expline to me the conversion of constantine and contemporaty popes. even a five year old child can easly understand that is impossible to exuse what happened at that time. traditions as explained by catholics is just an exuse to inforce their doctrines, against freedom of concience.
galations 1:8 refutes everything this video says. everything. if their name is not in the bible. is not in the bible. Even to call them fathers is a sin. Jesus said don't call anyone father. Paul and Piter did not let anyone call them fathers.
I reject RCT but I don't reject the oral tradition of that which can be traced to the apostles...which is nothing more then what was finally printed and known as the Bible...God's word. Which there isn't any other authority equal too or higher than. That is true apostalic tradition, to preach and teach what the apostles taught and preached..not the nonsense of all the junk fairy tales of the rcc. the list is too long...go with God's word. you can't go wrong there. Sola Scriptura all the way!
@shanana000 "I don't reject the oral tradition of that which can be traced to the apostles...which is nothing more then what was finally printed and known as the Bible"
OK, but how do you know that that Apostolic Tradition was printed in it's entirety as your Bible? The answer is: an extra-biblical tradition tells you so, because it is not stated in the Bible. Hence, you are guided by a tradition as much as Catholics are.
But, who's is the valid tradition? How can you tell?
The word tradition is not the passing on of teaching, the word is Greek in the NT means verbal teachings. RCC teaches a false teaching in that any verbal teaching can be passed on. 2,000 years of history now exists so what did they say 1900 years ago?The "traditions" verbal teachings were written down and many become the NT writings. So the traditions that Paul is talking has now reduced to NT writings. No verbal recording in the first 1900 years exist accept what is written. This guy is off
...Only an idiot would say the Holy Bible is a Catholic book. The manuscripts and text of the KJV can be traced to Antioch and the Gothic Bible of 350 AD. More Papal propaganda.
@vachief Where did you get this information? There was no Book called, "The New Testament" before the Catholic Church Counsels decided, (with the help of the Holy Spirit), what books were and were not scripture. It is a historical fact.
While Protestants proclaim the God breathed NT, they reject the Authority of the very Church which weeded out the uninspired books. How do you know the Gospel of Thomas was a forgery? You don't, but by the RCC.
Roman Catholics claim to be Christians, yet, they denounce the work of Christ on the cross by insisting that their works can cleanse them: "Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ," (CCC 977) "[yet] the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature," (CCC 978) so "both priests and sacraments are instruments... are "[used] in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification." (CCC 987) The truth Acts 4:12
@stinkygeorgia1 All WORKS of the Sacraments are from the HOLY SPIRIT. The Truth of the Sacrament of Baptism, (1Peter 3:21) ".......were saved by water. Where unto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also:" All 7 Sacraments were instituted by Christ, and Baptism "IS" necessary for Salvation.
Being made one with Christ through baptism is reiterated by Paul in Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, and in Galatians 3:27 he likens baptism to "being clothed with Christ." as CCC 977 states.
@hockeyrulesus How about the doctrine of the correction of Heresy and torture. That is your tradition and it is still in the Council of Trent, which has never been rebuked. When the pope tells you to go kill your neighbor, are you going to do it? I've read some of the early fathers and they were not Catholic in their teachings, they believed in faith in Jesus only. Never did Jesus teach to KILL ANYONE!!!!!
When did the RCC write the Old Testament? Or the new, it didn't write anything.
@courag1 I'm not familiar with the doctrine of "Heresy and Torture", but if you are suggesting that Protestants of the Reformation are little angels, you are misinformed. Historians estimate 40-100 thousand, burned at the stack for the crime of witch craft by Protestant Christians, also, John Calvin was no stranger to executions for heresy, nor the Kings and Queens of England murder of Catholics. Your analogy proves nothing.
1) The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided what books were inspired and what were not, by the various councils. Fact.
2) As far as your comment on the Church Fathers, they all believed in Catholic Doctrine, Eucharist, Infant Baptism, Confession, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, etc,etc.
3) Your misunderstanding of the Catholic view of Faith is were the problem is.The Catholic view is,Faith saves us, but is has to be a Faith that is alive, a working Faith!
@hockeyrulesus Just like Rome before the merger with the RCC, Rome continued to think that anyone who did not bow down and kiss her feet, should die a torturous death. Yes, it is your tradition and in your boat, tradition trumps scripture. So even though Jesus healed the High Priest's servants ear (which Peter cut off) and said those who live by the sword die by the sword, your church has killed in excess of 50 million just to prove that she can. And how many little children have you hurt?
@courag1 My dear woman, you are being mislead by Protestant propaganda. Historians García Cárcel and Henry Kamen, estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000, of which 2%,( 3,000), were executed by secular authorities, and not the Church, by the way.
You didn't address the people Protestant Christians murdered, how does this "Die by the Sword" pertain to your people????
@courag1 And how many little children have you hurt?
1) Ask your own clergy this question, go to reformation,com, and see all the protestant ministers guilty of pedophilia, and mostly married men, by the way.
@hockeyrulesus Look who those men are, the Jesuits infiltrated all the Protestant denominations. Those who do the things of Rome are Catholics, those who know Jesus follow His life in purity and holiness.
You should invite the Holy One into your life. He has the power of Resurrection to give you victory over your sins. He does not share His glory with another. You'll have to leave the Great Harlot, but even if she kills you, you inherit eternal life in Christ.
@courag1 The Church is the transformed/perfected Kingdom of David, which was the Kingdom of God manifested on earth. King Jesus is enthroned in Heaven but before ascending He built His Church on earth on the foundation of the Apostles. He established a visible society, not just a spiritual association, to spread and protect His Gospel. He left men in charge and empowered them and their successors with His authority to teach and to guard His family on earth. That society exists today: RCC.
@AmericanBerean The RCC makes and changes doctrine as they please. They are murderers who kill any who oppose it (secret or openly). Even their own, like the Medici's(pope leoX Giovani De Mdici) who burned, Savanarola for rebuking the wickedness in Florence etc. etc.. They are a monarch drunken with the blood of the saints. Making doctrine and changing it as they Please. Purgatory 1254 First council of Lyon it was made doctrine, Tho it built up between 1160 & 1200. Untold history
@AmericanBerean Everything is already dogmatically defined in the Word of GOD. We need no man to teach us(1John2:27) .To dogmatically define something is to make it doctrine so that in itself is proof of, doctrine being established after the fact. I have never read two babylons I heard Dave Hunt speak about ten mins in a docu, and I never heard of the other person. All I speak of is a matter of searching into history & searching the scriptures as those in your name did (Bereans).
@gcnoNWO Yes, everything in Scripture is dogma. But we sometimes do need others (who have the knowledge and authority) to help us understand Scripture. The Ethiopian exemplifies this (Acts 8). (2Peter3) expresses how individuals can misinterpret.
Declaring a dogma does not create a doctrine, it just reiterates an existing doctrine and informs us it is Truth of God.
The word "trinity" is not in Bible, but the concept is implicit. Just so, with "purgatory".
@AmericanBerean The example you gave proves nothing the Ethiopian didnt know Christ or receive the Holy Spirit. He didnt have the anointing to teach him. Until Phillip baptized him and he believed. The authority which you refer to is Papal authority which you have already admitted kills and goes against everything in the word of GOD. Purgatory being established 1200 hundred years after Christ is a new an false doctrine. It's not found in scripture. Show me it & I'll show u a liar
(Matthew 18:34-35), “And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart"The only prison that there could be that one gets out of eventually is purgatory. (Matthew 5:25-26)."I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” The only prison that there could be that one gets out of eventually is purgatory.
@hockeyrulesus The first example is a parable in which the LORD in the parable forgives a debt that can't be paid back. And if we dont forgive others of sins neither will GOD forgive our great debt. How you came up with your interpretation I know not. The second example is even more simple he literally means that if you are thrown in prison you will not get out unless you pay all that is charged to you. Shew talk about out of context. You never cease to amaze me lol.
@gcnoNWO 1Peter3 refers to souls in "prison". So, there's a real "place" that is neither heaven nor hell of damnation. Jesus is using "prison" in parables. Scripture usually has many levels of meaning. These parables do have the meaning you ascribe to them, but they are not limited to that. They also refer to the 3rd "place", where the souls of the just are finally and completely made perfect so as to be fit to see the face of God.
@AmericanBerean I'm sorry brother I cannot agree with that interpretation. I fully believe especially after studying the Word and history that no such place exists. I"d rather not go against truth or try to prove a doctrine that's not there. U have to understand how the doctrine itself keeps brothers and sisters in bondage and the church rich in worldly luxuries. Your relatives body dies they go to Heaven yet the church has u continue to pay them for ur relatives mass/candles etc
@AmericanBerean Pt.2 Are you also implying that Christ's teachings were esoteric? Implying he taught in secret and we need popes and others to define these esoteric meanings to us? As I recall Christ did he he taught nothing in secret it seems as though your teaching of another Jesus.
@gcnoNWO No "secret teachings". But Scripture can easily be misinterpreted when the reader doesn't consider the full context (language, sense, time, place, culture). The Church Christ founded, being nearly 2000 years old, can give us correct interpretations because she knows the full context.
We modern-non-middle-eastern-non-jews-under-roman-rule don't get the full-context to guide our interpretation unless someone shows us such. RCC spreads and protects the correct interpretation.
@AmericanBerean "Scripture usually has many levels of meaning. These parables do have the meaning you ascribe to them, but they are not limited to that" Your words are saying there are different meanings different levels would be outer exoteric inner esoteric. Which, is sorry to say false. Do we not have the resources to learn the context for our selves can we not look up the meanings for the words and understand the context (if we don't that is)? Is the word irrelevant nowa days
@gcnoNWO We can learn the full context by learning the original languages and literary devices employed, studying the culture of the time and place, and familiarizing with the general historical framework. But few of us can do all this, so we depend on others to, firstly, translate the original writings. What we have today is God's written Word translated and interpreted. I can get most of it right on my own, but not necessarily all, without guidance. I'm not infallible. Are you?
@AmericanBerean Are you implying that your teachers are infallible? Or the pope is? Only the Word and GOD alone are infallible. You continue to undermind truth and dance around your own statements. It reminds me of my conversations with freemasons. Anyway good talk friend hopefully we'll meet in Heaven. Because there's no edification going on here. GOD Bless you may truth open your eye's.
@gcnoNWO Infallibility is neither inspiration nor prophecy.
Just assume Jesus did found a visible society to spread and protect His Good News. Do you think the Spirit would then allow error to be taught by that society as divine truth?
Now if I assume that all revealed truth is found in the Scriptures, I would then have to believe that I am infallible in interpreting it.
So, which is more acceptable: a single infallible teaching authority, or millions of infallible readers of the Word?
@AmericanBerean Wrong. Prophecy of GOD from HIS Word is infallible according to definition. Deuteronomy 18:22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Infallible1: incapable of error . 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint. The Word is clear to those who are in Christ and the anointing which is in you teaches you.
@gcnoNWO Scripture is indeed inspired, prophetic and infallible. BUT, we as the human readers are not guaranteed to understand it correctly. Our own world-view & preconceptions have an effect on how we interpret that infallible written Word. The Spirit can influence our understanding but doesn't force it upon us. If we obstinately refuse to interpret some part in the correct way, that's our problem, not God's, or His Church's.
You have incomplete understanding of Infallibility (cont'd)
@AmericanBerean Infallibility as pertaining to the Pope means that when he teaches on matters of faith & morals, in his official capacity as the visible head of the Church on earth (the "seat of Peter"), to the whole Church on earth (not just a particular region), he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.
@AmericanBerean In the 5th century one pope taught a teaching and the next pope and next counsel meeting declared the prior pope's teaching was invalid and reversed the teaching the prior pope. So so goes Papal infallibility. The "traditions" are the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus. They were than written down and saved. New oral teaches can not be added by just anyone. Only Jesus and the Apostles were to teach and create doctrine. After Jesus rose and the Apostles died, no new teaching
@MRGV7373 You're referring to Pope Honorius stating Jesus had "one will" and a subsequent council condemning him. However, this whole episode doesn't violate papal infallibility because: 1) He was writing to an individual, not the whole Church, 2) The phrasing he used can easily be taken to mean Jesus' two wills were in accord, 3) The council condemned him for inaction, not for teaching heresy.
Since the last Apostle died there have been no NEW doctrines taught by the RCC.
@AmericanBerean Very well done, and yet, it shows that a Pope can err which put a vast doubt on Papal infallibility. as for New doctrines - Mary as ever virgin, assumed into heaven or sinless. None of the Apostles or Jesus ever taught these RCC dogma, if so, where in scripture??
@MRGV7373 Yes, popes do err and sin, they are only men. It's only in preaching the Gospel to the whole Church as the leader thereof that the Spirit prevents him erring.
Those Marian doctrines were indeed taught by the Apostles. (It's just that you erroneously believe that all revealed truth is found written in the bible. That idea itself is non-biblical.) The post-Apostolic Christians received from the Apostles those teachings orally, not in writing.
@AmericanBerean Now the the question is how do you know what the Apostles taught and why was it not placed in scripture in 380AD by the Church. First, if they are taught, how do you verify them time and place? If it is was important, why did the HS not get these in scripture? If they were post-Apostle and they are not written down (oral) , how would anyone verify the teaching?? If the idea is non-biblical who taught it and verified it? See the issues this will cause.
@MRGV7373 Scripture certainly does not contradict Mary's ever-virginity nor sinlessness. Only your tradition of interpretation does.
Mary's sinlessness does not make "Jesus' death on the cross meaningless". Her sinlessness was made possible and accomplished by the retroactive application of the merits of that gratuitous act. Without Calvary no one can be holy, not even Mary.
The authority of the society Jesus set up teaches us the meaning of Scripture.
@AmericanBerean But scripture does contradict mary's sinlessness. Read Romans 3 in full. Verse 21-26. It says" all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Retro salvation is never taught by Jesus or the Apostles and is a false teaching of the RCC. No basis in theology. It sounds Mormon for goodness sake. Ephesians2:1-10 Even Mary was born of the flesh. vs 3 talks about " all of us" meaning everyone including Mary. There you go.
@MRGV7373 Paul's statements in Romans 3, should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul's statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn't mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.
@hockeyrulesus But at the same time, Mary does fit the normal interpretation of these verses. Yes, I agree infants and aborted babies are the exception. So Mary is an adult and is to be interpreted in the context of All has sinned.
@MRGV7373 May point is Paul's statement is not be taken literally. Mary was not the first immaculate human being, Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, also Adults.
Mary needed Jesus as her savior, and Jesus' death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her at the moment of her conception. Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ's death isn't impeded by time or space.
@AmericanBerean Very funny that the "society of Jesus" teaches us the meaning of Scripture. How about the Holy Spirit that you received when you were born again at your adult baptism?? that is the scriptural way of learning the Gospel or working with someone one that is mature in Christ.
Isn't 2000+ years of teaching enough maturity to learn the Gospels meanings? We can see that your method of, every individual deciding scriptures meaning, resulted in the 35,000 denominations of Protestantism we see today, all with their own interpretations. Does that make sense to you?
@hockeyrulesus Yes, it would be nice to have one church. RCC has forced many division since make Roman the "one" and "only" church. How odd, the eastern orthodox say the same thing. what about all the African churches that were never under Rome, or Chinese churches. These has never been "one" church that Rome claims. History shows that 100's have always existed that love and served Jesus. This idea on "one" church is an historical myth. know they church history.
1) The Orthodox Church still recognizes the Bishop of Rome as the Head Patriarch since the split in 1054AD. Their issues are over the amount of authority the Pope has in Church matters, and the validity of some councils held without the Eastern Patriarchs,
2) The Catholic Church covered the whole Roman Empire including North Africa, of where St.Augustine was Bishop. Yes there were other Christian type groups, like Gnostics, etc,.
@hockeyrulesus it is quite obvious that you know your RCC church History and many of the ideas of the Church history. I like my RCC brothers and sister not to be too centered on only RCC teachings. My wife and I grew up in the RCC but have many reservations on Scripture and how the RCC interprets and teaches the scriptures. So I have gone out and educated my self to know much about general teachings and how they fit into the Christianity. I am your basic evangelical Catholic
@MRGV7373 It is not a myth that Christ founded 1 Church, not many Churches. Even though there have always been schisms since it's founding, there is only 1 True Church, and it has been consistent in it's teachings. We recognize all the Orthodox Churches as being Apostolic, as they us, and dialogue continues for reunification.
It seems to me that instead of Catholic's always quoting the Early Church writings to prove our doctrines are not new inventions, Protestants need to show Reformation (Protestant) Christianity in the Early Church. You would think the Apostles preached well enough that at least one literate Reformed (Protestant) Christian would have written about it, yet I haven't found Protestant teachings of Sole Fida, Sola Scriptura, Once Saved- Always Saved, etc,etc,.
@hockeyrulesus ..You might want to google the ..Old Latin Vulgate that preceded Jeromes' Vulgate by 200 years. This nonesense that Rome invented or assembled the first Holy Bible is not true. Christianity was up and running in dozens of churches 15 years before Paul even went to Rome.
For starters, the Old Latin Vulgate is a Catholic Bible. Also, this Old Latin Vulgate Bible did not have the same books in it as the later Councils decided on, like The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, The Council of Rome, 382, and The Council of Hippo 393 AD.
The Council of Carthage, in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books.
Christianity was up and running very early, but with no Bible.
@hockeyrulesus ....I think you should spend a couple of months on the Old Latin Vulgate and the rise of Christianity that was completely independant from Rome. Those 30 or so "bibles" for sale down at Barnes & Noble?...interesting that none of them read like a KJV, and for good reason, they are all based on the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus texts that were produced in Alexandria. None of the apostles went to Alexandria, nor Peter in Rome, the church that ignored Jesus. There is your answer.
History is of my great joys in life, and that history includes the history of the Church. I am aware of the propaganda writers, and conspiracy theorists, and I try to stay away from books like that. I've read the actual books of the Early Church Fathers and there is no doubt they were Catholic.
@vachief I said earlier that I don't read propaganda. From the title of the book, I can tell it's propaganda, so I looked him up on wikipedia and I was right, " Hislop's work has been described as conspiracy theory propaganda which mixed "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination.". wikipedia
Simply put "Hogwash". This is the kind of writings that twists the minds of people with little knowledge of history. You should read a real history book.
The KJV is a work of literary art, but a Greek will tell you, their Bible doesn't read like that either, it's a interpretation, and some of the translations have been altered to go against Catholic teaching. For example, "highly favored daughter" is not how the Greek Bible reads, it's "Hail, full of grace" and that changes the whole meaning of the verse.
That's just one, of a handful of changes of interpretation made to the KJV, but all in all not a bad translation
@hockeyrulesus ...Interesting that the Greeks are not known for taking the gospel to the world as Jesus instructed. The KJV is the most printed book in the history of mankind.
@vachief Of course the Greeks took the Bible to the world, they were part of the Catholic Church for the first thousand years, the Church that gave the world the book called the Holy Bible. The Orthodox is still the only Church recognized by the Catholic Church, as being Apostolic and having a valid priesthood and sacraments. God willing, we may see these Churches reunited in our lifetime.
@MRGV7373 We receive the HS not for infusion of knowledge of Scripture but for infusion of righteousness, justification. Having the Spirit means we are adopted children of God.
God never promised that every one of us would interpret correctly when we read Scripture. He did promise that the Church He founded would lead us to Truth. That Church is the "one that is mature in Christ" that you speak of.
Our own arrogance can prevent us from being guided, whether by the Spirit or the Church.
@AmericanBerean I want you to be open to other ideas and you will place them into where you want them. I stick to scriptures since they are at least written and not open to being rewritten. Oral tradition is wide open to changes, authenticity concerns and can be added to or deleted at anytime which I find to be deceptive and misleading to the truth.
@MRGV7373 The oral traditions not explicit in Scripture were not "wide open to changes". While not written down by the Apostles, those doctrines quickly came to be found in the writings of the successors of the Apostles. They were not all dogmaticly stated until much later, as the need arose, such as a group of Christians preaching counter to the doctrine in question.
Written tradition is open to be rewritten, without an authority to say what is and is not Scripture.
@AmericanBerean So if the teaching are "oral" how do you prove that 1) they came form Jesus or the Apostles, 2) verify that they did not change over time? That is why any person has major issues with using oral traditions. Once the Oral tradition is written down and agree upon than it can be reviewed and checked for validity. That happen when the NT books were decided and books were picked that put the oral traditoins into writing and all have agreed that they make up the Christian NT.
@MRGV7373 "Once the Oral tradition is written down and agree upon than it can be reviewed and checked for validity."
True. And the contested RCC traditions (ie doctrines not explicit in Scripture) can be traced back through historical writings to the Apostolic age. However, traditions such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (also not explicit in Scripture) are backward traceable only a half millenium or so.
@AmericanBerean So then what is the verification to Peter, the Apostles and Jesus. If the teaching is valid from them and is traced to them, I am all for it. The problem with the RCC is that much dogma on Mary ie Assumption of Mary has no writing any place for the first 1,0000 years, the infallible pope not until 700 AD or even later, the matriculate Mary as sinless, the popes in 500 AD called in invalid and not true.
@MRGV7373 Go to W3 christiantruth . com and read about what the church fathers said. Read the details and your mind will hear and know the rest of the story. Right from the church fathers no less.
@MRGV7373 "the verification to Peter, the Apostles and Jesus"
Scripture tells us Jesus founded His Church. That Church featured not just a spiritual association, but also a visible organized aspect. The Apostles were the visible leaders, Peter the prime Apostle and vicar of Christ. The keys Jesus gave him represent kingly authority and successive nature of that office. Hence, the first visible leaders had visible successors. One modern society can trace itself back 2000 years... RCC.
@AmericanBerean Jesus never teaches a visible organization. The church is defined as all believer that believe in Jesus as God's son and Lord of their lives. The Apostles were the first leaders, all of them. Peter was one of 12 of them. Keys are given to all the Apostles to preach the gospel. No where in Matt 16 or Luke 22 are Apostles to have successors. Once the Apostles died they died. The Rome church did not exist until 325AD. Know you history and the bible.
@MRGV7373 The Church Jesus founded is the fulfillment/transformation/perfection of David's Kingdom, which was the earthly manifestation of God's Kingdom. The keys, given to Peter alone, are defined for us in Isaiah22: kingly authority and succession of office.
Apostolic succession is in Acts1 "his bishoprick let another take"( KJV).
Peter's primacy is evident throughout Acts.
Peter later resided in Rome as their bishop, hence the Rome church existed before 325. Historical fact.
@AmericanBerean Go to W3 christiantruth . com and read about what the church fathers said. Read the details and your mind will hear and know the rest of the story. Right from the church fathers no less. List and read what the full truth is. If you read and think, you will come to another understanding of RCC and the fuller gospel. Read this and think.
@AmericanBerean Don't just read what RCC teaches read the rest of the full church believes, Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is larger then Peter, RCC and includes all that proclaim Jesus as Lord. The RCC teaching is never taught Peter as Rock, not on a man. Read Augustine in particular. The Rock is Peter Confession which points to Jesus the ultimate Rock of Faith. Even the RCC does not follow its own tradition from Augustine. Come on Think!!!!
@AmericanBerean If you read at this website, you will hear the rest of the truth. Go and expand your mind and understanding. Jesus is the corner stone. Peter is important and he is a great example but Jesus did not build his church on Peter. Jesus built his church on the confession of belief in Jesus as Lord and savior. Peter is correct in that confession. How do we become Christian? See John 3 - by faith in Jesus not works, not by going to church but by confession of Jesus
@MRGV7373 Concerning the Church Fathers: Just as with Scripture, you need to read more than isolated quotes in order to understand the context. The vast majority of them professed the authority of an organization Christ founded and the significance of Tradition along with Sacred Scripture as their rule of faith.
You'll find that "the only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics."
@AmericanBerean I am not reading isolated quotes, there are dozens of them. Tradition is just oral teaching written down. not the adding of new teaching as Rome see 'tradition". Go the the web location I sited earlier and read them , until you do that, please don't respond to what I write.
@MRGV7373 I did browse the site you referenced. He makes a good argument for his case but so does a guy with the Catholic view.
I suggest ignoring the analyses and reading the the whole documents of the Fathers. In that way you'll get a better understanding of them. For example, I haven't read all Augustine's writings, but from what I have read it's obvious he believed Peter's authority and successive nature of office, even if he said Peter's not the "rock".
@bradleesargent Dear Brad, and what is you point with Matt 24:13 - Yes, a very good and true statement. If you stand firm until the end of your life or the final coming, you will be saved - a very good promise. Acts 14:22. Paul went back to the church he set up and vocally and in person encouraged them to stand firm in the faith. Yes, and i am sure that he preached just what the gospels and the OT said and what Jesus taught Paul. Oral teaching that follows scripture.
@MRGV7373 which scripture are you talking about? The same scripture that requires circumcision? The same scripture that allowed divorce that Jesus himself rejected? The same scripture that demands observance of a Saturday sabbath, which the church replaced with Sunday worship? I don't understand what scripture you are talking about?
@AmericanBerean Earlier you said they came from the Apostles however no one in the first 300 years wrote about the assumption of Mary. No written records exit. Scripture contradict Mary is ever virgin and Mary as sinless makes Jesus death on the cross meaningless. Adding teaching and say it oral make the teaching non-verifiable and therefore, suspect that it was ever taught and then adding onto the "Gospel. Acts 15 prohibits this.
@AmericanBerean You seem to be double-tongued read your words:"Infallibility is neither inspiration nor prophecy." (you) "Scripture is indeed inspired, prophetic and infallible". Then you say:"BUT, we as the human readers are not guaranteed to understand it correctly" (then on popish infallibility) "he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error." Then u say popes do teach error:"one pope taught a teaching and the next pope..declared the prior pope's teaching was invalid"
@gcnoNWO The exercise of infallibility by the Pope is when speaking "ex cathedra" (literally, “from the chair” of St. Peter) on matters of faith or morals. It is generally understood to have only occurred twice: The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. In both of these cases, the Pope was not teaching something new. Rather, he was confirming something that the Church had already believed as part of God’s revelation.
IF IT WASN'T DECLARED "EX CATHEDRA", IT'S NOT AN INFALLIBLE STATEMENT.
@hockeyrulesus they tought that if infants were not buptized(ex cathedra) they would not be saved. now they changed their minds. How can a perfect doctrine (presumably) be changed. The pope is not infallible in anyway.
@gcnoNWO The alternative is to believe that all readers of Scripture are infallible interpreters thereof. But there are many sincere & real lovers of Christ (as far as one can tell), who have diametrically opposed interpretations. How can one tell who is right, in that case? A: one can't, without special revelation. That's why Christ founded a visible society to spread and protect His Gospel. The earliest popes were martyred by Rome because they were the true leaders of Jesus' Church.
(2 Maccabees 12:43-46) "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
(1 Corinthians 3:11-15) " Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work" (1Peter 3:19 and 4:6) Peter says that after the death of Jesus, that Jesus "went to preached to those spirits in prison" preaching can't help those in hell.
@hockeyrulesus Do I have to even consult your nonsense? I won't astound on the apocryphal. But when Paul speaks of being tried in fire it simply means your faith and works will be tried by tribulation. Remember the parable of the sower? The seed that fell on rocky ground. Do you understand? Ah I doubt you do. also Jesus made 2 trips after resurrection one to hell one to heaven I'll let you figure that out. But once again I doubt you will.
@hockeyrulesus Look who those men are, the Jesuits infiltrated all the Protestant denominations. Those who do the things of Rome are Catholics, those who know Jesus follow His life in purity and holiness.
You should invite the Holy One into your life. He has the power of Resurrection to give you victory over your sins. He does not share His glory with another. You'll have to leave the Great Harlot, but even if she kills you, you inherit eternal life in Christ.
My question is: How far did the Crusades go to force Christianity upon others around the world? Do real Christians call this divine intervention? Human ideals of war to preserve a religon go against the "rules" set by that religon. This, in turn, nullifies the meaning of the religon. My opinion only?
@ehill1536 The Crusades was started when the Muslims invaded the Christian lands of the East. It was the Muslims that were forcing their beliefs on Christians, killing pilgrims to the Holy land, etc,etc. I'm not claiming that all Crusaders were innocent, but the Muslims were the aggressors, and there has never been a war without some atrocities. The Crusades saved Christianity, and halted the Muslims in Spain, where they stayed for 800yrs.
Where is the proof that the RRC possesses the tradition? Watch the video. The early Christians wrote their own letters, which aren't in the bible, and they establish that what they believed is what the RCC believes. St Justin Martyr talks about the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Other early Christians, like Tertullian, talk about Christians confessing their sins to priests, like Catholics do.
I love about the RCC, it's so immersed in history. It's not just the bible, it's history.
@rugbycampo Your comments doesn't make sense. So what if these texts are not "in the Bible"?
What you don't realize is that the Bible itself was assembled and can be trusted ONLY because the Catholic Church had the authority to define the Canon.
The Bible never claims to be the FINAL authority, au contraire. The divine truth is not limited to the physicality of a book. That being said, the Bible remains highly authoritative, and every single one of our dogmas has a Scriptural basis
This is a 6 part series, so more proof is given there in. You can find them on my youtube page, if the links don't come up at the end of the video.
The 3 legged stool analogy is based on the Bible passages that tells us, 1)Christ established a Church, 2) Apostles give us the written word(Bible), 3) Apostles give us the spoken word (Sacred Tradition)
Interesting video, hockey, but the 3-legged stool analogy fails because he nowhere establishes that God's truth needs three legs to stand on. Also, this 'Sacred Tradition" of which he spoke, where is the proof that the RCC possesses it and that it can be traced back to the apostles? And how is it that much of what Rome considers Tradition actually contradicts Scripture?
Also, you have to realise that if 1,000 people read the bible, you could get 1,000 different ideas of how to practice Christianity. In fact there's over 60,000 Christian demoninations in the world. Most of them believe in sola scriptura. How much of the RRC traditions contradicts scripture? Well none of it... according to the way we interpret it. And I think it's better the believe in an interpretation that's supported by history.
expline to me the conversion of constantine and contemporaty popes. even a five year old child can easly understand that is impossible to exuse what happened at that time. traditions as explained by catholics is just an exuse to inforce their doctrines, against freedom of concience.
medusa210562 3 hours ago
galations 1:8 refutes everything this video says. everything. if their name is not in the bible. is not in the bible. Even to call them fathers is a sin. Jesus said don't call anyone father. Paul and Piter did not let anyone call them fathers.
medusa210562 3 hours ago
Steve Ray is a wolf in sheeps clothing...he needs to repent to Jesus today!
shanana000 1 week ago
I reject RCT but I don't reject the oral tradition of that which can be traced to the apostles...which is nothing more then what was finally printed and known as the Bible...God's word. Which there isn't any other authority equal too or higher than. That is true apostalic tradition, to preach and teach what the apostles taught and preached..not the nonsense of all the junk fairy tales of the rcc. the list is too long...go with God's word. you can't go wrong there. Sola Scriptura all the way!
shanana000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanana000 "I don't reject the oral tradition of that which can be traced to the apostles...which is nothing more then what was finally printed and known as the Bible"
OK, but how do you know that that Apostolic Tradition was printed in it's entirety as your Bible? The answer is: an extra-biblical tradition tells you so, because it is not stated in the Bible. Hence, you are guided by a tradition as much as Catholics are.
But, who's is the valid tradition? How can you tell?
AmericanBerean 5 days ago
The word tradition is not the passing on of teaching, the word is Greek in the NT means verbal teachings. RCC teaches a false teaching in that any verbal teaching can be passed on. 2,000 years of history now exists so what did they say 1900 years ago?The "traditions" verbal teachings were written down and many become the NT writings. So the traditions that Paul is talking has now reduced to NT writings. No verbal recording in the first 1900 years exist accept what is written. This guy is off
MRGV7373 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...Only an idiot would say the Holy Bible is a Catholic book. The manuscripts and text of the KJV can be traced to Antioch and the Gothic Bible of 350 AD. More Papal propaganda.
vachief 5 months ago
@vachief Where did you get this information? There was no Book called, "The New Testament" before the Catholic Church Counsels decided, (with the help of the Holy Spirit), what books were and were not scripture. It is a historical fact.
While Protestants proclaim the God breathed NT, they reject the Authority of the very Church which weeded out the uninspired books. How do you know the Gospel of Thomas was a forgery? You don't, but by the RCC.
The NT is a Catholic Book!
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
Roman Catholics claim to be Christians, yet, they denounce the work of Christ on the cross by insisting that their works can cleanse them: "Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ," (CCC 977) "[yet] the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature," (CCC 978) so "both priests and sacraments are instruments... are "[used] in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification." (CCC 987) The truth Acts 4:12
stinkygeorgia1 7 months ago
@stinkygeorgia1 All WORKS of the Sacraments are from the HOLY SPIRIT. The Truth of the Sacrament of Baptism, (1Peter 3:21) ".......were saved by water. Where unto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also:" All 7 Sacraments were instituted by Christ, and Baptism "IS" necessary for Salvation.
Being made one with Christ through baptism is reiterated by Paul in Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, and in Galatians 3:27 he likens baptism to "being clothed with Christ." as CCC 977 states.
hockeyrulesus 7 months ago
@hockeyrulesus How about the doctrine of the correction of Heresy and torture. That is your tradition and it is still in the Council of Trent, which has never been rebuked. When the pope tells you to go kill your neighbor, are you going to do it? I've read some of the early fathers and they were not Catholic in their teachings, they believed in faith in Jesus only. Never did Jesus teach to KILL ANYONE!!!!!
When did the RCC write the Old Testament? Or the new, it didn't write anything.
courag1 5 months ago
@courag1 I'm not familiar with the doctrine of "Heresy and Torture", but if you are suggesting that Protestants of the Reformation are little angels, you are misinformed. Historians estimate 40-100 thousand, burned at the stack for the crime of witch craft by Protestant Christians, also, John Calvin was no stranger to executions for heresy, nor the Kings and Queens of England murder of Catholics. Your analogy proves nothing.
hockeyrulesus 5 months ago
@courag1
1) The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided what books were inspired and what were not, by the various councils. Fact.
2) As far as your comment on the Church Fathers, they all believed in Catholic Doctrine, Eucharist, Infant Baptism, Confession, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, etc,etc.
3) Your misunderstanding of the Catholic view of Faith is were the problem is.The Catholic view is,Faith saves us, but is has to be a Faith that is alive, a working Faith!
hockeyrulesus 5 months ago
@hockeyrulesus Just like Rome before the merger with the RCC, Rome continued to think that anyone who did not bow down and kiss her feet, should die a torturous death. Yes, it is your tradition and in your boat, tradition trumps scripture. So even though Jesus healed the High Priest's servants ear (which Peter cut off) and said those who live by the sword die by the sword, your church has killed in excess of 50 million just to prove that she can. And how many little children have you hurt?
courag1 5 months ago
@courag1 My dear woman, you are being mislead by Protestant propaganda. Historians García Cárcel and Henry Kamen, estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000, of which 2%,( 3,000), were executed by secular authorities, and not the Church, by the way.
You didn't address the people Protestant Christians murdered, how does this "Die by the Sword" pertain to your people????
hockeyrulesus 5 months ago
@courag1 And how many little children have you hurt?
1) Ask your own clergy this question, go to reformation,com, and see all the protestant ministers guilty of pedophilia, and mostly married men, by the way.
hockeyrulesus 5 months ago
@hockeyrulesus Look who those men are, the Jesuits infiltrated all the Protestant denominations. Those who do the things of Rome are Catholics, those who know Jesus follow His life in purity and holiness.
You should invite the Holy One into your life. He has the power of Resurrection to give you victory over your sins. He does not share His glory with another. You'll have to leave the Great Harlot, but even if she kills you, you inherit eternal life in Christ.
courag1 5 months ago
@courag1 The Church is the transformed/perfected Kingdom of David, which was the Kingdom of God manifested on earth. King Jesus is enthroned in Heaven but before ascending He built His Church on earth on the foundation of the Apostles. He established a visible society, not just a spiritual association, to spread and protect His Gospel. He left men in charge and empowered them and their successors with His authority to teach and to guard His family on earth. That society exists today: RCC.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean The RCC makes and changes doctrine as they please. They are murderers who kill any who oppose it (secret or openly). Even their own, like the Medici's(pope leoX Giovani De Mdici) who burned, Savanarola for rebuking the wickedness in Florence etc. etc.. They are a monarch drunken with the blood of the saints. Making doctrine and changing it as they Please. Purgatory 1254 First council of Lyon it was made doctrine, Tho it built up between 1160 & 1200. Untold history
gcnoNWO 1 month ago in playlist The First Christians - Martyrs of the Church
@gcnoNWO Customs, practices, disciplines can change but doctrines don't.
Some evil men have been in power within the RCC heirarchy but they never lasted long and the bad popes did not make any dogmatic statements.
The concept of purgatory is Scriptural and Apostolic. It just wasn't dogmatically defined until much later.
RCC "facts" as presented by Dave Hunt, Alexander Hislop and Loraine Boettner are fabrications or misrepresentations or quotes out of context.
Always check references!
AmericanBerean 1 month ago
@AmericanBerean Everything is already dogmatically defined in the Word of GOD. We need no man to teach us(1John2:27) .To dogmatically define something is to make it doctrine so that in itself is proof of, doctrine being established after the fact. I have never read two babylons I heard Dave Hunt speak about ten mins in a docu, and I never heard of the other person. All I speak of is a matter of searching into history & searching the scriptures as those in your name did (Bereans).
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO Yes, everything in Scripture is dogma. But we sometimes do need others (who have the knowledge and authority) to help us understand Scripture. The Ethiopian exemplifies this (Acts 8). (2Peter3) expresses how individuals can misinterpret.
Declaring a dogma does not create a doctrine, it just reiterates an existing doctrine and informs us it is Truth of God.
The word "trinity" is not in Bible, but the concept is implicit. Just so, with "purgatory".
AmericanBerean 1 month ago
@AmericanBerean The example you gave proves nothing the Ethiopian didnt know Christ or receive the Holy Spirit. He didnt have the anointing to teach him. Until Phillip baptized him and he believed. The authority which you refer to is Papal authority which you have already admitted kills and goes against everything in the word of GOD. Purgatory being established 1200 hundred years after Christ is a new an false doctrine. It's not found in scripture. Show me it & I'll show u a liar
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO Purgatory in the Bible. 1of 2
(Matthew 18:34-35), “And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart"The only prison that there could be that one gets out of eventually is purgatory. (Matthew 5:25-26)."I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” The only prison that there could be that one gets out of eventually is purgatory.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@hockeyrulesus The first example is a parable in which the LORD in the parable forgives a debt that can't be paid back. And if we dont forgive others of sins neither will GOD forgive our great debt. How you came up with your interpretation I know not. The second example is even more simple he literally means that if you are thrown in prison you will not get out unless you pay all that is charged to you. Shew talk about out of context. You never cease to amaze me lol.
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO 1Peter3 refers to souls in "prison". So, there's a real "place" that is neither heaven nor hell of damnation. Jesus is using "prison" in parables. Scripture usually has many levels of meaning. These parables do have the meaning you ascribe to them, but they are not limited to that. They also refer to the 3rd "place", where the souls of the just are finally and completely made perfect so as to be fit to see the face of God.
AmericanBerean 1 month ago
@AmericanBerean I'm sorry brother I cannot agree with that interpretation. I fully believe especially after studying the Word and history that no such place exists. I"d rather not go against truth or try to prove a doctrine that's not there. U have to understand how the doctrine itself keeps brothers and sisters in bondage and the church rich in worldly luxuries. Your relatives body dies they go to Heaven yet the church has u continue to pay them for ur relatives mass/candles etc
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@AmericanBerean Pt.2 Are you also implying that Christ's teachings were esoteric? Implying he taught in secret and we need popes and others to define these esoteric meanings to us? As I recall Christ did he he taught nothing in secret it seems as though your teaching of another Jesus.
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO No "secret teachings". But Scripture can easily be misinterpreted when the reader doesn't consider the full context (language, sense, time, place, culture). The Church Christ founded, being nearly 2000 years old, can give us correct interpretations because she knows the full context.
We modern-non-middle-eastern-non-jews-under-roman-rule don't get the full-context to guide our interpretation unless someone shows us such. RCC spreads and protects the correct interpretation.
AmericanBerean 1 month ago
@AmericanBerean "Scripture usually has many levels of meaning. These parables do have the meaning you ascribe to them, but they are not limited to that" Your words are saying there are different meanings different levels would be outer exoteric inner esoteric. Which, is sorry to say false. Do we not have the resources to learn the context for our selves can we not look up the meanings for the words and understand the context (if we don't that is)? Is the word irrelevant nowa days
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO We can learn the full context by learning the original languages and literary devices employed, studying the culture of the time and place, and familiarizing with the general historical framework. But few of us can do all this, so we depend on others to, firstly, translate the original writings. What we have today is God's written Word translated and interpreted. I can get most of it right on my own, but not necessarily all, without guidance. I'm not infallible. Are you?
AmericanBerean 1 month ago
@AmericanBerean Are you implying that your teachers are infallible? Or the pope is? Only the Word and GOD alone are infallible. You continue to undermind truth and dance around your own statements. It reminds me of my conversations with freemasons. Anyway good talk friend hopefully we'll meet in Heaven. Because there's no edification going on here. GOD Bless you may truth open your eye's.
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO Infallibility is neither inspiration nor prophecy.
Just assume Jesus did found a visible society to spread and protect His Good News. Do you think the Spirit would then allow error to be taught by that society as divine truth?
Now if I assume that all revealed truth is found in the Scriptures, I would then have to believe that I am infallible in interpreting it.
So, which is more acceptable: a single infallible teaching authority, or millions of infallible readers of the Word?
AmericanBerean 1 month ago 2
@AmericanBerean Wrong. Prophecy of GOD from HIS Word is infallible according to definition. Deuteronomy 18:22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Infallible1: incapable of error . 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint. The Word is clear to those who are in Christ and the anointing which is in you teaches you.
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO Scripture is indeed inspired, prophetic and infallible. BUT, we as the human readers are not guaranteed to understand it correctly. Our own world-view & preconceptions have an effect on how we interpret that infallible written Word. The Spirit can influence our understanding but doesn't force it upon us. If we obstinately refuse to interpret some part in the correct way, that's our problem, not God's, or His Church's.
You have incomplete understanding of Infallibility (cont'd)
AmericanBerean 4 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Infallibility as pertaining to the Pope means that when he teaches on matters of faith & morals, in his official capacity as the visible head of the Church on earth (the "seat of Peter"), to the whole Church on earth (not just a particular region), he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.
AmericanBerean 4 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean In the 5th century one pope taught a teaching and the next pope and next counsel meeting declared the prior pope's teaching was invalid and reversed the teaching the prior pope. So so goes Papal infallibility. The "traditions" are the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus. They were than written down and saved. New oral teaches can not be added by just anyone. Only Jesus and the Apostles were to teach and create doctrine. After Jesus rose and the Apostles died, no new teaching
MRGV7373 4 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 You're referring to Pope Honorius stating Jesus had "one will" and a subsequent council condemning him. However, this whole episode doesn't violate papal infallibility because: 1) He was writing to an individual, not the whole Church, 2) The phrasing he used can easily be taken to mean Jesus' two wills were in accord, 3) The council condemned him for inaction, not for teaching heresy.
Since the last Apostle died there have been no NEW doctrines taught by the RCC.
AmericanBerean 4 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Very well done, and yet, it shows that a Pope can err which put a vast doubt on Papal infallibility. as for New doctrines - Mary as ever virgin, assumed into heaven or sinless. None of the Apostles or Jesus ever taught these RCC dogma, if so, where in scripture??
MRGV7373 4 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Yes, popes do err and sin, they are only men. It's only in preaching the Gospel to the whole Church as the leader thereof that the Spirit prevents him erring.
Those Marian doctrines were indeed taught by the Apostles. (It's just that you erroneously believe that all revealed truth is found written in the bible. That idea itself is non-biblical.) The post-Apostolic Christians received from the Apostles those teachings orally, not in writing.
AmericanBerean 4 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Now the the question is how do you know what the Apostles taught and why was it not placed in scripture in 380AD by the Church. First, if they are taught, how do you verify them time and place? If it is was important, why did the HS not get these in scripture? If they were post-Apostle and they are not written down (oral) , how would anyone verify the teaching?? If the idea is non-biblical who taught it and verified it? See the issues this will cause.
MRGV7373 4 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Scripture certainly does not contradict Mary's ever-virginity nor sinlessness. Only your tradition of interpretation does.
Mary's sinlessness does not make "Jesus' death on the cross meaningless". Her sinlessness was made possible and accomplished by the retroactive application of the merits of that gratuitous act. Without Calvary no one can be holy, not even Mary.
The authority of the society Jesus set up teaches us the meaning of Scripture.
AmericanBerean 4 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean But scripture does contradict mary's sinlessness. Read Romans 3 in full. Verse 21-26. It says" all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Retro salvation is never taught by Jesus or the Apostles and is a false teaching of the RCC. No basis in theology. It sounds Mormon for goodness sake. Ephesians2:1-10 Even Mary was born of the flesh. vs 3 talks about " all of us" meaning everyone including Mary. There you go.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Paul's statements in Romans 3, should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul's statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn't mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus But at the same time, Mary does fit the normal interpretation of these verses. Yes, I agree infants and aborted babies are the exception. So Mary is an adult and is to be interpreted in the context of All has sinned.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 May point is Paul's statement is not be taken literally. Mary was not the first immaculate human being, Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, also Adults.
Mary needed Jesus as her savior, and Jesus' death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her at the moment of her conception. Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ's death isn't impeded by time or space.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Very funny that the "society of Jesus" teaches us the meaning of Scripture. How about the Holy Spirit that you received when you were born again at your adult baptism?? that is the scriptural way of learning the Gospel or working with someone one that is mature in Christ.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373
Isn't 2000+ years of teaching enough maturity to learn the Gospels meanings? We can see that your method of, every individual deciding scriptures meaning, resulted in the 35,000 denominations of Protestantism we see today, all with their own interpretations. Does that make sense to you?
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, it would be nice to have one church. RCC has forced many division since make Roman the "one" and "only" church. How odd, the eastern orthodox say the same thing. what about all the African churches that were never under Rome, or Chinese churches. These has never been "one" church that Rome claims. History shows that 100's have always existed that love and served Jesus. This idea on "one" church is an historical myth. know they church history.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373
1) The Orthodox Church still recognizes the Bishop of Rome as the Head Patriarch since the split in 1054AD. Their issues are over the amount of authority the Pope has in Church matters, and the validity of some councils held without the Eastern Patriarchs,
2) The Catholic Church covered the whole Roman Empire including North Africa, of where St.Augustine was Bishop. Yes there were other Christian type groups, like Gnostics, etc,.
3)China first heard the Gospel in the 7th century
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus it is quite obvious that you know your RCC church History and many of the ideas of the Church history. I like my RCC brothers and sister not to be too centered on only RCC teachings. My wife and I grew up in the RCC but have many reservations on Scripture and how the RCC interprets and teaches the scriptures. So I have gone out and educated my self to know much about general teachings and how they fit into the Christianity. I am your basic evangelical Catholic
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 It is not a myth that Christ founded 1 Church, not many Churches. Even though there have always been schisms since it's founding, there is only 1 True Church, and it has been consistent in it's teachings. We recognize all the Orthodox Churches as being Apostolic, as they us, and dialogue continues for reunification.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373
It seems to me that instead of Catholic's always quoting the Early Church writings to prove our doctrines are not new inventions, Protestants need to show Reformation (Protestant) Christianity in the Early Church. You would think the Apostles preached well enough that at least one literate Reformed (Protestant) Christian would have written about it, yet I haven't found Protestant teachings of Sole Fida, Sola Scriptura, Once Saved- Always Saved, etc,etc,.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus I will send you some latter tomorrow to have you read on early church teachings that has another perspective. good bless.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus ..You might want to google the ..Old Latin Vulgate that preceded Jeromes' Vulgate by 200 years. This nonesense that Rome invented or assembled the first Holy Bible is not true. Christianity was up and running in dozens of churches 15 years before Paul even went to Rome.
vachief 3 weeks ago
@vachief
For starters, the Old Latin Vulgate is a Catholic Bible. Also, this Old Latin Vulgate Bible did not have the same books in it as the later Councils decided on, like The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, The Council of Rome, 382, and The Council of Hippo 393 AD.
The Council of Carthage, in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books.
Christianity was up and running very early, but with no Bible.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus ....I think you should spend a couple of months on the Old Latin Vulgate and the rise of Christianity that was completely independant from Rome. Those 30 or so "bibles" for sale down at Barnes & Noble?...interesting that none of them read like a KJV, and for good reason, they are all based on the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus texts that were produced in Alexandria. None of the apostles went to Alexandria, nor Peter in Rome, the church that ignored Jesus. There is your answer.
vachief 3 weeks ago
@vachief 1 of 2
History is of my great joys in life, and that history includes the history of the Church. I am aware of the propaganda writers, and conspiracy theorists, and I try to stay away from books like that. I've read the actual books of the Early Church Fathers and there is no doubt they were Catholic.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus ...Ever read ..."The 2 Babylons" by Alexander Hislop?
vachief 3 weeks ago
@vachief I said earlier that I don't read propaganda. From the title of the book, I can tell it's propaganda, so I looked him up on wikipedia and I was right, " Hislop's work has been described as conspiracy theory propaganda which mixed "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination.". wikipedia
Simply put "Hogwash". This is the kind of writings that twists the minds of people with little knowledge of history. You should read a real history book.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus ...Yeah...only Catholics know real history, I could just kick myself for realizing that. lol
...Stay away from Hislops' book...it could very well melt your brain.
vachief 3 weeks ago
@vachief 2 of 2
The KJV is a work of literary art, but a Greek will tell you, their Bible doesn't read like that either, it's a interpretation, and some of the translations have been altered to go against Catholic teaching. For example, "highly favored daughter" is not how the Greek Bible reads, it's "Hail, full of grace" and that changes the whole meaning of the verse.
That's just one, of a handful of changes of interpretation made to the KJV, but all in all not a bad translation
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus ...Interesting that the Greeks are not known for taking the gospel to the world as Jesus instructed. The KJV is the most printed book in the history of mankind.
vachief 3 weeks ago
@vachief Of course the Greeks took the Bible to the world, they were part of the Catholic Church for the first thousand years, the Church that gave the world the book called the Holy Bible. The Orthodox is still the only Church recognized by the Catholic Church, as being Apostolic and having a valid priesthood and sacraments. God willing, we may see these Churches reunited in our lifetime.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 We receive the HS not for infusion of knowledge of Scripture but for infusion of righteousness, justification. Having the Spirit means we are adopted children of God.
God never promised that every one of us would interpret correctly when we read Scripture. He did promise that the Church He founded would lead us to Truth. That Church is the "one that is mature in Christ" that you speak of.
Our own arrogance can prevent us from being guided, whether by the Spirit or the Church.
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean I want you to be open to other ideas and you will place them into where you want them. I stick to scriptures since they are at least written and not open to being rewritten. Oral tradition is wide open to changes, authenticity concerns and can be added to or deleted at anytime which I find to be deceptive and misleading to the truth.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 The oral traditions not explicit in Scripture were not "wide open to changes". While not written down by the Apostles, those doctrines quickly came to be found in the writings of the successors of the Apostles. They were not all dogmaticly stated until much later, as the need arose, such as a group of Christians preaching counter to the doctrine in question.
Written tradition is open to be rewritten, without an authority to say what is and is not Scripture.
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean So if the teaching are "oral" how do you prove that 1) they came form Jesus or the Apostles, 2) verify that they did not change over time? That is why any person has major issues with using oral traditions. Once the Oral tradition is written down and agree upon than it can be reviewed and checked for validity. That happen when the NT books were decided and books were picked that put the oral traditoins into writing and all have agreed that they make up the Christian NT.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "Once the Oral tradition is written down and agree upon than it can be reviewed and checked for validity."
True. And the contested RCC traditions (ie doctrines not explicit in Scripture) can be traced back through historical writings to the Apostolic age. However, traditions such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (also not explicit in Scripture) are backward traceable only a half millenium or so.
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean So then what is the verification to Peter, the Apostles and Jesus. If the teaching is valid from them and is traced to them, I am all for it. The problem with the RCC is that much dogma on Mary ie Assumption of Mary has no writing any place for the first 1,0000 years, the infallible pope not until 700 AD or even later, the matriculate Mary as sinless, the popes in 500 AD called in invalid and not true.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Go to W3 christiantruth . com and read about what the church fathers said. Read the details and your mind will hear and know the rest of the story. Right from the church fathers no less.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "the verification to Peter, the Apostles and Jesus"
Scripture tells us Jesus founded His Church. That Church featured not just a spiritual association, but also a visible organized aspect. The Apostles were the visible leaders, Peter the prime Apostle and vicar of Christ. The keys Jesus gave him represent kingly authority and successive nature of that office. Hence, the first visible leaders had visible successors. One modern society can trace itself back 2000 years... RCC.
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Jesus never teaches a visible organization. The church is defined as all believer that believe in Jesus as God's son and Lord of their lives. The Apostles were the first leaders, all of them. Peter was one of 12 of them. Keys are given to all the Apostles to preach the gospel. No where in Matt 16 or Luke 22 are Apostles to have successors. Once the Apostles died they died. The Rome church did not exist until 325AD. Know you history and the bible.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 The Church Jesus founded is the fulfillment/transformation/perfection of David's Kingdom, which was the earthly manifestation of God's Kingdom. The keys, given to Peter alone, are defined for us in Isaiah22: kingly authority and succession of office.
Apostolic succession is in Acts1 "his bishoprick let another take"( KJV).
Peter's primacy is evident throughout Acts.
Peter later resided in Rome as their bishop, hence the Rome church existed before 325. Historical fact.
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean Go to W3 christiantruth . com and read about what the church fathers said. Read the details and your mind will hear and know the rest of the story. Right from the church fathers no less. List and read what the full truth is. If you read and think, you will come to another understanding of RCC and the fuller gospel. Read this and think.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Don't just read what RCC teaches read the rest of the full church believes, Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is larger then Peter, RCC and includes all that proclaim Jesus as Lord. The RCC teaching is never taught Peter as Rock, not on a man. Read Augustine in particular. The Rock is Peter Confession which points to Jesus the ultimate Rock of Faith. Even the RCC does not follow its own tradition from Augustine. Come on Think!!!!
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Stop ignoring Acts 16:4. Obviously Paul himself is instructing the churches to "obey the decisions of the apostles and elders"!!!
bradleesargent 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean If you read at this website, you will hear the rest of the truth. Go and expand your mind and understanding. Jesus is the corner stone. Peter is important and he is a great example but Jesus did not build his church on Peter. Jesus built his church on the confession of belief in Jesus as Lord and savior. Peter is correct in that confession. How do we become Christian? See John 3 - by faith in Jesus not works, not by going to church but by confession of Jesus
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Concerning the Church Fathers: Just as with Scripture, you need to read more than isolated quotes in order to understand the context. The vast majority of them professed the authority of an organization Christ founded and the significance of Tradition along with Sacred Scripture as their rule of faith.
You'll find that "the only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics."
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean I am not reading isolated quotes, there are dozens of them. Tradition is just oral teaching written down. not the adding of new teaching as Rome see 'tradition". Go the the web location I sited earlier and read them , until you do that, please don't respond to what I write.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 I did browse the site you referenced. He makes a good argument for his case but so does a guy with the Catholic view.
I suggest ignoring the analyses and reading the the whole documents of the Fathers. In that way you'll get a better understanding of them. For example, I haven't read all Augustine's writings, but from what I have read it's obvious he believed Peter's authority and successive nature of office, even if he said Peter's not the "rock".
AmericanBerean 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Matthew 24:13
bradleesargent 3 weeks ago
@bradleesargent Dear Brad, and what is you point with Matt 24:13 - Yes, a very good and true statement. If you stand firm until the end of your life or the final coming, you will be saved - a very good promise. Acts 14:22. Paul went back to the church he set up and vocally and in person encouraged them to stand firm in the faith. Yes, and i am sure that he preached just what the gospels and the OT said and what Jesus taught Paul. Oral teaching that follows scripture.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 which scripture are you talking about? The same scripture that requires circumcision? The same scripture that allowed divorce that Jesus himself rejected? The same scripture that demands observance of a Saturday sabbath, which the church replaced with Sunday worship? I don't understand what scripture you are talking about?
bradleesargent 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 acts 14:22
bradleesargent 3 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Earlier you said they came from the Apostles however no one in the first 300 years wrote about the assumption of Mary. No written records exit. Scripture contradict Mary is ever virgin and Mary as sinless makes Jesus death on the cross meaningless. Adding teaching and say it oral make the teaching non-verifiable and therefore, suspect that it was ever taught and then adding onto the "Gospel. Acts 15 prohibits this.
MRGV7373 4 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean You seem to be double-tongued read your words:"Infallibility is neither inspiration nor prophecy." (you) "Scripture is indeed inspired, prophetic and infallible". Then you say:"BUT, we as the human readers are not guaranteed to understand it correctly" (then on popish infallibility) "he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error." Then u say popes do teach error:"one pope taught a teaching and the next pope..declared the prior pope's teaching was invalid"
gcnoNWO 2 weeks ago
@gcnoNWO The exercise of infallibility by the Pope is when speaking "ex cathedra" (literally, “from the chair” of St. Peter) on matters of faith or morals. It is generally understood to have only occurred twice: The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. In both of these cases, the Pope was not teaching something new. Rather, he was confirming something that the Church had already believed as part of God’s revelation.
IF IT WASN'T DECLARED "EX CATHEDRA", IT'S NOT AN INFALLIBLE STATEMENT.
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus they tought that if infants were not buptized(ex cathedra) they would not be saved. now they changed their minds. How can a perfect doctrine (presumably) be changed. The pope is not infallible in anyway.
medusa210562 3 hours ago
@gcnoNWO The alternative is to believe that all readers of Scripture are infallible interpreters thereof. But there are many sincere & real lovers of Christ (as far as one can tell), who have diametrically opposed interpretations. How can one tell who is right, in that case? A: one can't, without special revelation. That's why Christ founded a visible society to spread and protect His Gospel. The earliest popes were martyred by Rome because they were the true leaders of Jesus' Church.
AmericanBerean 1 week ago
@hockeyrulesus Proverbs30:6 Add thee not unto HIS WORDS, LEST HE REPROVE THEE, and thou BE FOUND A LIAR
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
@gcnoNWO Purgatory2of2
(2 Maccabees 12:43-46) "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
(1 Corinthians 3:11-15) " Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work" (1Peter 3:19 and 4:6) Peter says that after the death of Jesus, that Jesus "went to preached to those spirits in prison" preaching can't help those in hell.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@hockeyrulesus Do I have to even consult your nonsense? I won't astound on the apocryphal. But when Paul speaks of being tried in fire it simply means your faith and works will be tried by tribulation. Remember the parable of the sower? The seed that fell on rocky ground. Do you understand? Ah I doubt you do. also Jesus made 2 trips after resurrection one to hell one to heaven I'll let you figure that out. But once again I doubt you will.
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
Comment removed
gcnoNWO 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hockeyrulesus Look who those men are, the Jesuits infiltrated all the Protestant denominations. Those who do the things of Rome are Catholics, those who know Jesus follow His life in purity and holiness.
You should invite the Holy One into your life. He has the power of Resurrection to give you victory over your sins. He does not share His glory with another. You'll have to leave the Great Harlot, but even if she kills you, you inherit eternal life in Christ.
courag1 5 months ago
My question is: How far did the Crusades go to force Christianity upon others around the world? Do real Christians call this divine intervention? Human ideals of war to preserve a religon go against the "rules" set by that religon. This, in turn, nullifies the meaning of the religon. My opinion only?
ehill1536 9 months ago
@ehill1536 The Crusades was started when the Muslims invaded the Christian lands of the East. It was the Muslims that were forcing their beliefs on Christians, killing pilgrims to the Holy land, etc,etc. I'm not claiming that all Crusaders were innocent, but the Muslims were the aggressors, and there has never been a war without some atrocities. The Crusades saved Christianity, and halted the Muslims in Spain, where they stayed for 800yrs.
hockeyrulesus 9 months ago
Where is the proof that the RRC possesses the tradition? Watch the video. The early Christians wrote their own letters, which aren't in the bible, and they establish that what they believed is what the RCC believes. St Justin Martyr talks about the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Other early Christians, like Tertullian, talk about Christians confessing their sins to priests, like Catholics do.
I love about the RCC, it's so immersed in history. It's not just the bible, it's history.
rugbycampo 1 year ago 3
@rugbycampo Amen Brother!!!
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@rugbycampo Your comments doesn't make sense. So what if these texts are not "in the Bible"?
What you don't realize is that the Bible itself was assembled and can be trusted ONLY because the Catholic Church had the authority to define the Canon.
The Bible never claims to be the FINAL authority, au contraire. The divine truth is not limited to the physicality of a book. That being said, the Bible remains highly authoritative, and every single one of our dogmas has a Scriptural basis
Gazdo01 1 month ago in playlist The First Christians - Martyrs of the Church
@rugbycampo Polycarp knew St. John personally, that really blows me away.
cheesemonkey1990 3 weeks ago
This is a 6 part series, so more proof is given there in. You can find them on my youtube page, if the links don't come up at the end of the video.
The 3 legged stool analogy is based on the Bible passages that tells us, 1)Christ established a Church, 2) Apostles give us the written word(Bible), 3) Apostles give us the spoken word (Sacred Tradition)
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
Interesting video, hockey, but the 3-legged stool analogy fails because he nowhere establishes that God's truth needs three legs to stand on. Also, this 'Sacred Tradition" of which he spoke, where is the proof that the RCC possesses it and that it can be traced back to the apostles? And how is it that much of what Rome considers Tradition actually contradicts Scripture?
boan000 1 year ago
@boan000
Also, you have to realise that if 1,000 people read the bible, you could get 1,000 different ideas of how to practice Christianity. In fact there's over 60,000 Christian demoninations in the world. Most of them believe in sola scriptura. How much of the RRC traditions contradicts scripture? Well none of it... according to the way we interpret it. And I think it's better the believe in an interpretation that's supported by history.
rugbycampo 1 year ago
Yes, ex-Evangelical Protestant. Videos include : Crossing the Tiber and The Footprints of God- Series. Love all his Videos! Great job Steve!
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago