of His Baptism..The Holy Spirit was sent down by the Son from the Father ,appearing in the form of fiery tongues. The Son came to earth through the Holy Spirit.
@vasilyjc1955 I know that the HOLY SPIRIT had to proceed forth from the mental thought(LOGOS) of GOD. You just don't seem to get that the father alone is the origen(the generater) of the HOLY SPIRIT, but the HOLY SPIRIT had to proceed forth from the FATHER from his LOGOS. Thus proceeds from the father and the son, but only originates from the father alone.
@gtepp031387 You are confusing terminology. In the original Greek text the word "originates" was used, not "proceeds".. The Holy Spirit only "originates" from the Father. The Holy Spirit can not "originate" from two sources.
@vasilyjc1955 This is the problem, in the Latin text, which is the text the Pope approved it reads proceeds.
The two churches have been at odds over the terminology, it is pure simantics. The Greeks use the word originate the Latins proceed and this is the way each of them has had the creed since the begging.
@MysticalCity Pope Gregory the Great stated," That the blessed Peter had established three Petrine Sees of equal authority-Rome-Alexandria and Antioch. "Peter's honor is not solely in Rome.
@vasilyjc1955 Saint Peter died in Rome, Rome always held the final authority, to say that three were 3 sees is just typical orthodox garbage, its amazing how you were once with us(The Papacy) then split, and came up with all this nonsense. "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
@vasilyjc1955 "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
@vasilyjc1955 r u kidding me? The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS had the final authority, The Church is called Catholic, not a sect known as "orthodox" ANYONE that was not under communion with the bishop of Rome, was a heretic or schismatic PERIOD. These councils were Catholic, orthodox got started in1054,study your history. Find me one single quote from an early Church father during the first five centuries of the Church who believed that “Peter’s honor was not passed down to his successor.”
@vasilyjc1955 'The filioque is not in scripture" typical protestant orthodox response, I'm going to provide scripture on The Filioque for the 200th time,AGAIN St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON.
@vasilyjc1955 "faith and one communion" there are like 20 different orthodox sects, russian orthodox, greek orthodox, coptic orthodox, which one are you? they all contradict each other, protestants have no authority in there groups, its all opinions. Also Please give me an instance in Church history where a definitive teaching was rendered by the Church without the approval of the successor of St. Peter, and then we will have a discussion about this.--
@vasilyjc1955 --- A council has absolutely no authority unless and until it is approved by the pope, the bishop of Rome. Your previous bishops believed this until they decided to become schismatics. This is about authority.
"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope
@MysticalCity Like I stated . there existed no central authority in the early church. Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council, 325, only granted the Bishop of Rome authority over the churches in the West, and affirmed their independence of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch. As outlined by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils ,the bishop of Rome held a primacy of honor as the first amongst equals and had no authority outside of his jurisdiction.
the Roman Catholics keep changing the scriptures on a daily basis. If you belief the Roman Catholics are the one true church you have just been fooled.
Our words should be like bread handed out to the poor, that should never be quenched. I find it very depressing that when a Catholic tries to prove their validity. If you disagree you get this cold bitter response. It's not the response of someone who's trying to win you over. If you catch what I'm saying. This is from my expirience trying to explain the contrast between the Words of the bible and the Catholic relgious practices. "You shall know them by their fruits"Matt7:16 Jesus used kindness
@OneTrueChurch Wow! This video is very articulate, straightforward, and powerful. Thank you for defending Christ's true Church and sharing some of the history of Christianity. This video accurately and directly addresses many key points. You make the truth seem so clear (it is). I'm looking forward to seeing the Eucharist video. :-) May the Lord continue to speak through you and use you as a worldwide witness. God bless.
I had such a beautiful dream last night, the Blessed Virgin came to me. I can only remember bits of pices of it thow. I thank YHWH for sending the BVM all around the world to bring people to the ONE TRUE FAITH. We need and I pray that the whole World can be Catholic one day!!
I went through twelve GOD-FORSAKEN years of satanic roman catholic school. They (the hierarchy not the common people) truly worship lucifer. Now I know salvation is by GRACE ALONE throUgh FAITH ALONE. I know I am ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED but calvinism is also devil worship!
@barrypatrickius, why do you go against tthe word of God as written in Scriptures? Haven't you read that justification is NOT by faith alone, or do you just conveniently ignore that?
Be careful with your condemnation of God's Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit. You are engaging in the only unforgivable sin of calling the Holy Spirit's work the work of Satan.
Where in the Scripture do you find "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, Mother of Divine Grace, Mediatrix of Grace, Our Lady of Lourdes, Fatima, or Guadalupe'? Can you spell I-D-O-L-A-T-R-Y?
@speedstick77, first question for you is where do you find that Scripture contains the entire word of God and none of God's truth is found outside Scripture so that you've contained the infinite God in 73 books?
Second question is why you're not smart enough to know the difference between honoring and worshipping?
* Catholics follow Jesus' lead in honoring His mother. He honored her first, and we as His Body honor her as well.
* Catholics worship God with the worship due Him alone.
@TheGreatRL Yes, man made religion is more than a scam. The necessity is to be reconciled to a genuine relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, to be born again, a new creature in Christ Jesus.
@Freakonaleash92 Key word: Had. Smart cultures don't have them anymore, or at least keep them as distant as possible from the government. Just about every culture had no choice but to have a religion because there wasn't any good science to tell them the truth about life.
@TheGreatRL If you're calling officially atheist states such as communist china "smart", then yes, that would be a fair statement. Otherwise you're just being an anti religious douche for no reason.
@TheGreatRL, you have exactly zero valid reason for not believing God exists. You probably have many illegitimate and unsubstantiated reasons, along with personal issues that lead you to your false denial of the Ultimate Truth. Denial of truth is to be out of touch with reality. Your denial is the greatest denial possible.
@TheGreatRL, try and prove that a supernatural God doesn't exist using science that only describes the natural universe... give it a try and see how far you get.... The honest scientist arrives at a place viewing matter and energy using science in the natural universe, needing to know where matter and energy came from. By scientific laws, they didn't come from nothing. Coming from nothing would be the most irrational possibility of all. Give it a try....
@mdkpubs No scientist or atheist says "everything came from nothing" They say "we don't know yet". Even if there was slam dunk evidence of a God, that doesn't mean the judeo christian God that (i'm assuming) you worship is the one true God. Why believe in that God and not Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor? Why believe in one God and not 6 or 7 like in Greek mythology? Religion comes and goes and people use it as a reason for monetary value and excuse for warfare.
@TheGreatRL, what you don't get, is that it matters not that atheists or ignorant scientists (not wise scientists) keep looking for some way to violate the first law of Thermodynamics. Neither of these is really seeking truth. In fact, truth is the enemy of atheism. You are no different.
@mdkpubs The first law of thermodynamics does not mean the judeo christian God is the one true God. It doesn't even say that there is a God. Do you even know what the other laws of thermodynamics are? Probably not. Do you even know how many there are? Don't think so.
@TheGreatRL, see, you're too ignorant to even read what I wrote. I never said the first law of thermo proved the judeo Christian God, did I? What it does say is that matter and energy don't come from nothing. There is no other valid explanation than a supernatural God. I quite clearly said that other things determine the nature of that supernatural Creator, didn't I?
@mdkpubs Actually you are the one who is too ignorant to read what I wrote. I never made the assertion that you based your proof (not that you have any) that the first law of thermo proved the judeo christian God. I said, that even if there was slam dunk proof of a God (which there isn't) then you would still have to prove that the catholic church is the one true cult. (which you won't be able to do)
@TheGreatRL, I am a trained scientist. Although I took Thermodynamics some years ago in college, I do know it. What you fail to acknowledge is the relevance of the first law, that being the rest of Thermo (like another important law, the second law - entropy), do no violate the first law. So, we can discuss the first law knowing that nothing else in Thermo will violate this law. Do you understand that much?
... think for a change and seek to learn truth instead of being trapped by falsehoods.
@TheGreatRL, what I expressed is evidence of a supernatural Creator, which is the most logical and rational explanation that is congruent with all scientific law. There must be more of a discussion about finding the True Creator. False religion comes and goes and these gods change with a whim... but, none of this applies to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who became Flesh 2,000 years ago. There is also more to discuss, as there are ways to separate the true from the false.
@mdkpubs What you see as logical and what is scientific are two different things. You rely on logic alone and no science. If we did just that, then we never would have found out that the earth was round because logic alone would tell you that it can't be round because the people in China would fall off. False religion especially applies to your God of abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. All of these so called prophets had to talk to God individually. Not suspicious at all.
@TheGreatRL, in all truth, I do rely on science, logic, and reason. They all point to God.
I am a trained Scientist. It's quite obvious that you have no clue about science as it applies here. There is not one single element of science, no archeological finding that has ever disproven God. We know why. You choose to remain ignorant, clinging to improbability.
YOU cannot truly identify to one single falsehood in the Catholic religion. Your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.
@mdkpubs Even if science, logic, and reason did point to a God, (which they don't) that doesn't mean the catholic church is the one true cult. You are only a christian because it is part of your culture. I guarantee that if you were born in the middle east, you wouldn't be following Christ. You would be following Muhammed. If you were born in India, you would be a hindu. These so called, free lessons aren't really new to me. I heard these from other brainwashed christians.
@TheGreatRL, science has no disagreement with my religion, and my religion supports real science, not your wishful thinking that you call science.
It is a great deal of further evidence that all the prophets over hundreds of years wrote individually, and not any of it is at variance... it all supports the rest and what was foretold has indeed come to pass.
@mdkpubs What don't you understand about burden of proof. There is no evidence to disprove Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor. That doesn't make it true. I can identify many falsehoods in the catholic religion. You say science has no disagreement with your religion. Actually Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, and Noah's ark don't agree with science
Actually atheism is born of logic and reason. Theism is born of fear and stupidity. Fear that a sky daddy who loves us but will also damn us to hell.
@TheGreatRL, that there is a supernatural Creator is the most logical and reasonable solution to where the universe (matter and energy and intelligence therein) came from. This is never disproven by any science, any probability, any archeology. In fact, science, probability and archeology support the Christian idea of God and of Christian evolution. Atheistic evolution has never been proven and there is a preponderance of evidence that makes it much more than simply improbable.
@mdkpubs There is no such thing as christian evolution or atheist evolution. There is only one evolution. And then there is the fake science called creationism.
@TheGreatRL, essentially, Catholicism passes all tests for true faith and Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do as well. Not one other faith in the world does this, nor do the false concepts of gods created by men.
@mdkpubs 100% wrong. True faith is an oxymoron. If it was true, then it wouldn't be faith. If you believe it is true, then that is up to you, but don't expect me to believe you when you bring no evidence to the table. Just because you have a 2,000 year old book that says you are right, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. When you make an outrageous claim, the burden of proof is not on those who don't believe you.
@TheGreatRL, perhaps, just perhaps you are ignorant of what faith is.
* Our beliefs (faith) can match reality in which case we have true beliefs or true faith
* Our beliefs (faith) can be of many and varied falsehoods and lies, and therefore atheism and the like
* Conclusion is simple... our beliefs can either be based on truth, or falsehoods, but they are still beliefs. What they're based on shows whether they're valid or not.
@TheGreatRL, I really don't expect you to go with the truth at all, because that's the person you've shown yourself to be.
* No, it's not because we have a 2,000 year old book. Actually, the Scriptures were written over quite a long span of years, starting before 2,000 years ago.
@mdkpubs Oh I go with the truth a lot more than someone who claims a fiction book to be literally true. Your claims seem outrageous to me because the claim that we are watched by an invisible man living in the sky every second of every day, judging us on our actions are indeed outrageous. Trust me, I was a catholic for 19 years and left when I realized I was being scammed heavily.
You are a scientist??? Hah. I have a hard time believing that.
@TheGreatRL, True faith is a real and true statement, and 100% valid. Your lack of education is the reason you don't understand this, because it's 100% valid. Two people can look at a thing that is clear, and yet one "believes" it is something else (as you do). Your blind faith in irrationality and illogical propositions and false views of science is false faith...
@TheGreatRL, scientists (the wise ones who actually know science and humbly seek truth), do say that there is no way matter and energy came popped into existence from nothing.
@TheGreatRL, I don't know Kent Hovind. I am a trained applied scientist. Many scientists will tell you that scientific laws can't explain where matter and energy came from. With what we have today, it is safe to say that science cannot tell us where matter and energy came from. The honest scientists will tell you this, because science is of the natural universe. All science can explain is the natural universe that exists, and cannot even explain that fully. The rest - ideas and hypothesis.
@TheGreatRL, the real scientists I speak of know that the law of conservation of matter and energy are not going to be violated. It's completely irrational to believe that matter and energy popped into existence from nothing. That violates the law of conservation of energy, doesn't it... or do you understand this?
@TheGreatRL, actually you're lying here by avoiding the obvious. It's not true at all that "atheists" say "we don't know yet." The atheist says "we know there is no God who did this." Otherwise, they would not be atheistic, would they? The atheist cuts himself off from the possibility of God creating the universe, and in doing so, they disqualify themselves from being open minded and seeking truth.
@mdkpubs You will never hear me say "I am an atheist because I know there is no God" I am an atheist because there is no proof of a God. Everyone is pretty much atheist. The atheists you see today just take it one God further. Atheists are actually very open minded and seek the truth whilst the religious crowd sulk in their own brainwashed fairytales and think that this 4.5 billion year old earth was created just for us.
@TheGreatRL, there is no evidence whatsoever that matter and energy in the natural universe came from any other than a supernatural Creator. This is simply the best (and is truthful) solution. There is not one other valid solution of where matter and energy came from anything or anyone natural.
@TheGreatRL, those who arrogantly believe themselves "smart" are the most lacking in smartness.
Being smart has a lot to do with self preservation and promotion of your an others' lives in the macro as well. Believing there is no God is the most self defeating of all positions, i.e. not smart.
What I've seen from you is a self indulgent kind of frightened person who lives on fear instead of love.
@TheGreatRL, what does that have to do with God existing or not? Nothing.
There are people who fraudulently take in donations from sincere believers. But, that doesn't mean others are not doing what God asks.
Truthfully, the Catholic Church headquarters (Vatican) has operated at a loss the last several years, from donating the collecting money and using it for God's people.
While there indeed can't be more than one truth, you are not the one to judge what that truth is for other people. Don't tell other people what to believe. You should be telling people to go out and make up their own minds. If your parents were not religious, you would not be religious. Certainly you must agree there is a bias in place. I grew up Catholic, and was even confirmed, but I remain open minded. Especially when you consider all the corruption the Church has become entangled with.
@matticusstupendicus, there have always been personal failings among those God has called. You may be familiar with one of the twelve chosen by Jesus... his name was Judas.
In addition, those familiar with the Scriptures know that Jesus warned there would be wolves within His Church. So, the mere presence of wolves, doesn't disqualify it from being His Church.
@matticusstupendicus, you were open to heresies, and therefore you fell away from God's Church. Being open minded to trash, is not the proper use of your mind as God has called us. You point out the personal failings of some in God's Church. Yet, you fail to see your own massive failing as well. Didn't Jesus have a parable about that?
It angers me when people say that other denominations "teach many things that are false." (1:05) Dude, you cant even set up your webcam properly, what gives you any reason to believe you are qualified to make such a dogmatic judgment on whole groups of people that you dont even know? People believe what works for them. let God judge them accordingly. Who cares if they are "wrong" so long as they are happy. Any one organization claiming to have the ONLY answer is eternally CLOSE MINDED.
@matticusstupendicus, since many ecclesial communities teach conflicting interpretations of God's written word, do you agree that some must by definition be teaching falsehood? God is consistent and does not teach in opposition to Himself, right? So, we know that some do teach falsehoods.
Next step is to find out which one(s) teach what Christ intended.
Clue #1. Christ said He would build a Church, not "churches."
Clue #2. Christ built His Church on the man He named Rock.
@mdkpubs Look, I come from a Catholic background, and I do think that if any church is the "correct" one, it would be the Catholic church, simply because it was the original one. But, I think that religion is not about who's right, and who's wrong, and more about making your life the best it can be during the short time you have on Earth. Where does judging other people really get you? I think a person's happiness is the most important thing, not which church he belongs to. Just my 2 cents..
@matticusstupendicus, coming from a "Catholic background" means really nothing in reality because many who are members of God's Catholic Church know next to nothing about it, and eventually leave due to ignorance and being persuaded by a lie or two. Religion is about Who is right and who has the right. God is right. He has the right as our sovereign to define His Church, teach us truths, and minister His Sacraments. That you reject these means you reject God's sovereignty. It does matter.
@matticusstupendicus, belonging to God's one Church, or belonging to a man made ecclesial community has a great bearing on our earthly and real eternal happiness. It definitely matters whether you belong to God's Church or not. God's Church has never once taught error in faith and morals. Men's ecclesial communites (Protestant origin) was founded on errors, arrogance, and heresies.
@matticusstupendicus, he didn't make a dogmatic statement. He repeated one, and anyone can do that regardless of whether they've even ever seen a webcam.
God built one and only one Church for the salvation of souls, and that is His Catholic Church.
ALL other ecclesial communities were built by men.
So, are you telling us that men do as good a job as God in building their communities and teaching the truth?
@matticusstupendicus, one orgainzation having the fullness of truth is telling you the way it is. When Christ is Head of the Church, it cannot be otherwise. We seek to saturate our minds with God's truth. That doesn't mean we are closed minded to additional truth. It means we are appropriately closed to heresies and errors, which is where you seem open to heresies and errors for the sake of some alleged "happiness" that is built on nothing solid, but just wishful thinking.
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
@TheCatholicWolf, exactly, the verse actually refers to a false queen of heaven. God is angered due to these false gods. Three problems here for those who errantly claim there is no real Queen of Heaven.
* there were also false messiahs, which don't mean there is not a true messiah.
* Mary is not viewed in Catholicism as a god.
* Jesus also protects this position to His right hand, saying He cannot give it to His Apostle, since it is reserved for someone... that someone is the Queen Mother.
I agree no where in Bible it says to pray to Mary, But Mary does make a lot of appearances to various people Globally, more so than Christ. I particularly believe in the story of Fatima....
mdkpubs 2. Where did God teach that you are to interpret His written word, so you can come to your own conclusions and create your own man made faith?
Speaking of man made, please show me the man made verse of the Assumption Of Mary ascending to Heaven Body and Soul?
@FlyingSkullOfDeath (aka PantheraAtrox), show me first the questions I asked you, and I'll show you the Assumption of Mary. If you do not answer correctly the questions I asked you, then you will not even understand, and it shows you're not honest.
1. Where does God teach that the Scriptures alone are our rule of faith? If not, you've made it up.
2. Where does God teach that you are to interpret His written word, so you can come to your own conclusions to create your own man made faith.
@PantheraAtrox, if you knew Christ, I would not have to correct your false testimony and false witness. But, my correction of you is not because I don't know Christ, but because I do.
God indeed does want us to worship Him together, and that's why He built His Catholic Church.
Your doctrines of the "bible alone" and "right of private interpretation of Scriptures" are not only not in the Bible, but Scriptures teach in opposition to your doctrines.
@PantheraAtrox, then why do you cooperate with Satan by inserting your own prejudices and personal philosophies into God's written word, and claim it came from God when it did not? Satan did exactly the same long before you.
@PantheraAtrox (aka FlyingSkullOfDeath), where does God teach you to just read His Scriptures and you will know His teachings without error? If He does not, then you've made this up.
@FlyingSkullOfDeath (aka PantheraAtrox), where does God teach you to just read His Scriptures and you will know His teachings without error? If He does not, then you've made this up.
@PantheraAtrox, no, "The Word" is not a metaphor for Christ, it is a description of Christ. The Father expressed Himself perfectly and begot His only Son.
The Gospel is all about Christ, as Jesus came to bear witness to the truth. When you insert your own philosophies into God's written word, you no longer have God's Gospel, but your own instead. By doing what you're doing, you don't know Christ.
Can i please beg you to please read the teachings of the early fathers, this might take a long time but do it before you make another video, there is alot of information that you need to learn before you make another video, read, read, and read follow the trail to the path of the true church up to today and tell me where you get
Superfreakgames 1 month ago
What does the orthodox church teach that is wrong????
Superfreakgames 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler." Valentinian III A.D. 445
PapalSoldier 2 months ago
Where the early Church Fathers in total agreement with Roman Catholic doctrine?
October31st1517 2 months ago
@October31st1517
Total agreement? No. but there is a general consensus among the fathers concerning catholic doctrine. It should also be pointed out that the terminology with which the church uses to describe different mysteries of the faith developed over time so a church father living in the first century might not describe something in the precise terms as an ecumenical council centuries later, but a basis for the belief was still there
OneTrueChurch 2 months ago
@OneTrueChurch As a Protestant I agree with you whole heartedly. Within the church Fathers there are teachings that the RCC would not agree with. But I will not condemn all RCC's because as ST.Augustine said: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, but in all things Charity. May our Triune God open our eys ti His truth. Amen.
October31st1517 2 months ago
@October31st1517
Mark, when St. Augustine talked about non-essentials he was talking about theological positions which were not official doctrine or disciplinary practices which might vary depending on where one lives. He was not putting any official doctrine in the "non-essential" category. btw, who has the authority to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential?
OneTrueChurch 2 months ago
@OneTrueChurch "The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." -Athanasius, De Synodis,
"...for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things..." - John Chrysostom
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire..." Gregory of nyssa
"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet..." Basil
"accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. - Agustine
What is yours?
October31st1517 2 months ago
@October31st1517
citations please? btw all of these fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity, the sinlessness of mary, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the authority of the bishop etc. So if you are going to allege that these men believed in sola scriptura, then you would have to affirm all of these things!
OneTrueChurch 2 months ago
@OneTrueChurch So it goes the other way as well. You must accept sola scriptura.\?
October31st1517 2 months ago
I don't have a problem with the idea of material sufficiency of scripture which states that all catholic doctrine can be supported by scripture either explicitly or implicitly which is what these fathers are saying. Or with the idea that we should compare things to what the scriptures say. And yes, we should accept what is in scripture and reject what is foreign but it is the church that has the authority to tell us what the scriptures teach
OneTrueChurch 2 months ago
@October31st1517
It is the protestant idea, however, that one can interpret the scriptures apart from tradition and apart from what the church teaches and to put them in opposition to church teaching. All of these church fathers recognized that the church has authority in and of itself and also taught the divine authority of tradition. And yes, they taught that scriptures are "the measure of every tenant", but they must be understood in light of tradition and church teaching
OneTrueChurch 2 months ago
@October31st1517 All over. Pick a topic and get an answer.
redeemerslove 2 months ago
@redeemerslove Sure, what is your final authority on all faith & morals?
October31st1517 2 months ago
@October31st1517 “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
redeemerslove 2 months ago
@redeemerslove Where do we find the truths revealed by God? We find the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
It seems your at odds with the RCC. You just claimed Sola Ecclesia.
October31st1517 2 months ago
@October31st1517 Nope.
"...the Church alone has, through the grace of God, received the means necessary to realize such end [world peace and holiness]" (Leo XIII, On Christians as Citizens, 25).
No one can, however, without risk to faith, foster any doubt as to the Church alone having been invested with such power of governing souls as to exclude altogether the civil authority (Leo XIII, On Christians as Citizens, 27).
redeemerslove 2 months ago
@October31st1517 Scripture is only said to be sufficent to the "man of GOD" which would imply that one has the spirit of truth with them...which in turn will "teach you all things"...scripture without the spirit(aka sola scriptura) will kill you and is no good for anyone "the letter kills"...Satan had scripture did it alone save him?...nope!
gtepp031387 2 months ago
Jesus Is LORD!
We are seeking individuals for Ordination into the Orthodox Catholic Church World Wide Orthodox Catholic Ministry. The Sovereign Order of O.C.C. is a worldwide, lay, diplomatic religious order which seeks to glorify the Creator by promoting the sanctification of each member through his or her work with the sick and the poor and witness of the faith and to protect The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For More Information.
Email: ChristOrthodox@yahoo.com
christorthodox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christorthodox the orthodox are heretics, they were the first protestants rejecting Papal Authority in 1054,
If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
-St.Cyprian, c. A.D . 246
MysticalCity 3 months ago
nice lava lamp
skoobalon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you don't trust Catholic Church then you don't trust Jesus Christ, true God-True Man.
temp911Luke 7 months ago
Comment removed
temp911Luke 7 months ago
Correction the orthodox group(notice i said group because there is only one true Church,The Catholic Church) got started in 1054, they rejected the papacy, and yes they do teach error. Such as they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception or purgatory. Basically anyone that is not Catholic are cherry pickers.
MysticalCity 7 months ago
@MysticalCity The Orthodox Church did not start in 1054. It was the Latin church that separated from the Orthodox in 1054. Papal infallibility, immaculate conception, the filioque etc. are all added changes that are not part of the early church's teachings and traditions. It is the Orthodox Churches that have not deviated from the true faith.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 a man was excommunicated in 1054 by Pope Leo, hence the orthodox got started, EVERYTHING the church fathers taught back then The Catholic Church teaches today, you reject the papacy, purgatory, the filioque, Immaculate Conception etc.. i can provide proof for all this via scripture, also there are like 20 different sects regarding orthodox, just like protest-ants you guys are no different, every sect teaches something different.
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity Since Pope Leo excommunicated the Orthodox, hence separating themselves from the East, isn't Rome that got started in 1054? You are talking nonsense, without any knowledge of early church history or theology. Papal infallibility became reality at Vatican I, and was not part of the early church.The filioque addition goes against the Seven Ecumenical Councils decisions. It is not even in Scriptures.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vasilyjc1955 proof for the Filioque,AGAIN St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON.
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 You fail to see the apostolic lineage to Pope Benedict from the very east you attempt to separate from the Catholic Church. Your argument just doesn't work. When you review the history, the east and west were united until the schism, when a portion of the eastern Church left the seat of Peter. But most of the east is still in union with The Bishop of Rome. ALL the church fathers said The Holy Ghost proceeds from both, all talked about purgatory etc. you rejected this in 1054
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity It was Cardinal Humbert , along with his delegation, that excommunicated the East, Constantinople. Days later, the east excommunicated the Latin west. No early church Father wrote about a double procession, hence the filioque.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@MysticalCity The Orthodox Church are not various "sects", but all united by the same faith and communion. To state otherwise is plain ignorant of the facts.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 really? russian orthodox, greek orthodox and what else, coptic orthodox?? you guys have no whats the word? this is exactly what happens when you have no unity to the bishop of Rome AKA the pope, you end up having 200 bishops all stating their opinion, would you like scripture on the filioque?
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity That was the way the early church was set up and functioned. by a collegiate system of bishops. There existed no central authority in the early church. Papal universal authority only became realty at the First Vatican Council in 1868. At least the Orthodox are united under one faith and in communion. Look at all the independent , old and traditional catholic jurisdictions not under the pope of Rome. The filioque is not in Scriptures.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 r u kidding me? The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS had the final authority, The Church is called Catholic, not a sect known as "orthodox" ANYONE that was not under communion with the bishop of Rome, was a heretic or schismatic PERIOD. These councils were Catholic, orthodox got started in1054,study your history. Find me one single quote from an early Church father during the first five centuries of the Church who believed that “Peter’s honor was not passed down to his successor.”
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity You better reread and study church history. To continue to state that the Orthodox started in 1054 is just plain ignorant and delusional. The entire church was both catholic and Apostolic and orthodox in doctrines. The word "orthodox" was used to designate those churches that continued to followed the teachings and doctrines of the early church. All the five Patriarchates have Apostolic succession.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 you better read what your sect teaches, you guys don't believe in The Immaculate Conception, purgatory, the filioque and reject the papacy, so you guys split, and started in 1054 period. Its common sense, Only The pope has The keys no one else, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity Peter founded the churches in Antioch and Alexandria . He was bishop in Antioch for about seven years. They hold the "keys" as well. It was Rome who split from the East. You have your history confused. The Orthodox are from from some sect. To state such nonsense is nothing but being ignorant.
The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Rome made a canonical error. The Orthodox do not reject the pope, just the universal infallibility.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Wrong, St.Peter was bishop of many places, But Rome always held the authority, please give me one church father quote from the first 5 centuries that denies Rome, didn't i just give you scripture on the filioque? how many times are orthodox going to avoid that verse!??? give me one quote from a church father that says the Holy Ghost proceeds ONLY from the Father?? The first 2 ecumenical councils did not say it proceeds alone, the filioque is in the Athanasius Creed.
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity The Orthodox reject papal infallibility. That verse from Scriptures has nothing to do with the filioque. There is nothing in Scriptures that supports the filioque and no Ecumenical Council approved the addition.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vasilyjc1955 "That verse from scriptures has nothing to do with the filioque"? REALLY! let me dumb it down for you.St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON. UNDENIABLE PROOF!!!
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Sry but "In Christ Jesus is the FULLNESS OF THE DIVINITY" Colossians 2:9 If you say the holy spirit doesn't proceed from the FULLNESS OF THE DIVINITY I feel very sad for you.
gtepp031387 5 months ago
@gtepp031387 Colossians 2:9, states, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily". The Godhead being the Father the source.So He is the fulness of the divinity of the Spirit, proceeding from the fullness of the divinity of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father, not of the divine essence. Nowhere in Scriptures does it state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ. I feel very sad for you because you do not understand each Persons of the Holy Trinity
vasilyjc1955 4 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Ok if we are to look at the persons Jesus is the very WORD OF GOD...no one disputes that the father generates and is the origen of the spirit...but tell me how can the holy spirit proceed forth without the LOGOS???
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 Logos is the Word of God, Jesus Christ, which became flesh and dwelt amongst us. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the origin. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father shows the mystical inner relations of the Persons in God and the life of God within Himself.The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at the time of His Baptism..The Holy Spirit was sent down by the Son from the Father ,appearing in the form of fiery tongues. The Son came to earth through the Holy Spirit.
vasilyjc1955 4 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 So your saying the HOLY SPIRIT proceeded forth without the mental thought(LOGOS)of GOD?
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 How do you know the "mental thought " of God? God is a mystery, as much as the Holy Trinity is a mystery. Both cannot be defined.
vasilyjc1955 4 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 I know that the HOLY SPIRIT had to proceed forth from the mental thought(LOGOS) of GOD. You just don't seem to get that the father alone is the origen(the generater) of the HOLY SPIRIT, but the HOLY SPIRIT had to proceed forth from the FATHER from his LOGOS. Thus proceeds from the father and the son, but only originates from the father alone.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@gtepp031387 You are confusing terminology. In the original Greek text the word "originates" was used, not "proceeds".. The Holy Spirit only "originates" from the Father. The Holy Spirit can not "originate" from two sources.
vasilyjc1955 4 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 This is the problem, in the Latin text, which is the text the Pope approved it reads proceeds.
The two churches have been at odds over the terminology, it is pure simantics. The Greeks use the word originate the Latins proceed and this is the way each of them has had the creed since the begging.
gtepp031387 4 months ago
@MysticalCity Pope Gregory the Great stated," That the blessed Peter had established three Petrine Sees of equal authority-Rome-Alexandria and Antioch. "Peter's honor is not solely in Rome.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Saint Peter died in Rome, Rome always held the final authority, to say that three were 3 sees is just typical orthodox garbage, its amazing how you were once with us(The Papacy) then split, and came up with all this nonsense. "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
MysticalCity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vasilyjc1955 r u kidding me? The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS had the final authority, The Church is called Catholic, not a sect known as "orthodox" ANYONE that was not under communion with the bishop of Rome, was a heretic or schismatic PERIOD. These councils were Catholic, orthodox got started in1054,study your history. Find me one single quote from an early Church father during the first five centuries of the Church who believed that “Peter’s honor was not passed down to his successor.”
MysticalCity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vasilyjc1955 'The filioque is not in scripture" typical protestant orthodox response, I'm going to provide scripture on The Filioque for the 200th time,AGAIN St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON.
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 "faith and one communion" there are like 20 different orthodox sects, russian orthodox, greek orthodox, coptic orthodox, which one are you? they all contradict each other, protestants have no authority in there groups, its all opinions. Also Please give me an instance in Church history where a definitive teaching was rendered by the Church without the approval of the successor of St. Peter, and then we will have a discussion about this.--
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 --- A council has absolutely no authority unless and until it is approved by the pope, the bishop of Rome. Your previous bishops believed this until they decided to become schismatics. This is about authority.
"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope
MysticalCity 5 months ago
@MysticalCity Like I stated . there existed no central authority in the early church. Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council, 325, only granted the Bishop of Rome authority over the churches in the West, and affirmed their independence of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch. As outlined by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils ,the bishop of Rome held a primacy of honor as the first amongst equals and had no authority outside of his jurisdiction.
vasilyjc1955 5 months ago
the Roman Catholics keep changing the scriptures on a daily basis. If you belief the Roman Catholics are the one true church you have just been fooled.
MSA6001 8 months ago
Our words should be like bread handed out to the poor, that should never be quenched. I find it very depressing that when a Catholic tries to prove their validity. If you disagree you get this cold bitter response. It's not the response of someone who's trying to win you over. If you catch what I'm saying. This is from my expirience trying to explain the contrast between the Words of the bible and the Catholic relgious practices. "You shall know them by their fruits"Matt7:16 Jesus used kindness
soulsurcher 9 months ago
No, the Orthodox Church is the one true church. The ancient church that has kept the Apostolic Traditions and teachings.
vasilyjc1955 9 months ago
Excellent video! I, myself am investigating the Catholic Church and this was very informative! Thank you.
OneTrueRCC 11 months ago
@OneTrueChurch Wow! This video is very articulate, straightforward, and powerful. Thank you for defending Christ's true Church and sharing some of the history of Christianity. This video accurately and directly addresses many key points. You make the truth seem so clear (it is). I'm looking forward to seeing the Eucharist video. :-) May the Lord continue to speak through you and use you as a worldwide witness. God bless.
CatholicBruin 11 months ago
I had such a beautiful dream last night, the Blessed Virgin came to me. I can only remember bits of pices of it thow. I thank YHWH for sending the BVM all around the world to bring people to the ONE TRUE FAITH. We need and I pray that the whole World can be Catholic one day!!
YeshuaisYahweh1 1 year ago
I went through twelve GOD-FORSAKEN years of satanic roman catholic school. They (the hierarchy not the common people) truly worship lucifer. Now I know salvation is by GRACE ALONE throUgh FAITH ALONE. I know I am ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED but calvinism is also devil worship!
barrypatrickius 1 year ago
@barrypatrickius, why do you go against tthe word of God as written in Scriptures? Haven't you read that justification is NOT by faith alone, or do you just conveniently ignore that?
Be careful with your condemnation of God's Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit. You are engaging in the only unforgivable sin of calling the Holy Spirit's work the work of Satan.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@barrypatrickius, salvation is indeed by God's grace alone. However, "faith alone" is condemned in Scriptures. Can you not read?
We are saved by God's grace alone, through our faith in Him working in charity.
How's your faith working? If it's not, then it's dead. Dead faith can't save you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
Where in the Scripture do you find "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, Mother of Divine Grace, Mediatrix of Grace, Our Lady of Lourdes, Fatima, or Guadalupe'? Can you spell I-D-O-L-A-T-R-Y?
speedstick77 1 year ago
@speedstick77, first question for you is where do you find that Scripture contains the entire word of God and none of God's truth is found outside Scripture so that you've contained the infinite God in 73 books?
Second question is why you're not smart enough to know the difference between honoring and worshipping?
* Catholics follow Jesus' lead in honoring His mother. He honored her first, and we as His Body honor her as well.
* Catholics worship God with the worship due Him alone.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
This is why religion is the greatest scam in the history of mankind.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL Yes, man made religion is more than a scam. The necessity is to be reconciled to a genuine relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, to be born again, a new creature in Christ Jesus.
soulwarrior77 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL No. Just... no. Religion is part of human nature. Every culture in history has had a religion.
Freakonaleash92 1 year ago
@Freakonaleash92 Key word: Had. Smart cultures don't have them anymore, or at least keep them as distant as possible from the government. Just about every culture had no choice but to have a religion because there wasn't any good science to tell them the truth about life.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL If you're calling officially atheist states such as communist china "smart", then yes, that would be a fair statement. Otherwise you're just being an anti religious douche for no reason.
Freakonaleash92 1 year ago
@Freakonaleash92 Oh good one. Cause only communist countries are atheist places. I may be an anti relgious douche but its for many good reasons.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, you have exactly zero valid reason for not believing God exists. You probably have many illegitimate and unsubstantiated reasons, along with personal issues that lead you to your false denial of the Ultimate Truth. Denial of truth is to be out of touch with reality. Your denial is the greatest denial possible.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs How about the fact that there is absolutely zero proof of the existence of God. Just like there is no proof of unicorns, and fairies.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, see how you're confused. The educated know there is no 'fact" that there's "zero proof" of the existence of God.
* Fact is there is far more proof of the existence of God than that you exist.
* The universe is natural, that which the scientific laws describe and math models.
* The eternal all powerful and loving Creator is supernatural.
* The universe is evidence of His work. Evidence of Him is all around us, inescapable, except for those who are afraid and willfully blind.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, try and prove that a supernatural God doesn't exist using science that only describes the natural universe... give it a try and see how far you get.... The honest scientist arrives at a place viewing matter and energy using science in the natural universe, needing to know where matter and energy came from. By scientific laws, they didn't come from nothing. Coming from nothing would be the most irrational possibility of all. Give it a try....
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs No scientist or atheist says "everything came from nothing" They say "we don't know yet". Even if there was slam dunk evidence of a God, that doesn't mean the judeo christian God that (i'm assuming) you worship is the one true God. Why believe in that God and not Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor? Why believe in one God and not 6 or 7 like in Greek mythology? Religion comes and goes and people use it as a reason for monetary value and excuse for warfare.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, what you don't get, is that it matters not that atheists or ignorant scientists (not wise scientists) keep looking for some way to violate the first law of Thermodynamics. Neither of these is really seeking truth. In fact, truth is the enemy of atheism. You are no different.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs The first law of thermodynamics does not mean the judeo christian God is the one true God. It doesn't even say that there is a God. Do you even know what the other laws of thermodynamics are? Probably not. Do you even know how many there are? Don't think so.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, see, you're too ignorant to even read what I wrote. I never said the first law of thermo proved the judeo Christian God, did I? What it does say is that matter and energy don't come from nothing. There is no other valid explanation than a supernatural God. I quite clearly said that other things determine the nature of that supernatural Creator, didn't I?
... think for a change.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs Actually you are the one who is too ignorant to read what I wrote. I never made the assertion that you based your proof (not that you have any) that the first law of thermo proved the judeo christian God. I said, that even if there was slam dunk proof of a God (which there isn't) then you would still have to prove that the catholic church is the one true cult. (which you won't be able to do)
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
Comment removed
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, I am a trained scientist. Although I took Thermodynamics some years ago in college, I do know it. What you fail to acknowledge is the relevance of the first law, that being the rest of Thermo (like another important law, the second law - entropy), do no violate the first law. So, we can discuss the first law knowing that nothing else in Thermo will violate this law. Do you understand that much?
... think for a change and seek to learn truth instead of being trapped by falsehoods.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, what I expressed is evidence of a supernatural Creator, which is the most logical and rational explanation that is congruent with all scientific law. There must be more of a discussion about finding the True Creator. False religion comes and goes and these gods change with a whim... but, none of this applies to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who became Flesh 2,000 years ago. There is also more to discuss, as there are ways to separate the true from the false.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs What you see as logical and what is scientific are two different things. You rely on logic alone and no science. If we did just that, then we never would have found out that the earth was round because logic alone would tell you that it can't be round because the people in China would fall off. False religion especially applies to your God of abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. All of these so called prophets had to talk to God individually. Not suspicious at all.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, in all truth, I do rely on science, logic, and reason. They all point to God.
I am a trained Scientist. It's quite obvious that you have no clue about science as it applies here. There is not one single element of science, no archeological finding that has ever disproven God. We know why. You choose to remain ignorant, clinging to improbability.
YOU cannot truly identify to one single falsehood in the Catholic religion. Your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs Even if science, logic, and reason did point to a God, (which they don't) that doesn't mean the catholic church is the one true cult. You are only a christian because it is part of your culture. I guarantee that if you were born in the middle east, you wouldn't be following Christ. You would be following Muhammed. If you were born in India, you would be a hindu. These so called, free lessons aren't really new to me. I heard these from other brainwashed christians.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, science has no disagreement with my religion, and my religion supports real science, not your wishful thinking that you call science.
It is a great deal of further evidence that all the prophets over hundreds of years wrote individually, and not any of it is at variance... it all supports the rest and what was foretold has indeed come to pass.
... yet another free lesson for you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs What don't you understand about burden of proof. There is no evidence to disprove Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor. That doesn't make it true. I can identify many falsehoods in the catholic religion. You say science has no disagreement with your religion. Actually Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, and Noah's ark don't agree with science
Actually atheism is born of logic and reason. Theism is born of fear and stupidity. Fear that a sky daddy who loves us but will also damn us to hell.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, atheism is born of fear and stupidity.
* Science opposes atheism
* Logic opposes atheism
* Reason opposes atheism
* Probability opposes atheism
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, that there is a supernatural Creator is the most logical and reasonable solution to where the universe (matter and energy and intelligence therein) came from. This is never disproven by any science, any probability, any archeology. In fact, science, probability and archeology support the Christian idea of God and of Christian evolution. Atheistic evolution has never been proven and there is a preponderance of evidence that makes it much more than simply improbable.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs There is no such thing as christian evolution or atheist evolution. There is only one evolution. And then there is the fake science called creationism.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, essentially, Catholicism passes all tests for true faith and Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do as well. Not one other faith in the world does this, nor do the false concepts of gods created by men.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs 100% wrong. True faith is an oxymoron. If it was true, then it wouldn't be faith. If you believe it is true, then that is up to you, but don't expect me to believe you when you bring no evidence to the table. Just because you have a 2,000 year old book that says you are right, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. When you make an outrageous claim, the burden of proof is not on those who don't believe you.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, perhaps, just perhaps you are ignorant of what faith is.
* Our beliefs (faith) can match reality in which case we have true beliefs or true faith
* Our beliefs (faith) can be of many and varied falsehoods and lies, and therefore atheism and the like
* Conclusion is simple... our beliefs can either be based on truth, or falsehoods, but they are still beliefs. What they're based on shows whether they're valid or not.
...another free lesson for you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, I really don't expect you to go with the truth at all, because that's the person you've shown yourself to be.
* No, it's not because we have a 2,000 year old book. Actually, the Scriptures were written over quite a long span of years, starting before 2,000 years ago.
... another free lesson for you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs Oh I go with the truth a lot more than someone who claims a fiction book to be literally true. Your claims seem outrageous to me because the claim that we are watched by an invisible man living in the sky every second of every day, judging us on our actions are indeed outrageous. Trust me, I was a catholic for 19 years and left when I realized I was being scammed heavily.
You are a scientist??? Hah. I have a hard time believing that.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, my claims only seem outrageous to you because you lack education about truth, and this shows how far afield you are....
...another free lesson for you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, True faith is a real and true statement, and 100% valid. Your lack of education is the reason you don't understand this, because it's 100% valid. Two people can look at a thing that is clear, and yet one "believes" it is something else (as you do). Your blind faith in irrationality and illogical propositions and false views of science is false faith...
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, scientists (the wise ones who actually know science and humbly seek truth), do say that there is no way matter and energy came popped into existence from nothing.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs Actually scientists say "They don't know yet." Listen to real scientists and not fake scam artist wannabe scientists like Kent Hovind.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, I don't know Kent Hovind. I am a trained applied scientist. Many scientists will tell you that scientific laws can't explain where matter and energy came from. With what we have today, it is safe to say that science cannot tell us where matter and energy came from. The honest scientists will tell you this, because science is of the natural universe. All science can explain is the natural universe that exists, and cannot even explain that fully. The rest - ideas and hypothesis.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, given your notion of science, your disavowment of Kent Hovind probably means he's a genius.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, the real scientists I speak of know that the law of conservation of matter and energy are not going to be violated. It's completely irrational to believe that matter and energy popped into existence from nothing. That violates the law of conservation of energy, doesn't it... or do you understand this?
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, actually you're lying here by avoiding the obvious. It's not true at all that "atheists" say "we don't know yet." The atheist says "we know there is no God who did this." Otherwise, they would not be atheistic, would they? The atheist cuts himself off from the possibility of God creating the universe, and in doing so, they disqualify themselves from being open minded and seeking truth.
... yet another free lesson for you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs You will never hear me say "I am an atheist because I know there is no God" I am an atheist because there is no proof of a God. Everyone is pretty much atheist. The atheists you see today just take it one God further. Atheists are actually very open minded and seek the truth whilst the religious crowd sulk in their own brainwashed fairytales and think that this 4.5 billion year old earth was created just for us.
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, to those educated and seeking to live by the Truth, the evidence for God is a complete and total "slam dunk."
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, there is no evidence whatsoever that matter and energy in the natural universe came from any other than a supernatural Creator. This is simply the best (and is truthful) solution. There is not one other valid solution of where matter and energy came from anything or anyone natural.
... yet another free lesson for you.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, those who arrogantly believe themselves "smart" are the most lacking in smartness.
Being smart has a lot to do with self preservation and promotion of your an others' lives in the macro as well. Believing there is no God is the most self defeating of all positions, i.e. not smart.
What I've seen from you is a self indulgent kind of frightened person who lives on fear instead of love.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, true science and true religion both point to God. They have the same author, God.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, if you knew science, reason and logic, you would know:
* the universe wears out... it is not everlasting (entropy)
* every natural thing that has an end, had a beginning
* the universe can't create itself, it didn't pop out from nothing (conservation of mass and energy)
* the intelligence in nature can't be added later, it was there from the start of the universe
* there are many animals, birds, and aquatic life the defy any process of evolution
There's your science lesson today.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, science doesn't support atheists, but opposes atheism.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, the greatest scam is actually believing that God doesn't exist.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@mdkpubs Sure because there are so many people making money off of the faith that "God doesn't exist" ,right?
TheGreatRL 11 months ago
@TheGreatRL, what does that have to do with God existing or not? Nothing.
There are people who fraudulently take in donations from sincere believers. But, that doesn't mean others are not doing what God asks.
Truthfully, the Catholic Church headquarters (Vatican) has operated at a loss the last several years, from donating the collecting money and using it for God's people.
Science opposes your claims.
Reason and logic oppose your claim.
Probability is also opposed to your claim.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
While there indeed can't be more than one truth, you are not the one to judge what that truth is for other people. Don't tell other people what to believe. You should be telling people to go out and make up their own minds. If your parents were not religious, you would not be religious. Certainly you must agree there is a bias in place. I grew up Catholic, and was even confirmed, but I remain open minded. Especially when you consider all the corruption the Church has become entangled with.
matticusstupendicus 1 year ago
@matticusstupendicus, sadly, your logic falls very incomplete.
* God gave us a means to know these truths, building His one Catholic Church.
* to no other community was His truth given with the mission to spread His truth.
* it is indeed the job of Catholics to promote God's truth.
* lack of adherence to these truths doesn't mean these teachings are not true. It simply means there is poor behavior.
* God doesn't take away one's free will when they are Catholic... they are free to sin or not.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@matticusstupendicus, there have always been personal failings among those God has called. You may be familiar with one of the twelve chosen by Jesus... his name was Judas.
In addition, those familiar with the Scriptures know that Jesus warned there would be wolves within His Church. So, the mere presence of wolves, doesn't disqualify it from being His Church.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@matticusstupendicus, you were open to heresies, and therefore you fell away from God's Church. Being open minded to trash, is not the proper use of your mind as God has called us. You point out the personal failings of some in God's Church. Yet, you fail to see your own massive failing as well. Didn't Jesus have a parable about that?
mdkpubs 11 months ago
It angers me when people say that other denominations "teach many things that are false." (1:05) Dude, you cant even set up your webcam properly, what gives you any reason to believe you are qualified to make such a dogmatic judgment on whole groups of people that you dont even know? People believe what works for them. let God judge them accordingly. Who cares if they are "wrong" so long as they are happy. Any one organization claiming to have the ONLY answer is eternally CLOSE MINDED.
matticusstupendicus 1 year ago
@matticusstupendicus Well there can't be more than one truth.
DavidVelezPerez 1 year ago
@matticusstupendicus, since many ecclesial communities teach conflicting interpretations of God's written word, do you agree that some must by definition be teaching falsehood? God is consistent and does not teach in opposition to Himself, right? So, we know that some do teach falsehoods.
Next step is to find out which one(s) teach what Christ intended.
Clue #1. Christ said He would build a Church, not "churches."
Clue #2. Christ built His Church on the man He named Rock.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs Look, I come from a Catholic background, and I do think that if any church is the "correct" one, it would be the Catholic church, simply because it was the original one. But, I think that religion is not about who's right, and who's wrong, and more about making your life the best it can be during the short time you have on Earth. Where does judging other people really get you? I think a person's happiness is the most important thing, not which church he belongs to. Just my 2 cents..
matticusstupendicus 1 year ago
@matticusstupendicus, coming from a "Catholic background" means really nothing in reality because many who are members of God's Catholic Church know next to nothing about it, and eventually leave due to ignorance and being persuaded by a lie or two. Religion is about Who is right and who has the right. God is right. He has the right as our sovereign to define His Church, teach us truths, and minister His Sacraments. That you reject these means you reject God's sovereignty. It does matter.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@matticusstupendicus, it's pretty ignorant to claim I'm "judging other people." Where do you get that kind of thinking?
I'm telling you the truth. God will judge you with what you do with the truth. Do you obey and keep the truth, or do you arrogantly reject the truth?
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@matticusstupendicus, belonging to God's one Church, or belonging to a man made ecclesial community has a great bearing on our earthly and real eternal happiness. It definitely matters whether you belong to God's Church or not. God's Church has never once taught error in faith and morals. Men's ecclesial communites (Protestant origin) was founded on errors, arrogance, and heresies.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@matticusstupendicus, he didn't make a dogmatic statement. He repeated one, and anyone can do that regardless of whether they've even ever seen a webcam.
God built one and only one Church for the salvation of souls, and that is His Catholic Church.
ALL other ecclesial communities were built by men.
So, are you telling us that men do as good a job as God in building their communities and teaching the truth?
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@matticusstupendicus, one orgainzation having the fullness of truth is telling you the way it is. When Christ is Head of the Church, it cannot be otherwise. We seek to saturate our minds with God's truth. That doesn't mean we are closed minded to additional truth. It means we are appropriately closed to heresies and errors, which is where you seem open to heresies and errors for the sake of some alleged "happiness" that is built on nothing solid, but just wishful thinking.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox And who is that passage referring to? To the Virgin Mary or to a pagan goddess?
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
Comment removed
mdkpubs 11 months ago
@TheCatholicWolf, exactly, the verse actually refers to a false queen of heaven. God is angered due to these false gods. Three problems here for those who errantly claim there is no real Queen of Heaven.
* there were also false messiahs, which don't mean there is not a true messiah.
* Mary is not viewed in Catholicism as a god.
* Jesus also protects this position to His right hand, saying He cannot give it to His Apostle, since it is reserved for someone... that someone is the Queen Mother.
mdkpubs 11 months ago
I agree no where in Bible it says to pray to Mary, But Mary does make a lot of appearances to various people Globally, more so than Christ. I particularly believe in the story of Fatima....
FlyingSkullOfDeath 1 year ago
mdkpubs 2. Where did God teach that you are to interpret His written word, so you can come to your own conclusions and create your own man made faith?
Speaking of man made, please show me the man made verse of the Assumption Of Mary ascending to Heaven Body and Soul?
FlyingSkullOfDeath 1 year ago
@FlyingSkullOfDeath (aka PantheraAtrox), show me first the questions I asked you, and I'll show you the Assumption of Mary. If you do not answer correctly the questions I asked you, then you will not even understand, and it shows you're not honest.
1. Where does God teach that the Scriptures alone are our rule of faith? If not, you've made it up.
2. Where does God teach that you are to interpret His written word, so you can come to your own conclusions to create your own man made faith.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , Repeat,
FlyingSkullOfDeath, is not I but another person on YouTube. I only have one YouTube account.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, you have a twin, and alter ego.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
Falsely representing me as Atrox is a sin within itself, as the Assumption of Mary Goes, no need to prove Verse, for it doesn't exist....
FlyingSkullOfDeath 1 year ago
@FlyingSkullOfDeath, you two are one and the same for all intents and purposes. You are one together, just as I and Jesus are one.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , If you knew Christ you wouldn't be so harsh and judgmental.
God wants us to worship together following the WORD of God.
But beware of doctrines that are not within the Gospel.
That's Satan's masterpiece, to break up the believers from following the WORD.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, if you knew Christ, I would not have to correct your false testimony and false witness. But, my correction of you is not because I don't know Christ, but because I do.
God indeed does want us to worship Him together, and that's why He built His Catholic Church.
Your doctrines of the "bible alone" and "right of private interpretation of Scriptures" are not only not in the Bible, but Scriptures teach in opposition to your doctrines.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, why are you participating with Satan, if you know His plan?
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , a lot about Satan is mentioned in scripture. Best to know how to avoid him
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, then why do you cooperate with Satan by inserting your own prejudices and personal philosophies into God's written word, and claim it came from God when it did not? Satan did exactly the same long before you.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
Comment removed
FlyingSkullOfDeath 1 year ago
PantheraAtrox: All a man? has to? do is read Bible and? Jesus and? instantly you correct thousands of years of added on baloney.
Correct : )
FlyingSkullOfDeath 1 year ago
@FlyingSkullOfDeath , Amen brother in Christ, true that. :)
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PantheraAtrox (aka FlyingSkullOfDeath), where does God teach you to just read His Scriptures and you will know His teachings without error? If He does not, then you've made this up.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@FlyingSkullOfDeath (aka PantheraAtrox), where does God teach you to just read His Scriptures and you will know His teachings without error? If He does not, then you've made this up.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@PantherAtrox, St Paul was famous for adding on extra? Baloney....
FlyingSkullOfDeath 1 year ago
@FlyingSkullOfDeath LOL
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox (aka FlyingSkullOfDeath), you're sick puppies (both of you as alter egos in a schizophrenic fog).
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , what have you've been smoking? Strong stuff.....
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, I'm on the truth of Christ. That's why you don't recognize it.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , God is the TRUTH and the Word was God.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, then why do you speak falsely about the God, Who is indeed the Truth?
I hope you know that the phrase "The Word was God", doesn't mean the written word.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , it's a metaphor for Christ and the scriptures is really all about Christ.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox, no, "The Word" is not a metaphor for Christ, it is a description of Christ. The Father expressed Himself perfectly and begot His only Son.
The Gospel is all about Christ, as Jesus came to bear witness to the truth. When you insert your own philosophies into God's written word, you no longer have God's Gospel, but your own instead. By doing what you're doing, you don't know Christ.
mdkpubs 1 year ago
@mdkpubs , Who are U to say I don't "know" Christ?
But I'll forgive you for that.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago