If then you dont believe in Transubstantiation as not being biblical then the Church did not apostatise at Trent, but the Fourth Latern Council in 1215, which defined this ancient belief- so it shows quite clearly that you are groping at loose straws and clearly know zilch Church History, except what your apostate mentor John MacArthur and Calvin told you.
@timothyprescott kindly read what i stated earlier i said that the roman catholic church formally apostatise when it formally declared as an instiution that it is denying the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ
@timothyprescott I'm afraid you are, sir, James White smokes every Catholic apologist out of the water. No where in this clip, or any other one, has James White looked silly or has not won the debate with any Catholic. Catholics are told what to think because mother church tells them what to believe...Sola Ecclesia.
a man is saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone. good works are fruit of saving faith. when there is saving faith, there will always be good faith but the latter is not the basis for which a person is saved, there is a difference between justification and sanctification in the bible
I wish James would be as aggressive in his debates as he was when he was younger, like in the papacy debate at Boston College or with Fastigi on the Marian dogmas.
I am not a Calvinist but I agree with Dr. White. Catholics simply misinterpret James and Romans in that works is a requirement for salvation. Works is evidence of a saving faith present in the believing person. Sanctification and Justification are two totally different things. But as Christians, I think we need to find the things that bring us together and what we agree on. Debating like this is ok, but lets find something to agree on
@timothyprescott yup stong in grace alone, by faith alone and in Christ alone, hope that you could be truly in Christ just as i left the Roman Catholic Church
@danipulokad how you separated brethren try to twist truth and plain logic never seizes to amaze me, your silly rhetoric is pathetic. Your false church is of the same branch of the split of the reformation - now we have thousands of apostate churches. You make Jesus into a liar when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against His ONE Church. If the Catholic Church is not the true Church, tell me when the ONE Church apostasized?
@timothyprescott did Christ really built the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH? DID CHRIST REALLY INTENDED AN INSTITUTIOnalized unity? my friend its just simple logic..
@danipulokad that is such a lame red herring..Answer the question if Christ founded ONE Church, give me the date that this Church apostatized! If you cant answer the question you have just proved that you belong to a false church and are no better then sects such as JWs and Mormons. My Church is founded by Christ, your sect was founded in the 16th century. If you claim the 'Roman' Catholic Church is a false church, then name the date it was founded!!! Its all simple logic and commonsense!
@timothyprescott DID CHRIST FOUND THE ROMAN CAHTOLIC CHURCH where in the Words of christ did he mentioned that He founded the "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" and that it is the only institutional church HE FOUNDED? what if the Roman empire was not in world domination during the time of the apostles and if it were the SPARTANS who was in world domination. would you accept that CHRIST founded SPARTAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?! simple logic sir! dont be blinded by your own bias! think think and think sir!
Sir if u cld actually stop the red-herrings & actually answer the question, that wld be great. It seems clear that you know you are stuck in a corner & like all false sects, u are trying to get out of this with some really stupid statements that are just making u look more stupid.Lets do this again, if Christ founded 1 Church, give me the date that this Church apostatized! Or if you claim the 'Roman' Cath Church is a false church, name the date it was founded! Its all simple logic & commonsense!
@timothyprescott Christ did not found an insitutionalized Church..furthermore you can not read in the bible that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church christ founded..
@danipulokad Sir can you actually answer a question instead of throwing in a red-herring? I think it is painstakingly obvious to all that you use your diversion tactics because you know you cant answer a simple logical question and this shows quite clearly who really belongs to a false 'church'! Repent and leave your false religion on judgment day it will be too late!
@danipulokad Ha, ha, you have just contradicted yourself in the sheer gymnastics you are playing to get yourself out of your logical madness- that's the false religion of Protestantism for you! You have implicitly affirmed that Christ did found the Catholic Church, "Roman Catholic Church apostasized when it formally denied the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ at the council of Trent" - Think about it - ROFL :)
@danipulokad Wow - you call that I response? Is that the best you can do. I have enjoyed watching an apostate squirm, just to show people how easy to expose you people, with simple logic. I never even in the slightest admitted I belong to an apostate, you sir made the assertion that the 'Roman' Church apostasized at Trent(1545), so the burden of proof is on you not me! Why Sir doesn't your Church doesnt believe in transubstantiation which was defined in 1215?!
@timothyprescott why should we believe in transubstantiation, its an unbiblical teaching..you have the burden of proof sir that your church's teaching is biblical since the reformation put into question the Gospel being taught by the Roman Church..We never claimed that there is only one true church..You church claimed to be the only church founded by Church hence you have the burden of proof, prove it sir! you havent proven anything yet but just to squirm..
@danipulokad No sir your demon inspired 'apostate church' was founded in the 16th, mine was founded by Christ, since you CANT GIVE ME A CLEAR DATE WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED- AND ADMITTED IT APOSTATISED AT TRENT (which I deny) the burden on proof is on you not me to back up you own assertions! You are the squirmer since you cant show me the thousands of 'apostate churches', which Christ condemns and says he will build His Church, not thousands of false ones!
@timothyprescott how can your claim that your church is founded by Christ when your church kept adding to His Word and His sufficient work! your church has done alot of shame and damageto the Gospel of Jesus Christ
@timothyprescott can you prove that your church is not an apostate church? the bible clearly teaches that salvation is only by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone..
@danipulokad That is nice apostate rhetoric, but you haven't proved anything, but put another smokescreen to lead me down a rabbit hole! Again, built on your false assumption that the 'Church of Christ' apostatised at Trent, then at least by the 16th there was only 'ONE CHURCH' founded by Christ, so again apostate you have shot yourself in your foot - by admitting Christ founded ONE CHURCH!
@timothyprescott kindly prove your point sir that Christ founded an institutional church? again would you admit that if the Spartans dominated the world during Jesus Christ time that the church founded by Christ would then be Spartan Catholic Church?!
@timothyprescott Roman Catholic Church apostasized when it formally denied the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ at the council of Trent.Anathema to your instutitution! leave the Roman Catholic Church brother your sould needs Christ!
@danipulokad Nice try. So if the 'Roman Catholic' apostasized and therefore it was in correct standing before, why isn't your 'church' practising baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, transubstantiation, etc All clear doctrines of the Church way before Trent. Love to see how you try again to get out this one! Each time you try to answer a question, you make me realise how clueless you are! Leave your false sect, your soul needs Christ, not a false religion that cannot save you!
@timothyprescott wrong! mr. prescott, Prostestantism never claimed that there is only one intstutional church that HE built and founded..what is said is the "Roman Catholic Church apostasized when it FORMALLY deneid the gospel.." in short, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH just showed its true color that it is apostate already..
@danipulokad Yes Mr.Danipilokad you are like the devil twist Scripture to suit your devilish lusts. I know Protestantism make lots of false claims. But the Bible says" I will build my Church" "The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"...Where are the 20,000+ different apostate churches mentioned in the Bible. Your false church was begun in the 16th Century, my Church was founded by Christ and you admit that by agreeing that it apostasized at Trent!
@timothyprescott as if the roman catholic church like mr prescott is not twisting scriprture himself..the bible didnt say that the roman catholic church is the only church! where in the bible is the roman catholic church the only church founded by Christ! prove it sir prove it! did it say i will build my Roman Catholic Church?! i believe you twisting scripture..
@danipulokad Just i thought you have a demon in you. You are using one smokescreen after another, trying to lead me down rabbit holes, because you refuse to answer questions, then construct one strawman after another, you are easily the most deceptive apostate I have met online. I never did claim that! You are the twister of Scripture apostate, not me.I asked you why your church doesnt believe in transubstantiation, as it was defined before Trent, yet you refuse to answer why logically!!!
Also again if the Church of Christ apostatised at Trent, then tell me why your Church doesn't practice Baptismal Regeneration? Any true scholar knows that is easily the most clearly testified patristic belief in the apostolic era. ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT GIVING A RED HERRING!!!
@Skyethur again i would ask if the Spartans dominated the world during the Lord Jesus Time, would accept the fact that i wouldnt be "Roman" Catholic Church but Spartan Catholic Church? and the seat of the pope be in Sparta?
@danipulokad thats correct. the catholic church was a political move by the roman govt. that is why there is so much roman superstition throughout it.
@Skyethur are you aware that what you just quoted in no way supports your assertions?
the church is one, the church is holy and being sanctified by God, the church is unified and diverse, and the church does exist despite the best efforts of the catholic church to exterminate and suppress it through bloodshed and totalitarian control.
Funny, but only one who has been raised Roman Catholic and celebrated (sadly) countless masses knows for a FACT that the vast MAJORITY of Roman Catholics NEVER drink of the cup. For the pass it by like the plague fearing germs and backwash. And so they are damned by their own theology. I can also guarantee that many of the posters and YouTube Catholic apologists are in this camp. Seems like ya'll forgot that little conjunction AND.
Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus.
1 Cor. 11:27-29 Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. We CANNOT be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it if it is symbolic.
We cannot murder a symbol.
Either Paul is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. Take your pick?
Seems like you are ignoring my previous posts and worse yet the Scriptures. Have you not read where Paul mentions a CUP - that they are to DRINK from. So you are telling me they were murdering Jesus? This is your doctrine? My Bible tells me Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father in all glory and honor and will come back not in the secret chamber but as lightning shines from east to the west. So if some RC tells you he is in the inner chamber believe it not.
You must prove that the Catholic Church offers up bread alone. Both bread and wine are offered, not bread alone.
As for profaning the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Are you saying that its not possible, when Paul tells us in Heb 6: 6 "It is impossible to move them a second time to repentence when they ARE CRUCIFIYING, on their own account, the Son of God"
You see what happens when you personally interpret Scripture outside the scheme of things. 2Pet 1:20
Likewise, you are so keen on literal reading; what about living waters flowing out of someones belly? Why don't you believe this; that a river of actual water is to flow forth from someones stomach? And why don't you have a footwashing if you believe in literal reading of the Scriptures. Can John 13 be any clearer?
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND DRINK THIS CUP of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. - caps added. The reason is clear as I already explained - they were treating the Lord's supper as a common meal where I am not going to retype what I already did. Likewise, the Scriptures say he took BREAD and brake it and gave it to them to eat. Bread - not flesh.
Mass was a huge waste of time as I don't think I ever heard a priest preach repentance, dying to sin, self, about being a new creature. But since one of my priests was a molester, the other into porn, and the other a universalist, I can understand why. Just a lot of funny stories to make people laugh with quaint anecdotes. Yes & he also says one will NEVER hunger or thirst. So, since you believe you PHYSICALLY eat Jesus like a Ritz cracker, do you ever physically hunger and physically thirst?
I am sorry that you had a bad experience. I could not imagine having parish priests like those you mention. I now understand why you may have contempt for the Church.
As for physical hunger and thirst, your taking what Jesus actually says out of context. "Whoever COMES to me shall never be hungry, and whoever BELIEVES shall never be thirsty" John 6:35
If you read it in context, there is nothing mentioned about eating and drinking His body and blood until John 6:53. Your reaching.
#1 It is not reaching at all. Jesus is speaking spiritual truths using physical analogies just as John the beloved apostle records throughout his gospel. Jn 3 - Jesus speaks about being born again; Nicodemus w/ uncircumcised ears is told spiritual truths yet he hears them as physical only. Jn 4 - Jesus teaches about living waters to the Samaritan woman who just like Nicodemus hears spiritual truths using physical types (water, thirst, well, etc.) and understands not a word Jesus is saying.
#2 Jn 6 - Jesus teaches about eating his flesh and drinking his blood; spiritual truths that the people, as you and Rome, are hearing w/ physical ears not unlink Nicodemus and the women at the well. Jn 13 - foot washing; a verse your religion conveniently passes by in their dogmatic literal interpretation. This again, being clear where Jesus commanded them to do as he did as he taught a spiritual truth of he who wants to be greatest, let him be servant of all; even as Jesus was.
I have found the truth and it has set me free from Rome and her bondage. 25 years in a damnable lie where I was a child of hell as were all those around me whose lives bore ample witness that we were in no way born again than the devil himself. But just keep going to Mass and all will be well so we were told - lies - damnable lies.
2) foot washing? I think you will find that the bishops of the Church do this, I've seen my priest do this also. Your correct, it is to show that they are the servents of all. But again, how you missed this as a Catholic is beyond me. No offence, but I dont think you spent that much time in the Catholic Church.
Could you please stay with the one topic which is the Eucharist.
1) John 6:51-52 Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally.
Then in John 6:53 - 58 Jesus DOES NOT correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing AN OATH and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says it four times.
Now you have to show me where God says something to be true and even swears an oath and it then is NOT true?
I wil show you when you can show me a miracle that never actually manifested itself as your magical wafer does after the priest utters hocus pocus. Oh wait; we have the Aristotelian accidents - sure - that is a great dodge. Like the blind man walking into the wall after a Benny Hinn crusade who says he is really healed and just needs to have enough faith.
You do well to read and believe the Scriptures as yo and your religion are claiming that Jesus broke the LAW which CLEARLY teaches that NO blood is to be eaten or drunken. A TRUTH confirmed in the NT in Acts 15.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. (Lev 17:12)
You would do even better if you spent more time in prayer and bible study
Lets look at what Paul says, because YOU have him contradicting Scripture.
Paul taught ALL foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with BLOOD, could be consumed by the Christian if it didnt bother the brothers conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God. Rom 14:14; 1 Cor. 8:1-13 1 Tim4:3
But who cares what Paul says, since it offends your infallible interpretation, its not ok.
Physician heal thyself. Jesus was obedient to every jot and tittle of the Old Covenant Law which I already quoted. Did he drink his own blood as I have heard Catholic apologists say? What did he drink in the cup at the last supper? Tell me pray tell.
""What did he drink in the cup at the last supper? ""
If you read the last supper discourse, Jesus doesn't eat or drink AFTER He says that it is His body and blood. Show me one verse from Scripture that says He does?
What it does say is that He offers it to the 12
Also, the neccesary things in Acts 15 was a amendable pastoral decision given at that time so as not to scandalize the Jewish converts and others who were then weak in faith. Thats what Paul meant in Rom14.:14, 1Cor 8 etc.
Actually he did and it was the last time until his kingdom. "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Mt 26:28-29). So I ask again, what did he drink, and what did the disciples drink? Re. Acts, it was a decision by the Holy Spirit, not a pastoral decision where it was a command they followed.
Yeah and please show me where it says that Jesus drank from the cup He gave to the apostles?
It doesn't. Your adding to Scripture, because it doesn't say that Jesus drank from it. He gave it to the apostles.
He says Himself "I WILL NOT DRINK"
And when He will drink it, IT WILL BE NEW. In His fathers kingdom. Where it will be new. But until that time, we must eat His body and drink His blood as He commanded.
This is incredible, so Jesus in your theology did not celebrate the Last Supper. He just sat their with folded hands and decided to forgo keeping the Passover, right? Simply Amazing as to how far one has to go to defend their false theology. "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer" - So did Jesus eat? What did he eat? What did the Disciples drink pray tell, I'm still waiting for that one since you are playing doge ball w/ the Lord. What was in the CUP?
Plus, anyone who knows language knows that the wording of the verse I quoted is where Jesus is saying this is the LAST time I will drink of the cup UNTIL I drink in my kingdom. He most assuredly drank of the cup as he ate because he kept the passover.
The Jews were poured blood out on the earth, not because it was vile but because it was sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God himself.
How fitting then that when Jesus (Who is the Life [Jn 14:6]) comes we are commanded to drink his blood (Mt 26:2728). His is the blood we not only may but must drink if we are to have life in us (Jn 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Heb 9).
I know he fulfilled the Law and I also know he did NOT cause the disciples to break the Law which is exactly what would have happened had they drank blood. It was an explicit command to NOT drink/eat blood and Jesus never broke any nor would cause any others to do so. You say otherwise. No more I care to say as you are content calling wine blood and bread flesh. I do wonder what a Catholic would do if they actually ate a piece of real flesh or really drank blood.
Did Jesus said he had food to eat of his disciples knew not of? Did Jesus say he was the door. Did Jesus say he was the light of the world? Did John call Jesus the lamb of God? Did Jesus say living water would flow forth from the belly of the believer? I could go on but I an finished as you cannot see the difference between the physical and spiritual and hear Jesus no different than Nicodemus who asked how he would enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born again.
Jesus distinguishes between the supernatural and the natural to his disciples in chapter John 6, just as he was doing for a perplexed Nicodemus in chapter 3.
There can be no misinterpretation, as he clearly credits the revelation of supernatural "spirit" to the work of the Holy Spirit (see also 1 Cor 2:11-13). Such higher understanding transcends perception dominated purely by natural existence or the reasoning of the human mind (1 Cor 2:14, 3:1-3 & 15:44-46).
The same distinction was made in John 6 for those with eyes to see. Nevertheless, you have trampled the holy things of God enough. You can continue to eat your wafer, worship it and call it your god. My final question to you which is rhetorical in that I will not be back to reply, is what happens to your god that you eat when you body casts it out? Holy dung per chance? Do not ye yet understand, that WHATSOEVER entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Further, the tangible Eucharist is a mystery of benefit to the supranature of the soul. Jesus is telling his disciples not to think only in terms of the human psyche, but to embrace his message of "spirit and life." The Eucharist is true, nonfigurative food that provides spiritual nourishment (John 6:27, 35, 50, 55-59).
Ok - so the Law was broken as your jesus caused the disciples to EXPLICITLY break the Law which was in FULL force. Blood just like the so called blood in the Catholic chalice which is wine by every single test known unto man. Ah - but we have faith says the Romanist. Just like the people "healed" at a Benny Hinn crusade.
And I can see you care not what the Holy Ghost said. That these things were really not NECESSARY as it is written.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
TheManGadoosh - I do not see the question you asked me so I'll repost and then answer:
stmcgarret: Please explain how eating a "full meal" can bring damnation upon you?
This is to your eisegesis of 1 Cor 11
The answer is right in the text. The Corinthians were treating the Lord's Supper as common. They were also not loving their brethren by waiting for the poor. Also, people were getting drunk. Also, when the poor arrived there was no food left. They also needed to examine themselves.
The reason they were dying was because the Lord's supper according to Paul was the consuming of the flesh of Christ. The words Paul uses are : "touto mou estin to soma."
The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so. You claim otherwise.
1 Cor. 10:18 In this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.
rev2214, what martyrs are you referring too? the only bone fide martyrs have been those who where one in mind and soul with the one true church, not the heretical body of Protestantism that continues to persecute this church, you cannot be a heretic and a martyr!
One of White's favorite comments to anyone who uses the term, "taken out of context," is that the term is over used and he turns around and does the same thing when Sungenis brings up faith and works and says that "you're taking that out of context, and that you have commited a truck loan of logical disconnects." White got spanked, and had nothing to come back. Faith and works are gifts from God and he admits it then shifts it by saying that works are the result of faith. White is illogical.
No he's not... Sungenis committed the fallacy of undistributed middle... a fallacy whereby one equates as identicals two different things which share a similar property. That is wrong. I dont fault White if he doesn't know the logical term for the fallacy... but Sungenis is logically inconsistent at that point. And further, context gives the framework for the meaning of a particular element of a text; the words of a text do not exist in a vacuum. You do not understand logic, or exegesis Doggy.
Hydragurum-I actually understand exegesis and logic well and it is obvious that you don't or your would concede that Whtie commited ad-hominem to his shame and was unable to find his way out of it. Take a course in logic and don't rely on what you have heard. White usually wins but in this case he clearly lost. You can pick up Copi'sbook "Informal logic," and this will help you get a base understanding of debate and logic. It will also help you avoid making a donkey of yourself in the future.
"Right so essentially there really is no difference between faith and good works since they both come from the Holy Spirit" is what Sungenis said. He equates faith and good works essentially. That is to say, ontologically they are the SAME THING. And what leads him to make this identity statement? Sharing the one property of being from the Holy Spirit. Hence the fallacy of undistributed middle. Also acknowledging an error is not committing an ad hominem. Sungenis is in error logically as are you
James White is doing exactly what he accuses Catholics of doing by dodging questions by resorting to comments such as "I take it context..." and won't answer questions. White got spanked. White is nervous because he is not in control Seen to many of his debates and he is rattled.
James is not poor, rather it is Mr. Sungenis whose absolute and total faith is not in Jesus Christ, but rather the Catholic religion. Here, the tragedy is that he points people not to the Lord of Glory but rather mother Rome because in Rome Jesus Christ and a simple, child-like faith in his word alone is never enough. For you must add Masses,"holy" days of obligation, crossings, kneelings, incense, candles, Mary as without sin and bodily assumption, worship of saints, rosaries, etc.
This is the tragedy for I being one who did all the above and yet was dead in trespasses in sins; contrary to all that Rome's priests and nuns taught. For I like my Catholic peers were as sinful if not more so than my non-religious friends. For we were no more born-again by our christening than than a dead man is at a Benny Hinn crusade. The truth any controlling organization hates like Rome, the JWs, Mormons, etc. is that salvation is found in Jesus Christ ALONE and not in ANY organization.
You havent read any of the early church historians. Mass was celebrated from day one. Just look it up. Google "Justin Marter". Wikipedia even says so.
There are hundreds of resources. In this day of information revolution we are living in , theres really no excuse for ignorance.
If you believe what was celebrated in the early church vs. what the Mass today is, then I suggest you need to study it out. I will stick with the Scriptures and what is taught in I Cor 11 on how the Lord Supper in the apostolic church faithful to Christ Jesus' teaching kept it as a full meal. Even as Jesus did on his last night before he was betrayed. It was then the unfaithful church that changed this simple meal into a parade of incense, candles, alter, bowings, etc. absent from the Bible.
Sorry but I'm not sure I follow your question. I did follow it blindly for nearly 25 years of my life until I came to see that it and nearly all I had been taught as a RC was not based on the Bible but rather the traditions of men. Hence, I left Rome and in direct answer to your question, I observe the Lord's supper as a full meal. See NTRF d_o_t org.
I dont think this is necessary. People can watch the videos and make up their own mind. In all fairness, Jim White's sister may have converted for the wrong reasons... just as we could say Catholics convert to Protestantism for the wrong reasons.
Its interesting that the whole time you have the camera on White even when Sungenis is answering questions. Its as if you are hoping that White will look bad or something? I mean, I have no problem looking at Dr White, but why not watch Sungenis sweat it out a bit! lol
Perhaps you should watch the 4rd and 4th parts before you make incriminating assumptions. The truth is there are two cameras, and this was simply an editing issue where I went long on this clip.
I don't think Dr. White is anymore nervous than Sungenis. He does seem to be squirmy, but that's just how he is (he's the same way in his other debates).
No. I disagree. White is very confident in all his other debates, even in his debates with Sungenis. Keep in mind that his supporters were the first ones to point out he looked a bit off his game...
I would rather not. Its fun to act 10 years old sometimes! lol Actually I dont think White OR Sungenis ever looks really nervous or bad in this video. Sungenis does seem to be looking down most of the time. No eye contact. At one point You can see White really has to think a bit When Sungenis is questioning him on the Propitiation of Christ's blood, but its not that he doesnt have an answer...Sungenis just wants to know why White exegetes the passage the way he does.
If then you dont believe in Transubstantiation as not being biblical then the Church did not apostatise at Trent, but the Fourth Latern Council in 1215, which defined this ancient belief- so it shows quite clearly that you are groping at loose straws and clearly know zilch Church History, except what your apostate mentor John MacArthur and Calvin told you.
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott kindly read what i stated earlier i said that the roman catholic church formally apostatise when it formally declared as an instiution that it is denying the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ
danipulokad 1 year ago
@timothyprescott I'm afraid you are, sir, James White smokes every Catholic apologist out of the water. No where in this clip, or any other one, has James White looked silly or has not won the debate with any Catholic. Catholics are told what to think because mother church tells them what to believe...Sola Ecclesia.
bzagar1 1 year ago
James White blows every Catholic apologist out of the water
bzagar1 1 year ago
@bzagar1 dream on - James White was made to look silly in this debate - you are living in cloud cuckoo land
timothyprescott 1 year ago
a man is saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone. good works are fruit of saving faith. when there is saving faith, there will always be good faith but the latter is not the basis for which a person is saved, there is a difference between justification and sanctification in the bible
danipulokad 1 year ago
I wish James would be as aggressive in his debates as he was when he was younger, like in the papacy debate at Boston College or with Fastigi on the Marian dogmas.
patrckhh20 1 year ago
I am not a Calvinist but I agree with Dr. White. Catholics simply misinterpret James and Romans in that works is a requirement for salvation. Works is evidence of a saving faith present in the believing person. Sanctification and Justification are two totally different things. But as Christians, I think we need to find the things that bring us together and what we agree on. Debating like this is ok, but lets find something to agree on
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
Sungenis, "it is not complete yet."
Jesus, "it is finished."
exodusx599 2 years ago
@exodusx599 "you forgot to put the process before it is not complete yet"
listen to 7:00 - 7:15
eluzion83 2 years ago
@exodusx599 nice bit of eisegesis.
timothyprescott 1 year ago
May God save the soul of Robert Sungenis.
Mr Sungenis is in grave error.
DIETOSELFREPENT 2 years ago
@DIETOSELFREPENT May God save the soul of James White.
Mr.White is in grave error.
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott may you be save, because you are in error my dear friend and james white is just defending the truth
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad may you be saved, because you are in error my dear friend and Robert Sungenis is just defending the truth
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott yup stong in grace alone, by faith alone and in Christ alone, hope that you could be truly in Christ just as i left the Roman Catholic Church
moiacayan 1 year ago
@moiacayan nice rhetoric, but your soul is in danger apostate.
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott nope, my friend im in Christ and those who are in Christ are not in danger, it is you my friend who is in danger
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad how you separated brethren try to twist truth and plain logic never seizes to amaze me, your silly rhetoric is pathetic. Your false church is of the same branch of the split of the reformation - now we have thousands of apostate churches. You make Jesus into a liar when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against His ONE Church. If the Catholic Church is not the true Church, tell me when the ONE Church apostasized?
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott did Christ really built the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH? DID CHRIST REALLY INTENDED AN INSTITUTIOnalized unity? my friend its just simple logic..
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad that is such a lame red herring..Answer the question if Christ founded ONE Church, give me the date that this Church apostatized! If you cant answer the question you have just proved that you belong to a false church and are no better then sects such as JWs and Mormons. My Church is founded by Christ, your sect was founded in the 16th century. If you claim the 'Roman' Catholic Church is a false church, then name the date it was founded!!! Its all simple logic and commonsense!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott DID CHRIST FOUND THE ROMAN CAHTOLIC CHURCH where in the Words of christ did he mentioned that He founded the "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" and that it is the only institutional church HE FOUNDED? what if the Roman empire was not in world domination during the time of the apostles and if it were the SPARTANS who was in world domination. would you accept that CHRIST founded SPARTAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?! simple logic sir! dont be blinded by your own bias! think think and think sir!
danipulokad 1 year ago
Sir if u cld actually stop the red-herrings & actually answer the question, that wld be great. It seems clear that you know you are stuck in a corner & like all false sects, u are trying to get out of this with some really stupid statements that are just making u look more stupid.Lets do this again, if Christ founded 1 Church, give me the date that this Church apostatized! Or if you claim the 'Roman' Cath Church is a false church, name the date it was founded! Its all simple logic & commonsense!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott Christ did not found an insitutionalized Church..furthermore you can not read in the bible that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church christ founded..
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad Sir can you actually answer a question instead of throwing in a red-herring? I think it is painstakingly obvious to all that you use your diversion tactics because you know you cant answer a simple logical question and this shows quite clearly who really belongs to a false 'church'! Repent and leave your false religion on judgment day it will be too late!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@danipulokad Ha, ha, you have just contradicted yourself in the sheer gymnastics you are playing to get yourself out of your logical madness- that's the false religion of Protestantism for you! You have implicitly affirmed that Christ did found the Catholic Church, "Roman Catholic Church apostasized when it formally denied the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ at the council of Trent" - Think about it - ROFL :)
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott bwahahaha, so you are also admitting that you belong to an apostate institution already! hahahaha -Think about it =P
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad Wow - you call that I response? Is that the best you can do. I have enjoyed watching an apostate squirm, just to show people how easy to expose you people, with simple logic. I never even in the slightest admitted I belong to an apostate, you sir made the assertion that the 'Roman' Church apostasized at Trent(1545), so the burden of proof is on you not me! Why Sir doesn't your Church doesnt believe in transubstantiation which was defined in 1215?!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott why should we believe in transubstantiation, its an unbiblical teaching..you have the burden of proof sir that your church's teaching is biblical since the reformation put into question the Gospel being taught by the Roman Church..We never claimed that there is only one true church..You church claimed to be the only church founded by Church hence you have the burden of proof, prove it sir! you havent proven anything yet but just to squirm..
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad No sir your demon inspired 'apostate church' was founded in the 16th, mine was founded by Christ, since you CANT GIVE ME A CLEAR DATE WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED- AND ADMITTED IT APOSTATISED AT TRENT (which I deny) the burden on proof is on you not me to back up you own assertions! You are the squirmer since you cant show me the thousands of 'apostate churches', which Christ condemns and says he will build His Church, not thousands of false ones!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott how can your claim that your church is founded by Christ when your church kept adding to His Word and His sufficient work! your church has done alot of shame and damageto the Gospel of Jesus Christ
danipulokad 1 year ago
@timothyprescott can you prove that your church is not an apostate church? the bible clearly teaches that salvation is only by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone..
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad That is nice apostate rhetoric, but you haven't proved anything, but put another smokescreen to lead me down a rabbit hole! Again, built on your false assumption that the 'Church of Christ' apostatised at Trent, then at least by the 16th there was only 'ONE CHURCH' founded by Christ, so again apostate you have shot yourself in your foot - by admitting Christ founded ONE CHURCH!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott kindly prove your point sir that Christ founded an institutional church? again would you admit that if the Spartans dominated the world during Jesus Christ time that the church founded by Christ would then be Spartan Catholic Church?!
danipulokad 1 year ago
@timothyprescott Roman Catholic Church apostasized when it formally denied the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ at the council of Trent.Anathema to your instutitution! leave the Roman Catholic Church brother your sould needs Christ!
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad Nice try. So if the 'Roman Catholic' apostasized and therefore it was in correct standing before, why isn't your 'church' practising baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, transubstantiation, etc All clear doctrines of the Church way before Trent. Love to see how you try again to get out this one! Each time you try to answer a question, you make me realise how clueless you are! Leave your false sect, your soul needs Christ, not a false religion that cannot save you!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott wrong! mr. prescott, Prostestantism never claimed that there is only one intstutional church that HE built and founded..what is said is the "Roman Catholic Church apostasized when it FORMALLY deneid the gospel.." in short, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH just showed its true color that it is apostate already..
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad Yes Mr.Danipilokad you are like the devil twist Scripture to suit your devilish lusts. I know Protestantism make lots of false claims. But the Bible says" I will build my Church" "The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"...Where are the 20,000+ different apostate churches mentioned in the Bible. Your false church was begun in the 16th Century, my Church was founded by Christ and you admit that by agreeing that it apostasized at Trent!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
@timothyprescott as if the roman catholic church like mr prescott is not twisting scriprture himself..the bible didnt say that the roman catholic church is the only church! where in the bible is the roman catholic church the only church founded by Christ! prove it sir prove it! did it say i will build my Roman Catholic Church?! i believe you twisting scripture..
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad Just i thought you have a demon in you. You are using one smokescreen after another, trying to lead me down rabbit holes, because you refuse to answer questions, then construct one strawman after another, you are easily the most deceptive apostate I have met online. I never did claim that! You are the twister of Scripture apostate, not me.I asked you why your church doesnt believe in transubstantiation, as it was defined before Trent, yet you refuse to answer why logically!!!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
Also again if the Church of Christ apostatised at Trent, then tell me why your Church doesn't practice Baptismal Regeneration? Any true scholar knows that is easily the most clearly testified patristic belief in the apostolic era. ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT GIVING A RED HERRING!!!
timothyprescott 1 year ago
Comment removed
Skyethur 1 year ago
@Skyethur again i would ask if the Spartans dominated the world during the Lord Jesus Time, would accept the fact that i wouldnt be "Roman" Catholic Church but Spartan Catholic Church? and the seat of the pope be in Sparta?
danipulokad 1 year ago
@danipulokad thats correct. the catholic church was a political move by the roman govt. that is why there is so much roman superstition throughout it.
anonazero 1 year ago
Comment removed
Skyethur 1 year ago
@Skyethur are you aware that what you just quoted in no way supports your assertions?
the church is one, the church is holy and being sanctified by God, the church is unified and diverse, and the church does exist despite the best efforts of the catholic church to exterminate and suppress it through bloodshed and totalitarian control.
anonazero 1 year ago
Funny, but only one who has been raised Roman Catholic and celebrated (sadly) countless masses knows for a FACT that the vast MAJORITY of Roman Catholics NEVER drink of the cup. For the pass it by like the plague fearing germs and backwash. And so they are damned by their own theology. I can also guarantee that many of the posters and YouTube Catholic apologists are in this camp. Seems like ya'll forgot that little conjunction AND.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmc:
"Roman Catholics NEVER drink from the cup"
Obviously you never spent that much time on Catholic theology. The BODY is Jesus' body, BLOOD, soul and divinity.
A body is not without blood. Maybe you should have stayed behind to get catechised better.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Ah so quick with the tongue but so slow with the Scriptures. Maybe you should read the scriptures more and forgot the teachings of your priestcraft.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
forget
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Likewise: "For as often as ye eat this bread, AND drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." I Cor 11:26
I guess Paul was not so versed in the Catechism either....
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus.
1 Cor. 11:27-29 Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. We CANNOT be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it if it is symbolic.
We cannot murder a symbol.
Either Paul is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. Take your pick?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Seems like you are ignoring my previous posts and worse yet the Scriptures. Have you not read where Paul mentions a CUP - that they are to DRINK from. So you are telling me they were murdering Jesus? This is your doctrine? My Bible tells me Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father in all glory and honor and will come back not in the secret chamber but as lightning shines from east to the west. So if some RC tells you he is in the inner chamber believe it not.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
You must prove that the Catholic Church offers up bread alone. Both bread and wine are offered, not bread alone.
As for profaning the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Are you saying that its not possible, when Paul tells us in Heb 6: 6 "It is impossible to move them a second time to repentence when they ARE CRUCIFIYING, on their own account, the Son of God"
You see what happens when you personally interpret Scripture outside the scheme of things. 2Pet 1:20
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Likewise, you are so keen on literal reading; what about living waters flowing out of someones belly? Why don't you believe this; that a river of actual water is to flow forth from someones stomach? And why don't you have a footwashing if you believe in literal reading of the Scriptures. Can John 13 be any clearer?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Finally, Paul mentions eating AND drinking.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND DRINK THIS CUP of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. - caps added. The reason is clear as I already explained - they were treating the Lord's supper as a common meal where I am not going to retype what I already did. Likewise, the Scriptures say he took BREAD and brake it and gave it to them to eat. Bread - not flesh.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
He took bread and broke it. Of course He did. But what did He say that bread was?
Oh thats right, He said it was His Body. Likewise the wine, He said it was His blood.
But you dont believe Him. I believe the same happened in John 6 also when He said the same thing about His body and His blood.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Actually, you need to look in the mirror as you do not believe him when he said the blood of the covenant was in the CUP that was to be drunk.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Actually, He says "Drink this, all of you, FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD, the blood of the covenant"
Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant." Exodus 24:8
No need for a mirror, I believe what He says. It is His blood, it is the blood of the New and everlasting covenant.
You claim you used to be Catholic, yet how could you have missed hearing that at mass?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Mass was a huge waste of time as I don't think I ever heard a priest preach repentance, dying to sin, self, about being a new creature. But since one of my priests was a molester, the other into porn, and the other a universalist, I can understand why. Just a lot of funny stories to make people laugh with quaint anecdotes. Yes & he also says one will NEVER hunger or thirst. So, since you believe you PHYSICALLY eat Jesus like a Ritz cracker, do you ever physically hunger and physically thirst?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
I am sorry that you had a bad experience. I could not imagine having parish priests like those you mention. I now understand why you may have contempt for the Church.
As for physical hunger and thirst, your taking what Jesus actually says out of context. "Whoever COMES to me shall never be hungry, and whoever BELIEVES shall never be thirsty" John 6:35
If you read it in context, there is nothing mentioned about eating and drinking His body and blood until John 6:53. Your reaching.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
#1 It is not reaching at all. Jesus is speaking spiritual truths using physical analogies just as John the beloved apostle records throughout his gospel. Jn 3 - Jesus speaks about being born again; Nicodemus w/ uncircumcised ears is told spiritual truths yet he hears them as physical only. Jn 4 - Jesus teaches about living waters to the Samaritan woman who just like Nicodemus hears spiritual truths using physical types (water, thirst, well, etc.) and understands not a word Jesus is saying.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
#2 Jn 6 - Jesus teaches about eating his flesh and drinking his blood; spiritual truths that the people, as you and Rome, are hearing w/ physical ears not unlink Nicodemus and the women at the well. Jn 13 - foot washing; a verse your religion conveniently passes by in their dogmatic literal interpretation. This again, being clear where Jesus commanded them to do as he did as he taught a spiritual truth of he who wants to be greatest, let him be servant of all; even as Jesus was.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
#3 - I sincerely appreciate your concern about the priests but rest assured, as Rom 8:28 records, the Lord God worked it all out for good.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
3) "#3 - I sincerely appreciate your concern about the priests but rest assured, as Rom 8:28 records, the Lord God worked it all out for good"
Good, I am happy that you have found peace
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
I have found the truth and it has set me free from Rome and her bondage. 25 years in a damnable lie where I was a child of hell as were all those around me whose lives bore ample witness that we were in no way born again than the devil himself. But just keep going to Mass and all will be well so we were told - lies - damnable lies.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
2) foot washing? I think you will find that the bishops of the Church do this, I've seen my priest do this also. Your correct, it is to show that they are the servents of all. But again, how you missed this as a Catholic is beyond me. No offence, but I dont think you spent that much time in the Catholic Church.
Could you please stay with the one topic which is the Eucharist.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Umm - because in ALL my years I never once witnessed it; and it was done with the disciples - not amongst the so called clergy.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
1) John 6:51-52 Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally.
Then in John 6:53 - 58 Jesus DOES NOT correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing AN OATH and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says it four times.
Now you have to show me where God says something to be true and even swears an oath and it then is NOT true?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
I wil show you when you can show me a miracle that never actually manifested itself as your magical wafer does after the priest utters hocus pocus. Oh wait; we have the Aristotelian accidents - sure - that is a great dodge. Like the blind man walking into the wall after a Benny Hinn crusade who says he is really healed and just needs to have enough faith.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
You do well to read and believe the Scriptures as yo and your religion are claiming that Jesus broke the LAW which CLEARLY teaches that NO blood is to be eaten or drunken. A TRUTH confirmed in the NT in Acts 15.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. (Lev 17:12)
stmcgarret 2 years ago
You would do even better if you spent more time in prayer and bible study
Lets look at what Paul says, because YOU have him contradicting Scripture.
Paul taught ALL foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with BLOOD, could be consumed by the Christian if it didnt bother the brothers conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God. Rom 14:14; 1 Cor. 8:1-13 1 Tim4:3
But who cares what Paul says, since it offends your infallible interpretation, its not ok.
Plz
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Physician heal thyself. Jesus was obedient to every jot and tittle of the Old Covenant Law which I already quoted. Did he drink his own blood as I have heard Catholic apologists say? What did he drink in the cup at the last supper? Tell me pray tell.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
""What did he drink in the cup at the last supper? ""
If you read the last supper discourse, Jesus doesn't eat or drink AFTER He says that it is His body and blood. Show me one verse from Scripture that says He does?
What it does say is that He offers it to the 12
Also, the neccesary things in Acts 15 was a amendable pastoral decision given at that time so as not to scandalize the Jewish converts and others who were then weak in faith. Thats what Paul meant in Rom14.:14, 1Cor 8 etc.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Actually he did and it was the last time until his kingdom. "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Mt 26:28-29). So I ask again, what did he drink, and what did the disciples drink? Re. Acts, it was a decision by the Holy Spirit, not a pastoral decision where it was a command they followed.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Yeah and please show me where it says that Jesus drank from the cup He gave to the apostles?
It doesn't. Your adding to Scripture, because it doesn't say that Jesus drank from it. He gave it to the apostles.
He says Himself "I WILL NOT DRINK"
And when He will drink it, IT WILL BE NEW. In His fathers kingdom. Where it will be new. But until that time, we must eat His body and drink His blood as He commanded.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
This is incredible, so Jesus in your theology did not celebrate the Last Supper. He just sat their with folded hands and decided to forgo keeping the Passover, right? Simply Amazing as to how far one has to go to defend their false theology. "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer" - So did Jesus eat? What did he eat? What did the Disciples drink pray tell, I'm still waiting for that one since you are playing doge ball w/ the Lord. What was in the CUP?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Plus, anyone who knows language knows that the wording of the verse I quoted is where Jesus is saying this is the LAST time I will drink of the cup UNTIL I drink in my kingdom. He most assuredly drank of the cup as he ate because he kept the passover.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Ok, obviously you dont read that well, so for that reason I will post Matt 26: 26
"While they were eating, Jesus TOOK bread, said a blessing and broke it and GAVE IT to His disciples saying "***TAKE AND EAT*** this is my body.
(This bread was seperate from what they were eating before, because Jesus gives a seperate blessing before He hands it out)
He does this with the CUP also. He does not drink from that cup and Scripture doesn't say He does either. You are projecting onto Scripture.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
No - I am sharing the tradition of the Passover which Jesus kept to a 'T'. He did not drink his blood nor did the disciples.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Jesus never broke the OT law, He fulfilled it.
The Jews were poured blood out on the earth, not because it was vile but because it was sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God himself.
How fitting then that when Jesus (Who is the Life [Jn 14:6]) comes we are commanded to drink his blood (Mt 26:2728). His is the blood we not only may but must drink if we are to have life in us (Jn 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Heb 9).
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
I know he fulfilled the Law and I also know he did NOT cause the disciples to break the Law which is exactly what would have happened had they drank blood. It was an explicit command to NOT drink/eat blood and Jesus never broke any nor would cause any others to do so. You say otherwise. No more I care to say as you are content calling wine blood and bread flesh. I do wonder what a Catholic would do if they actually ate a piece of real flesh or really drank blood.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
"You say otherwise"
I only say so because Jesus (who is God) tells us to eat His body and drink His blood or we would not gain eternal life, did He not?
Did Jesus say that we are to eat His body and drink His blood? Yes or no?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Did Jesus said he had food to eat of his disciples knew not of? Did Jesus say he was the door. Did Jesus say he was the light of the world? Did John call Jesus the lamb of God? Did Jesus say living water would flow forth from the belly of the believer? I could go on but I an finished as you cannot see the difference between the physical and spiritual and hear Jesus no different than Nicodemus who asked how he would enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born again.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Jesus distinguishes between the supernatural and the natural to his disciples in chapter John 6, just as he was doing for a perplexed Nicodemus in chapter 3.
There can be no misinterpretation, as he clearly credits the revelation of supernatural "spirit" to the work of the Holy Spirit (see also 1 Cor 2:11-13). Such higher understanding transcends perception dominated purely by natural existence or the reasoning of the human mind (1 Cor 2:14, 3:1-3 & 15:44-46).
Back to you
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Comment removed
stmcgarret 2 years ago
The same distinction was made in John 6 for those with eyes to see. Nevertheless, you have trampled the holy things of God enough. You can continue to eat your wafer, worship it and call it your god. My final question to you which is rhetorical in that I will not be back to reply, is what happens to your god that you eat when you body casts it out? Holy dung per chance? Do not ye yet understand, that WHATSOEVER entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Nice question. :)
Again, you should have tried to catechise yourself a little better.
Its after the consecration, no change can be "physically" noticed in any way whatsoever.
But yet, after the consecration, Jesus is present in his totality: his body, all of it, his blood, his soul, his divinity.
We do not perceive him because the appearances of bread and wine still remain, and he is present under, but not within, those appearances.
So then, Christ is not in the draught.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Further, the tangible Eucharist is a mystery of benefit to the supranature of the soul. Jesus is telling his disciples not to think only in terms of the human psyche, but to embrace his message of "spirit and life." The Eucharist is true, nonfigurative food that provides spiritual nourishment (John 6:27, 35, 50, 55-59).
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
""I'm still waiting for that one since you are playing doge ball w/ the Lord. What was in the CUP? ""
The blood of Christ was in the cup, because Christ SAID IT WAS. No dodging.
Now give me the verse were it says that Jesus drank from the cup?
Not were it says that Jesus will not drink from it, but were it says He did drink from it?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Ok - so the Law was broken as your jesus caused the disciples to EXPLICITLY break the Law which was in FULL force. Blood just like the so called blood in the Catholic chalice which is wine by every single test known unto man. Ah - but we have faith says the Romanist. Just like the people "healed" at a Benny Hinn crusade.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Here is another one, what will Jesus drink in his kingdom? What will be in the cup?
Hit - the same thing in the cup when he drank at the Passover; the FRUIT of THE VINE.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine
stmcgarret 2 years ago
What will Jesus drink in His kingdom? The answer is rather simple, but again you project onto Scripture what isn't there.
It will be new wine Jesus and His disciples drink in Heaven (No need for the eucharist as they are in heaven when they drink this)
But Jesus says that the cup He gave to His discpiles was His blood. And Jesus NEVER drank from it
I want the verse that says that Jesus drank from the cup He passed?
He gave it to His apostles to drink. "I will not drink" He says.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
And I can see you care not what the Holy Ghost said. That these things were really not NECESSARY as it is written.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
"" what about living waters flowing out of someones belly? ""
Metaphors and hyperbole. Since I know where this is leading, let me stop you. Jesus doesn't use either in John 6.
Oh and by the way, Paul also uses the same words that Jesus uses in Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20.
"touto mou estin to soma." 1 Cor. 11:24 This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.
You disagree because your interpretation is without error of course.
Plz
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
TheManGadoosh - I do not see the question you asked me so I'll repost and then answer:
stmcgarret: Please explain how eating a "full meal" can bring damnation upon you?
This is to your eisegesis of 1 Cor 11
The answer is right in the text. The Corinthians were treating the Lord's Supper as common. They were also not loving their brethren by waiting for the poor. Also, people were getting drunk. Also, when the poor arrived there was no food left. They also needed to examine themselves.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
The reason they were dying was because the Lord's supper according to Paul was the consuming of the flesh of Christ. The words Paul uses are : "touto mou estin to soma."
The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so. You claim otherwise.
1 Cor. 10:18 In this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Again, you know not what you write. Try this one.
"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John 7:38)
stmcgarret 2 years ago
rev2214, what martyrs are you referring too? the only bone fide martyrs have been those who where one in mind and soul with the one true church, not the heretical body of Protestantism that continues to persecute this church, you cannot be a heretic and a martyr!
crafter111 2 years ago
Jesus said it,`Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood,you shall NOT have life within you``
Was Jesus wrong and Dr Whites self interpretation correct? one has to be wrong
crafter111 2 years ago
Protestantism is ILLOGICAL!!!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
One of White's favorite comments to anyone who uses the term, "taken out of context," is that the term is over used and he turns around and does the same thing when Sungenis brings up faith and works and says that "you're taking that out of context, and that you have commited a truck loan of logical disconnects." White got spanked, and had nothing to come back. Faith and works are gifts from God and he admits it then shifts it by saying that works are the result of faith. White is illogical.
doggysector 2 years ago
No he's not... Sungenis committed the fallacy of undistributed middle... a fallacy whereby one equates as identicals two different things which share a similar property. That is wrong. I dont fault White if he doesn't know the logical term for the fallacy... but Sungenis is logically inconsistent at that point. And further, context gives the framework for the meaning of a particular element of a text; the words of a text do not exist in a vacuum. You do not understand logic, or exegesis Doggy.
Hydragurum 2 years ago
Hydragurum-I actually understand exegesis and logic well and it is obvious that you don't or your would concede that Whtie commited ad-hominem to his shame and was unable to find his way out of it. Take a course in logic and don't rely on what you have heard. White usually wins but in this case he clearly lost. You can pick up Copi'sbook "Informal logic," and this will help you get a base understanding of debate and logic. It will also help you avoid making a donkey of yourself in the future.
doggysector 2 years ago
"Right so essentially there really is no difference between faith and good works since they both come from the Holy Spirit" is what Sungenis said. He equates faith and good works essentially. That is to say, ontologically they are the SAME THING. And what leads him to make this identity statement? Sharing the one property of being from the Holy Spirit. Hence the fallacy of undistributed middle. Also acknowledging an error is not committing an ad hominem. Sungenis is in error logically as are you
Hydragurum 2 years ago
White = Spin Dr
BiblicalAnalysis 2 years ago
James White is doing exactly what he accuses Catholics of doing by dodging questions by resorting to comments such as "I take it context..." and won't answer questions. White got spanked. White is nervous because he is not in control Seen to many of his debates and he is rattled.
doggysector 2 years ago
James is not poor, rather it is Mr. Sungenis whose absolute and total faith is not in Jesus Christ, but rather the Catholic religion. Here, the tragedy is that he points people not to the Lord of Glory but rather mother Rome because in Rome Jesus Christ and a simple, child-like faith in his word alone is never enough. For you must add Masses,"holy" days of obligation, crossings, kneelings, incense, candles, Mary as without sin and bodily assumption, worship of saints, rosaries, etc.
stmcgarret 3 years ago
This is the tragedy for I being one who did all the above and yet was dead in trespasses in sins; contrary to all that Rome's priests and nuns taught. For I like my Catholic peers were as sinful if not more so than my non-religious friends. For we were no more born-again by our christening than than a dead man is at a Benny Hinn crusade. The truth any controlling organization hates like Rome, the JWs, Mormons, etc. is that salvation is found in Jesus Christ ALONE and not in ANY organization.
stmcgarret 3 years ago
You havent read any of the early church historians. Mass was celebrated from day one. Just look it up. Google "Justin Marter". Wikipedia even says so.
There are hundreds of resources. In this day of information revolution we are living in , theres really no excuse for ignorance.
spartacus6839 2 years ago 2
If you believe what was celebrated in the early church vs. what the Mass today is, then I suggest you need to study it out. I will stick with the Scriptures and what is taught in I Cor 11 on how the Lord Supper in the apostolic church faithful to Christ Jesus' teaching kept it as a full meal. Even as Jesus did on his last night before he was betrayed. It was then the unfaithful church that changed this simple meal into a parade of incense, candles, alter, bowings, etc. absent from the Bible.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Then why dont you practise it? The Mass that is.
spartacus6839 2 years ago
Sorry but I'm not sure I follow your question. I did follow it blindly for nearly 25 years of my life until I came to see that it and nearly all I had been taught as a RC was not based on the Bible but rather the traditions of men. Hence, I left Rome and in direct answer to your question, I observe the Lord's supper as a full meal. See NTRF d_o_t org.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret:
Please explain how eating a "full meal" can bring damnation upon you?
This is to your eisegesis of 1 Cor 11
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Again, we see james get shredded in a catholic debate. Poor poor james, no wonder his sister became a catholic convert!
incadish 3 years ago
I dont think this is necessary. People can watch the videos and make up their own mind. In all fairness, Jim White's sister may have converted for the wrong reasons... just as we could say Catholics convert to Protestantism for the wrong reasons.
pacislander4life 3 years ago
"catholic church teaches unless you abide by the teachings of the church and of the scripture and tradition"
What arrogance! My God! This tells us why the martyrs preferres to die rather than yeild to this Antichrist system!!
rev2214 2 years ago
James does not get shredded- better yet, answer me please- hwo does Mr. White get "shredded"?
CSoul781 3 years ago
@incadish
obviously, you're a catholic. James White successfully answered all of his questions, and sungenis is caught in many category errors.
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
@incadish That is dumb logic. If you see Scott Butlers debate against White, then you can say the same thing. Sungensis and White Oct 22-23 2010..
johnpolanco18 1 year ago
Its interesting that the whole time you have the camera on White even when Sungenis is answering questions. Its as if you are hoping that White will look bad or something? I mean, I have no problem looking at Dr White, but why not watch Sungenis sweat it out a bit! lol
wuebbsco 3 years ago
Perhaps you should watch the 4rd and 4th parts before you make incriminating assumptions. The truth is there are two cameras, and this was simply an editing issue where I went long on this clip.
pacislander4life 3 years ago
And furthermore, you will see that Sungenis is nowehere as nervous and squirmy as White.
pacislander4life 3 years ago
I don't think Dr. White is anymore nervous than Sungenis. He does seem to be squirmy, but that's just how he is (he's the same way in his other debates).
Jpangyarihan 3 years ago
No. I disagree. White is very confident in all his other debates, even in his debates with Sungenis. Keep in mind that his supporters were the first ones to point out he looked a bit off his game...
pacislander4life 3 years ago
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because I haven't observed what you have. :-)
Jpangyarihan 3 years ago
I was just going to say that. He's always doing something...books, pda, etc...when being cross examined.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Wuebbsco, grow up.
timothyprescott 3 years ago 2
I would rather not. Its fun to act 10 years old sometimes! lol Actually I dont think White OR Sungenis ever looks really nervous or bad in this video. Sungenis does seem to be looking down most of the time. No eye contact. At one point You can see White really has to think a bit When Sungenis is questioning him on the Propitiation of Christ's blood, but its not that he doesnt have an answer...Sungenis just wants to know why White exegetes the passage the way he does.
wuebbsco 3 years ago
wow...such spiritual blindness...
justthefactsmister 3 years ago 4
Nice tie James :)
timothyprescott 4 years ago