MATT 7 &:22-23On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of ...
2 THINGS,first did Jesus know who they were? Absolutely,but He never loved them,since KNOW means an intimate love.2nd,Notice what they were saying,"didt we or I",these people R of the Arminian stripe,they believed they did something 4 salvation.
The Bible never records Peter being in Rome.The only apostle that was sent to the Gentiles of Rome was Paul,Peter was never the first Pope and if he could he'd tell us so.
And it shall be when one is guilty in sin he shall he shall confess he has sinned AND he bring his trespass offering to the lord from the flock a LAMB (Jesus is the lamb) as a sin offering and the PRIEST shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. Leviticus 5:5-6
Exactly and that's what I've never liked about the Ankerberg show is that he'll pick and choose what size he is on in various debates when he NEEDS to be neutral. If you cant stop yourself from getting involved then DONT hold the debate in the first place.
@IH8fanboys What Catholics understand by the Eucharist is that the same sacrifice of Christ is made real and present. Thus no new age of Christianity must look back to 'imagine' the act of sacrifice, it is made real and present for them directly. It is not limited in time or space, it is a perpetual act.
I reiterate, Catholics alone directly employ the gospels daily in our practices. Rather than being the talk of times past, Catholics live the liturgy over and over again.
@IH8fanboys Apologies for late reply, I was side tracked.
Jesus means directly that he is 'the gate' just as he means directly that Peter is 'the rock.' The metaphors are true, though obviously they employ imagery.
Further Christ was making a direct statement re: the Temple. In referring to Himself, he directly meant that he would be destroyed and raised up again in 3 days.
There is no way to get around Christ's directed meaning.
@sonyplaystation321 No no, please don't level this line at me. Christ taught through reason and example as well as indicating the inspirational role of the Holy Spirit.
Were reason not practically useful, why would Christ spend so long teaching people directly and through parables?
When you must begin to invoke an agent such as the Holy Spirit to 'escape' from the obvious meaning of Christ's words, you are placing a barrier between His word and your ear.
@sonyplaystation321 You're comment removal is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Closing off your faculties of logic and reason is simply burying your talents and not investing them.
Christ invites you to come to Him in all possible ways, and we should expect as much.
Debate is not a weakness, nor do I seek the last word. It is one path to discovering truth! Embrace it.
Anything has to be better than finding spurious reasons why Peter, 'the rock' is not 'the rock.'
@sonyplaystation321 Well you are setting forth an assertion that you need to defend. If the 'knowledge' of Jesus was the rock the one, true Church is built on, then why doesn't Christ say that?
So far I have presented simple, scripture based arguments.
Ask yourself this question: If you, and your protestant movement desperately did not want Peter to be the 'rock' would you, honestly, give any other interpretation to the appropriate passage?
@sonyplaystation321 Goodness, there really is no need to rant! Stay cool and make your points, anger or righteous zeal in too strong a measure do no one any favours.
However, you really are hunting down an answer to the question which is more complex that required. The simplest explanation is that Christ means Peter, both the man and his faith. There is no other reasonable explanation for beginning the statement, 'Thou art Peter.' There is no need to re-name the man if only the faith counts.
@sonyplaystation321 History is marked by the presence of great Christian philosophers such as Aquinus and Augustine who approached their Christianity with both faith AND reason. One is not exclusive of the other, in fact they are complimentary. One without the other is pointless.
I don't need to cross reference, you still haven't given any cause to reasonably doubt that Peter was being singled out for eminence, 'Thou art Peter ...' Not 'Thou hast great faith Peter ..' It's very clear.
@sonyplaystation321 You actually sound kinda manic dude. Faith in Christ should bring you peace and joy in your heart, not this incredible zealotry. Remember the zealots were wrong, Christ showed a better way.
Further to say it's 'incredible' Christ would build his church on a mere 'man' is bizarre. Christ was both fully human and fully God. As the keystone, he was, and is both man and God!
Christ taught with words, to engage the mind, not just the soul. 'Thou .. art ... Rock.'
@sonyplaystation321 Seeing as the primacy of Peter was established incredibly. The early Church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria were in no doubt as to his pre-eminence. Paul only refers to Peter as Cephas, which if Christ's 'renaming' of Simon Peter was not significant is bizarre, as his name is Simon technically.
Clement in 95 was directing the affairs of the church as a successor of Peter, where is his authority if Peter is not pre-eminent?
@sonyplaystation321 Your zealous attitude, that adjective derives directly! Protestant philosophy actually does not teach that you are re-created or in any sense transformed. Remember you are the pile of cow-dung that Christ over covers as pristine snow. Underneath nothing has changed.
Catholicism ie the original Church (and that's just good history), teaches the Word transforms what is inside a man.
Your philosophy is simply illogical, unjust and therefore irrational.
@sonyplaystation321 Then Luther must have it wrong too, seeing as he wrote that a Christian is 'cow dung covered with snow.' There's no inner transformation there. You make the arguments of rejection furnished to you by the protestant movement, so you cannot escape their fundamental basis!
You simply want to have your cake and eat it. 'I'm justified' you cry, my weak sinful flesh doesn't count! What nonsense, your actions matter, your soul is responsible for your acts.
@sonyplaystation321 Really man, you need to calm down. This semi raving approach to debate will win no more friends for Christ, I can assure you of that.
1) Your philosophy wants to have it both ways. You wish Christ to make you capable of 'good' works and you want your 'naturally' sinful flesh automatically pardoned for its sins. That violates justice AND logic.
2) Christ calls Peter 'rock' and then refers specifically to 'this' rock. Peter is THE rock in question. It's really very simple.
@sonyplaystation321 Let me respond to one of your legion comments for once. I have, and continue to, have far more reasoned, and logical arguments with non believers than your philosophy could possibly allow.
You simply answer back with: You can't understand, the Holy Spirit isn't showing you a better way than your pesky logic!
That's no answer.
If 'God' exists, God's existance is reasonable. Claiming one can't speak logically of God, and by extension scripture, is just a dead end.
@sonyplaystation321 That's an incredible statement. Christ is rational. People were amazed by his teaching, even those who did not believe! The whole universe is testimony to God. Not an irrational testimony but one which reflects His perfection of both mind and action. Jesus explained more than one parable, demonstrating that His teaching had a perfectly reasonable meaning, not one which required divine inspiration.
You will never persuade any non believer with your non-sense arguments.
@sonyplaystation321 You believe in persuasion by love and presumably divine inspiration as exclusive to all other things. I believe similarly, that by example, love and the intercesion of God, the case may be compellingly made. However I also believe reason is an invaluable tool, and clearly so did Christ. We follow His example.
Are you actually suggesting the apostles failed to understand Christ? Why should we believe anything they write then?!
@sonyplaystation321 Whilst you make your messages vanish, the fact that you think that Paul > everyone else, including actual eye witnesses and companions (including the beloved disciple) in terms of credibility is astonishing. That's simply cherry picking. Paul is deeply flawed. For one he is at odds with Christ on the position of women in the world. Paul is inspirational, no doubt, but I prefer to take my lead from Christ and those he gave a personal mandate to, whilst on Earth.
@sonyplaystation321 No, let me correct you. Paul said that Christ singled him out as 'a' chosen instrument, not 'the' chosen instrument. All the apostles are such, except, other than Paul, they were given their mandates in a historically recorded setting.
John, is the beloved disciple, again that is the earliest Church tradition (ie people within reach of witnesses, first or second hand.)
Paul requires Peter's endorsement for his teachings to be accepted as 'not false.'
@sonyplaystation321 You aren't understanding infallibility. It is only claimed when the Pope speaks of doctrine and ex cathedra, that is, to the whole Church. Infallibility is not extended to his acts or words/thoughts outside of this setting.
No, you don't. You did not recieve the specific mission given to the Apostles. Acts 1:15, when Matthias is ordained to the office lost by Judas illustrates their specific understanding of their specific mission.
@sonyplaystation321 No, they, themselves, or any person, past or present, is nothing. They are made in the image of God, but require the grace of God to be justified and reconciled to Him. The only important test, is whether what they say is in line with what Christ said. Where scripture itself disagrees with Christ, it itself is wrong.
Jesus gave the Apostles, and Peter in particular, a special mandate and authority. They understood it so, and Christ did not say otherwise to them.
@sonyplaystation321 You aren't in the spirit realm yet? What is this spirit realm you just invented? o.O
You are in no way Christ's equal, that's an incredible statement. Christ invites you to come to the wedding feast, but you are no more honoured than the next guest, and you are still subject to Christ's authority!
Quite plainly some of the Hebrew Scripture is primitive and immoral. Hence the need for Christ's new covenant. Personally I'm pleased not to have to stone my daughter.
@sonyplaystation321 No, the keys are given, not to literally every single person. No interpretation of Christ's words allows for that. The power is certainly given to the Church, but made manifest in the persons of the apostles and their successors. It is given first, to Peter, specifically. Do you really think Christ's actions were accidental?
Christ gives you, personally, no authority over Satan, the authority is ALL God's.
@sonyplaystation321 You are confusing yourself with a Muslim. Christians do not believe that Scripture is directly dictated by God. They believe it is Inspired by God. This is really very different. An artist may be inspired by a beautiful woman. However, no matter how truthful his work, it will never perfectly capture the likeness.
Similarly people ideas, words and acts in Scripture are in no way guaranteed against error, all EXCEPT Christ.
@sonyplaystation321 My point re: Paul's position on women, is that it is irrelevant whether he rebukes Peter or not. This act does not make him Peter's superior in Spiritual authority. Peter is still the person looked to by the earliest Church fathers as the seat of authority, not Paul. Peter's endorsement is still required for Paul's teachings not to be viewed with suspicion. It was not Peter, for example who was run out of town by people angry for his blood.
@sonyplaystation321 Your position on Paul 'being chased by the Devil' is self serving fantasy. The real issue was Paul was just really good at annoying people to the point they wanted to kill him. Peter and the other apostles managed to effect their Christ given messages without such drastic reactions.
The Jews weren't listening to Paul, but they did listen to Peter.
@sonyplaystation321 I will try, once more to give you a reasonable answer. No-one is implying that the universe is an essentially just place. However God does lay claim to being all just and all merciful. God is incapable, by his own admission, of being injust. Consequently God cannot be expected to give you cart-blance to be as sinful as you like simply because you claim to love Christ.
Christ's sacrifice was made possible by the inhumanity of man, not God.
@sonyplaystation321 Your casual acceptance of your failure and your unjustified self assurance that God has already justified you, is plainly illogical. It is not just. God does not say: Oh dear, never mind, of course you will sin, don't worry about it, you're justifed, cause I said so! So there!
You may hate sin, but you do nothing to try to change yourself. There is no transformation. You believe with your mind, not with your body and soul.
@sonyplaystation321 Would you care to review your past statements and honestly state you are not guilty of some very pre-emptive judgement? I think not.
I do not make statements of my own worth. I make judgements with regards to the quality of argument and reason. They are the fruits of mind, but not the mind itself.
We cannot escape the fact that claiming to be justified by faith alone is simply a 'get out of jail free' card. Catholics, fortunately, have a more rational, original belief.
Christ only can satisfy God in Atonement, not the Church The Church is not apeassed in Atonement only God..The Church is the benefactor not any means for satisfaction. The Nature Of God can only be satisfied by the Nature of God Himself for Justice done and righteousness imputed. What is at stake here is the free will issue Can man by will or works of body flesh satisfy God's Nature by means man does.? God is Spirit and can only be satisfied by Spirit in Virtue Perfect to His Nature.!
@IH8fanboys You are quite mistaken. 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church.' Literally, and explicitly Peter is the rock Christ chose. That is the one, true Church. Any other reading of John requires you to make a needlessly complex interpretation. Christ is clear both then and at the last supper that this literally is His Body and Blood.
Further you live a symbolic relationship with the love of Christ, we participate directly in His sacrifice.
@MrWildbill20056 Chime. Just wondering if Christ is made the literal body and blood in communion, does that not sacrifice Christ again through trans-substanation?
@Music4urGlory Ah a fair question. However the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is not that it is 'another' sacrifice, but rather a representation of the same sacrifice.
It is important to note that at no point in the process is a human representation made and then divided. The Body and Blood, concecrated separately are as they were from the last supper. The sacrifice is made, but it continues to be real and present.
@MrWildbill20056 Ok thanks. I'm a Protestant and I just wanted to know about how the Catholic church does business with God. Btw, is it necessary to confess to a priest or can I still confess to God only? Also what's the deal with Mary being a virgin? Didn't she have other sons through Joseph, i.e.. James, Thomas, Andrew, etc.
@Music4urGlory You're welcome. Ok to answer your next questions:
1) It is necessary to go to confession if you have committed a mortal sin, otherwise personal acts of contrition are considered sufficient.
2) I think you are referring to the 'brethren' ie James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. However we have no cause to believe they were Christ's biological siblings. Take Acts 1:14-15, if all of those 'brothers' are literally his genetic siblings there must be around 80 of them. Unlikely I think.
@MrWildbill20056 Wow ok. I got more questions if you don't mind:
Why are there mortal sins and venial sins? I know what they are, but isn't sin in the eyes of God still sin?
Regarding Jesus' siblings, yes I am mistaken, I do refer to the brethren mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 15:40, and Galatians 1:19. I don't read that Acts 1:14-15 states that all the men in the room with Mary were all brothers in the genetic sense. I reason that it only refers to the brethren previously specified.
Justice requires that the answer to the sin/crime be apt and proportionate. It would be a failure of justice to execute someone for stealing a pen. We can expect no failures from God.
In this light mortal sins are those grave acts ie 'murder' which, knowingly perpetrated mortally harm the soul and one's relationship to God.
Consider the parent dealing with a child, shall he/she react similarly to a child guilty of murder than to another who hit their friend?
@MrWildbill20056 Yes, I agree that in human terms justice for crime/sin is proportional. But regarding God and man, the Bible tells us that all have sinned, and that all deserve punishment in hell, because of our rebellion against God. Thus, in this way all sin is still counted as sin, for the wages of sin is death. Doesn't matter what sin it is. Between other people, we are to deal proportionally in justice.
@Music4urGlory The problem with Acts, is that if they aren't all his 'brethren' then who are all the un-named strangers in that room?
However the conclusive proof that these are not his Uterine brothers comes by specifically identifying at least two as being sons of another. We can be sure James is James the less, son of Alpheus and Mary of Clopas. Kin relationship to Christ is certainly possible, but specific brotherhood is impossible.
The 'brethren' thus cannot refer to uterine siblings.
@MrWildbill20056 Hmmm... ok. Consider Matthew 12:46-50, here you see Jesus teaching and whilst he was teaching someone tells Him that his mother and brothers were present. But then He switches the earthly emphasis on brothers and his mother to a spiritual meaning. It is clear from this that his family were present, but Jesus states that his spiritual family was there as well. I think the Scripture plainly supports this here.
@Music4urGlory Whilst the original Gospel texts were certainly set down in Greek, there is no escaping that the oral traditions and no doubt earlier source texts would have been set down in Aramaic. It is a fact that there was no word for 'cousin' in this language. Given the broad kinship terms associated with, say, 'aha': brother, step brother, blood brother, cousin, kinsman etc, it would be no surprise if this was translated as 'Adelphos.'
Addressing the Acts passage, if we cross referenced it back to Matthew 13:54-58, we can see even the town of Nazareth rejected Jesus and they labelled Him as the carpenter's son along with His mother Mary, and His brothers and sisters. With the element of the township involved, I cannot infer that Jesus' family is spiritual only in this passage, and can only cite direct blood linkage, meaning Mary conceived children with Joseph.
@Music4urGlory With all due respect that's really making a leap of inspiration. Having established that the terms used (we must never forget that the English translation is at least two steps away from the original language used) can only reliably indicate, 'kinsmen,' we have no trouble with this. They may well have been cousins (of whatever distance) and thus geographically co-located.
Interestingly at no time are any of these 'brethren' identified as sons of either Mary or Joseph.
@IH8fanboys No, you aren't understanding. The mass, as the crowning glory, of Catholic rites has literally been the living Scripture. The love of Christ, his life, death and resurrection are literally relived every single time Mass is celebrated. Catholics not only read, they literally live Scripture. Protestantism reduces everything in Scripture to symbolism in the modern age. We are the one unbroken line from Peter, we are the Church built on 'the Rock.'
No one would watch his show now a days because this unbiased host can't keep his mouth shut and just host. We have many debates done one many places and I am pretty sure it cost them money yet the host is unbiased! John Ankerberg tries to act like he knows it all but knows he wouldn't stand a chance. I'd like to see him debate Robert Sungenis
THANK YOU LORD JESUS FOR BEING MY INSPIRATION AND HOLY SPIRIT FOR IMPARTING THE TRUTH OF YOUR WORD. GREAT INTERVIEW AS USUAL MR. ANKERBERG, LET US CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THOSE IN SPIRITUAL DARKNESS THAT THEY MAY FIND THE TRUTH IN JESUS CHRIST AND HIM ALONE.
This would've been a good and productive discussion if the host wasn't so skewed. Just allow the man to talk, and stop interrupting him. I'm a Protestant btw, but I am interested in knowing why people believe what they believe. I think sometimes we condemn certain practices without knowing the reasons why they do what they do.
@jebeja Ì'm sorry, no. As opposed to Protestant practices, Catholic rites are liturgical. Literally, Catholics puts scripture into action, into its proper context. Any other interpretation simply has to ignore the power to loose or bind matters on Earth and Heaven as given to the Apostles by Christ.
Dodgy hair host dude is so hung up on format, when that is TOTALLY irrelevant. Arguing that Christ did not give explicit authority is simply ignorant.
The atonement covers all my sin, past, present, future.Confession agrees with God about what sin is in my life. But the blood made effective was at the cross, to wash all the elects sin away.It is not a retro active atonement except to wash sins of old testament saints.In present all elect sin is atoned. Why ? because Christ has satisfied God.The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.Making way to the Holy of Holies.The way can never be closed for those atoned for sin.
i do feel sorry 4 the priest thoe he seems like a lovely guy. but we gota go by truth people. k follow the bible not the priest. God bless. all have sinned against a holy God and hes angry ie lied,stole,blasphemed,hatred,lust ect ect repent turn from sin and trust in christs finished work on the cross alone and you will be saved :)
i confess my sins to God. he forgives me (1 jhon 1:9) i do not need a catholic high priest to be my mediator of forgiveness. i need the true high priest, Jesus, who alone is my mediator (1 timothy 2:5) he has all authority in heaven and earth (matthew 28:18) to forgive my sins and intercede for me. he finished the work on the cross (jhon 19:30) so that i dont need to perform any work in order to gain, maintain, or regain my salvation. catholic's are teaching faulse doctrine!!!!!!!
Fr. Pacwa, truly has the patience of a Saint! He is also brilliant! I'll never get how anyone can be so proud to protest (be a protestant) against the Church that Christ himself founded on the "Rock" our first Pope Peter. They seem to forget that around 1500 years there was only one Church.
I am a Christian of a different denomination than Catholicism, and I thought everyone ganging up on Father Pacwa was not Christian. It reminds me of the Sanhedrin attacking Stephen for his teaching about Christ as the Son of God.
I love how the protestant gets to answer his questions, and make statements thoroughly,, but the father, ALWAYS gets interrupted... that seems REAL fair. *rolls eyes*
@johnpaul0501 I saw the debate between the United Pentecostal Church and them, and the host train of thought is, because I pay 50K for every 30 minutes, I can speak my views. What a load of crap. He wants to host, host and stay quiet. Hence, why every debate is one sided and a gang-up.
Thank Father Pacwa.... You are such a good example to what it is like to become like Christ... I AM Inspired to change my wicked ways and follow the Lord....
the host need to let the priest speak, i am not a catholic but i also respect my brothers in the faith. this is not a bashing party but a collaboration and a chance to understand the Word of God better.
fr mitch is not one to mess w/ ankerburg is like liberal gets his own people to attack keep protesting catholics have history tradition and yes we had all papers from bible the same you read except protastants changed bible king james to suit the king fucking loonatics jesus told peter you are the rock we catholics can prove spirit bloodline from bishop of rome all the way to peter grow up and stop changing your bible where does it say in bible to drink grape fruit juice is manmade
he should be debating the priest, not giving leeway for the protestant.
kubrox91 1 day ago in playlist CATHOLIC DEBATE
Matt 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
nepistepa 1 month ago
MATT 7 &:22-23On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of ...
2 THINGS,first did Jesus know who they were? Absolutely,but He never loved them,since KNOW means an intimate love.2nd,Notice what they were saying,"didt we or I",these people R of the Arminian stripe,they believed they did something 4 salvation.
CBALLEN 1 month ago
The Bible never records Peter being in Rome.The only apostle that was sent to the Gentiles of Rome was Paul,Peter was never the first Pope and if he could he'd tell us so.
CBALLEN 1 month ago
And it shall be when one is guilty in sin he shall he shall confess he has sinned AND he bring his trespass offering to the lord from the flock a LAMB (Jesus is the lamb) as a sin offering and the PRIEST shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. Leviticus 5:5-6
catholicischristian 1 month ago
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
mamainmancj 2 months ago
the host should be neutral and challenge both sides!
Lottechoco 3 months ago 6
@Lottechoco
Exactly and that's what I've never liked about the Ankerberg show is that he'll pick and choose what size he is on in various debates when he NEEDS to be neutral. If you cant stop yourself from getting involved then DONT hold the debate in the first place.
tripleflip7 1 month ago
@tripleflip7 True, it does seem like it's two against one.
bodom71 3 weeks ago
@IH8fanboys What Catholics understand by the Eucharist is that the same sacrifice of Christ is made real and present. Thus no new age of Christianity must look back to 'imagine' the act of sacrifice, it is made real and present for them directly. It is not limited in time or space, it is a perpetual act.
I reiterate, Catholics alone directly employ the gospels daily in our practices. Rather than being the talk of times past, Catholics live the liturgy over and over again.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@IH8fanboys Apologies for late reply, I was side tracked.
Jesus means directly that he is 'the gate' just as he means directly that Peter is 'the rock.' The metaphors are true, though obviously they employ imagery.
Further Christ was making a direct statement re: the Temple. In referring to Himself, he directly meant that he would be destroyed and raised up again in 3 days.
There is no way to get around Christ's directed meaning.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 No no, please don't level this line at me. Christ taught through reason and example as well as indicating the inspirational role of the Holy Spirit.
Were reason not practically useful, why would Christ spend so long teaching people directly and through parables?
When you must begin to invoke an agent such as the Holy Spirit to 'escape' from the obvious meaning of Christ's words, you are placing a barrier between His word and your ear.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 You're comment removal is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Closing off your faculties of logic and reason is simply burying your talents and not investing them.
Christ invites you to come to Him in all possible ways, and we should expect as much.
Debate is not a weakness, nor do I seek the last word. It is one path to discovering truth! Embrace it.
Anything has to be better than finding spurious reasons why Peter, 'the rock' is not 'the rock.'
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Well you are setting forth an assertion that you need to defend. If the 'knowledge' of Jesus was the rock the one, true Church is built on, then why doesn't Christ say that?
So far I have presented simple, scripture based arguments.
Ask yourself this question: If you, and your protestant movement desperately did not want Peter to be the 'rock' would you, honestly, give any other interpretation to the appropriate passage?
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Goodness, there really is no need to rant! Stay cool and make your points, anger or righteous zeal in too strong a measure do no one any favours.
However, you really are hunting down an answer to the question which is more complex that required. The simplest explanation is that Christ means Peter, both the man and his faith. There is no other reasonable explanation for beginning the statement, 'Thou art Peter.' There is no need to re-name the man if only the faith counts.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 History is marked by the presence of great Christian philosophers such as Aquinus and Augustine who approached their Christianity with both faith AND reason. One is not exclusive of the other, in fact they are complimentary. One without the other is pointless.
I don't need to cross reference, you still haven't given any cause to reasonably doubt that Peter was being singled out for eminence, 'Thou art Peter ...' Not 'Thou hast great faith Peter ..' It's very clear.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 You actually sound kinda manic dude. Faith in Christ should bring you peace and joy in your heart, not this incredible zealotry. Remember the zealots were wrong, Christ showed a better way.
Further to say it's 'incredible' Christ would build his church on a mere 'man' is bizarre. Christ was both fully human and fully God. As the keystone, he was, and is both man and God!
Christ taught with words, to engage the mind, not just the soul. 'Thou .. art ... Rock.'
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Seeing as the primacy of Peter was established incredibly. The early Church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria were in no doubt as to his pre-eminence. Paul only refers to Peter as Cephas, which if Christ's 'renaming' of Simon Peter was not significant is bizarre, as his name is Simon technically.
Clement in 95 was directing the affairs of the church as a successor of Peter, where is his authority if Peter is not pre-eminent?
It's very clear that Peter is THE rock.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Your zealous attitude, that adjective derives directly! Protestant philosophy actually does not teach that you are re-created or in any sense transformed. Remember you are the pile of cow-dung that Christ over covers as pristine snow. Underneath nothing has changed.
Catholicism ie the original Church (and that's just good history), teaches the Word transforms what is inside a man.
Your philosophy is simply illogical, unjust and therefore irrational.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Then Luther must have it wrong too, seeing as he wrote that a Christian is 'cow dung covered with snow.' There's no inner transformation there. You make the arguments of rejection furnished to you by the protestant movement, so you cannot escape their fundamental basis!
You simply want to have your cake and eat it. 'I'm justified' you cry, my weak sinful flesh doesn't count! What nonsense, your actions matter, your soul is responsible for your acts.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Really man, you need to calm down. This semi raving approach to debate will win no more friends for Christ, I can assure you of that.
1) Your philosophy wants to have it both ways. You wish Christ to make you capable of 'good' works and you want your 'naturally' sinful flesh automatically pardoned for its sins. That violates justice AND logic.
2) Christ calls Peter 'rock' and then refers specifically to 'this' rock. Peter is THE rock in question. It's really very simple.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Let me respond to one of your legion comments for once. I have, and continue to, have far more reasoned, and logical arguments with non believers than your philosophy could possibly allow.
You simply answer back with: You can't understand, the Holy Spirit isn't showing you a better way than your pesky logic!
That's no answer.
If 'God' exists, God's existance is reasonable. Claiming one can't speak logically of God, and by extension scripture, is just a dead end.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 That's an incredible statement. Christ is rational. People were amazed by his teaching, even those who did not believe! The whole universe is testimony to God. Not an irrational testimony but one which reflects His perfection of both mind and action. Jesus explained more than one parable, demonstrating that His teaching had a perfectly reasonable meaning, not one which required divine inspiration.
You will never persuade any non believer with your non-sense arguments.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 You believe in persuasion by love and presumably divine inspiration as exclusive to all other things. I believe similarly, that by example, love and the intercesion of God, the case may be compellingly made. However I also believe reason is an invaluable tool, and clearly so did Christ. We follow His example.
Are you actually suggesting the apostles failed to understand Christ? Why should we believe anything they write then?!
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Whilst you make your messages vanish, the fact that you think that Paul > everyone else, including actual eye witnesses and companions (including the beloved disciple) in terms of credibility is astonishing. That's simply cherry picking. Paul is deeply flawed. For one he is at odds with Christ on the position of women in the world. Paul is inspirational, no doubt, but I prefer to take my lead from Christ and those he gave a personal mandate to, whilst on Earth.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 No, let me correct you. Paul said that Christ singled him out as 'a' chosen instrument, not 'the' chosen instrument. All the apostles are such, except, other than Paul, they were given their mandates in a historically recorded setting.
John, is the beloved disciple, again that is the earliest Church tradition (ie people within reach of witnesses, first or second hand.)
Paul requires Peter's endorsement for his teachings to be accepted as 'not false.'
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Christ rebuked Peter, it's very clear that Peter is not perfect. Then again, neither is Paul.
Paul, as I said, is fundamentally at odds with Christ's position on women's place in the world for example.
It is irrelevant whether Paul rebukes Peter, or not, no one claimed, he as a man, nor any Pope following him, to be infallible.
Further, as I said, Paul requires the endorsement of Peter, for his teachings to be unanimously accepted. Peter requires no such sanction.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 You aren't understanding infallibility. It is only claimed when the Pope speaks of doctrine and ex cathedra, that is, to the whole Church. Infallibility is not extended to his acts or words/thoughts outside of this setting.
No, you don't. You did not recieve the specific mission given to the Apostles. Acts 1:15, when Matthias is ordained to the office lost by Judas illustrates their specific understanding of their specific mission.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 No, they, themselves, or any person, past or present, is nothing. They are made in the image of God, but require the grace of God to be justified and reconciled to Him. The only important test, is whether what they say is in line with what Christ said. Where scripture itself disagrees with Christ, it itself is wrong.
Jesus gave the Apostles, and Peter in particular, a special mandate and authority. They understood it so, and Christ did not say otherwise to them.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 You aren't in the spirit realm yet? What is this spirit realm you just invented? o.O
You are in no way Christ's equal, that's an incredible statement. Christ invites you to come to the wedding feast, but you are no more honoured than the next guest, and you are still subject to Christ's authority!
Quite plainly some of the Hebrew Scripture is primitive and immoral. Hence the need for Christ's new covenant. Personally I'm pleased not to have to stone my daughter.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 No, the keys are given, not to literally every single person. No interpretation of Christ's words allows for that. The power is certainly given to the Church, but made manifest in the persons of the apostles and their successors. It is given first, to Peter, specifically. Do you really think Christ's actions were accidental?
Christ gives you, personally, no authority over Satan, the authority is ALL God's.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 The constant removal of comments is tedious. I give up with you and your literally un-reasonable argumentation.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 You are confusing yourself with a Muslim. Christians do not believe that Scripture is directly dictated by God. They believe it is Inspired by God. This is really very different. An artist may be inspired by a beautiful woman. However, no matter how truthful his work, it will never perfectly capture the likeness.
Similarly people ideas, words and acts in Scripture are in no way guaranteed against error, all EXCEPT Christ.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 My point re: Paul's position on women, is that it is irrelevant whether he rebukes Peter or not. This act does not make him Peter's superior in Spiritual authority. Peter is still the person looked to by the earliest Church fathers as the seat of authority, not Paul. Peter's endorsement is still required for Paul's teachings not to be viewed with suspicion. It was not Peter, for example who was run out of town by people angry for his blood.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Your position on Paul 'being chased by the Devil' is self serving fantasy. The real issue was Paul was just really good at annoying people to the point they wanted to kill him. Peter and the other apostles managed to effect their Christ given messages without such drastic reactions.
The Jews weren't listening to Paul, but they did listen to Peter.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 I will try, once more to give you a reasonable answer. No-one is implying that the universe is an essentially just place. However God does lay claim to being all just and all merciful. God is incapable, by his own admission, of being injust. Consequently God cannot be expected to give you cart-blance to be as sinful as you like simply because you claim to love Christ.
Christ's sacrifice was made possible by the inhumanity of man, not God.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Your casual acceptance of your failure and your unjustified self assurance that God has already justified you, is plainly illogical. It is not just. God does not say: Oh dear, never mind, of course you will sin, don't worry about it, you're justifed, cause I said so! So there!
You may hate sin, but you do nothing to try to change yourself. There is no transformation. You believe with your mind, not with your body and soul.
You believe in an irrational God, not me thanks.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
@sonyplaystation321 Would you care to review your past statements and honestly state you are not guilty of some very pre-emptive judgement? I think not.
I do not make statements of my own worth. I make judgements with regards to the quality of argument and reason. They are the fruits of mind, but not the mind itself.
We cannot escape the fact that claiming to be justified by faith alone is simply a 'get out of jail free' card. Catholics, fortunately, have a more rational, original belief.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Comment removed
sonyplaystation321 3 months ago
Christ only can satisfy God in Atonement, not the Church The Church is not apeassed in Atonement only God..The Church is the benefactor not any means for satisfaction. The Nature Of God can only be satisfied by the Nature of God Himself for Justice done and righteousness imputed. What is at stake here is the free will issue Can man by will or works of body flesh satisfy God's Nature by means man does.? God is Spirit and can only be satisfied by Spirit in Virtue Perfect to His Nature.!
polopowers1 4 months ago
@IH8fanboys You are quite mistaken. 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church.' Literally, and explicitly Peter is the rock Christ chose. That is the one, true Church. Any other reading of John requires you to make a needlessly complex interpretation. Christ is clear both then and at the last supper that this literally is His Body and Blood.
Further you live a symbolic relationship with the love of Christ, we participate directly in His sacrifice.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Chime. Just wondering if Christ is made the literal body and blood in communion, does that not sacrifice Christ again through trans-substanation?
Music4urGlory 4 months ago
@Music4urGlory Ah a fair question. However the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is not that it is 'another' sacrifice, but rather a representation of the same sacrifice.
It is important to note that at no point in the process is a human representation made and then divided. The Body and Blood, concecrated separately are as they were from the last supper. The sacrifice is made, but it continues to be real and present.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Ok thanks. I'm a Protestant and I just wanted to know about how the Catholic church does business with God. Btw, is it necessary to confess to a priest or can I still confess to God only? Also what's the deal with Mary being a virgin? Didn't she have other sons through Joseph, i.e.. James, Thomas, Andrew, etc.
Music4urGlory 4 months ago
@Music4urGlory You're welcome. Ok to answer your next questions:
1) It is necessary to go to confession if you have committed a mortal sin, otherwise personal acts of contrition are considered sufficient.
2) I think you are referring to the 'brethren' ie James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. However we have no cause to believe they were Christ's biological siblings. Take Acts 1:14-15, if all of those 'brothers' are literally his genetic siblings there must be around 80 of them. Unlikely I think.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Wow ok. I got more questions if you don't mind:
Why are there mortal sins and venial sins? I know what they are, but isn't sin in the eyes of God still sin?
Regarding Jesus' siblings, yes I am mistaken, I do refer to the brethren mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 15:40, and Galatians 1:19. I don't read that Acts 1:14-15 states that all the men in the room with Mary were all brothers in the genetic sense. I reason that it only refers to the brethren previously specified.
Music4urGlory 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@Music4urGlory Quite alright.
Justice requires that the answer to the sin/crime be apt and proportionate. It would be a failure of justice to execute someone for stealing a pen. We can expect no failures from God.
In this light mortal sins are those grave acts ie 'murder' which, knowingly perpetrated mortally harm the soul and one's relationship to God.
Consider the parent dealing with a child, shall he/she react similarly to a child guilty of murder than to another who hit their friend?
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Yes, I agree that in human terms justice for crime/sin is proportional. But regarding God and man, the Bible tells us that all have sinned, and that all deserve punishment in hell, because of our rebellion against God. Thus, in this way all sin is still counted as sin, for the wages of sin is death. Doesn't matter what sin it is. Between other people, we are to deal proportionally in justice.
Music4urGlory 4 months ago
@Music4urGlory The problem with Acts, is that if they aren't all his 'brethren' then who are all the un-named strangers in that room?
However the conclusive proof that these are not his Uterine brothers comes by specifically identifying at least two as being sons of another. We can be sure James is James the less, son of Alpheus and Mary of Clopas. Kin relationship to Christ is certainly possible, but specific brotherhood is impossible.
The 'brethren' thus cannot refer to uterine siblings.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Hmmm... ok. Consider Matthew 12:46-50, here you see Jesus teaching and whilst he was teaching someone tells Him that his mother and brothers were present. But then He switches the earthly emphasis on brothers and his mother to a spiritual meaning. It is clear from this that his family were present, but Jesus states that his spiritual family was there as well. I think the Scripture plainly supports this here.
Music4urGlory 4 months ago
@Music4urGlory Whilst the original Gospel texts were certainly set down in Greek, there is no escaping that the oral traditions and no doubt earlier source texts would have been set down in Aramaic. It is a fact that there was no word for 'cousin' in this language. Given the broad kinship terms associated with, say, 'aha': brother, step brother, blood brother, cousin, kinsman etc, it would be no surprise if this was translated as 'Adelphos.'
Certainly Jesus refers to kin, but not brothers.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
Addressing the Acts passage, if we cross referenced it back to Matthew 13:54-58, we can see even the town of Nazareth rejected Jesus and they labelled Him as the carpenter's son along with His mother Mary, and His brothers and sisters. With the element of the township involved, I cannot infer that Jesus' family is spiritual only in this passage, and can only cite direct blood linkage, meaning Mary conceived children with Joseph.
Music4urGlory 4 months ago
@Music4urGlory With all due respect that's really making a leap of inspiration. Having established that the terms used (we must never forget that the English translation is at least two steps away from the original language used) can only reliably indicate, 'kinsmen,' we have no trouble with this. They may well have been cousins (of whatever distance) and thus geographically co-located.
Interestingly at no time are any of these 'brethren' identified as sons of either Mary or Joseph.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
@IH8fanboys No, you aren't understanding. The mass, as the crowning glory, of Catholic rites has literally been the living Scripture. The love of Christ, his life, death and resurrection are literally relived every single time Mass is celebrated. Catholics not only read, they literally live Scripture. Protestantism reduces everything in Scripture to symbolism in the modern age. We are the one unbroken line from Peter, we are the Church built on 'the Rock.'
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
Love Father Pacwa
AK8591 4 months ago
Brilliant and authoritative, Father Mitch.
TheChurchAuthentic 4 months ago
No one would watch his show now a days because this unbiased host can't keep his mouth shut and just host. We have many debates done one many places and I am pretty sure it cost them money yet the host is unbiased! John Ankerberg tries to act like he knows it all but knows he wouldn't stand a chance. I'd like to see him debate Robert Sungenis
sgal88 4 months ago
THANK YOU LORD JESUS FOR BEING MY INSPIRATION AND HOLY SPIRIT FOR IMPARTING THE TRUTH OF YOUR WORD. GREAT INTERVIEW AS USUAL MR. ANKERBERG, LET US CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THOSE IN SPIRITUAL DARKNESS THAT THEY MAY FIND THE TRUTH IN JESUS CHRIST AND HIM ALONE.
jebeja 5 months ago
This would've been a good and productive discussion if the host wasn't so skewed. Just allow the man to talk, and stop interrupting him. I'm a Protestant btw, but I am interested in knowing why people believe what they believe. I think sometimes we condemn certain practices without knowing the reasons why they do what they do.
hlpsg 5 months ago
Very Convincing for the Catholic Church
MrVharkin 5 months ago
@MrVharkin, "Very convincing for the Catholic Church", Ah NOT really as the Priest is taking scripture verses out of context.
jebeja 5 months ago
@jebeja Ì'm sorry, no. As opposed to Protestant practices, Catholic rites are liturgical. Literally, Catholics puts scripture into action, into its proper context. Any other interpretation simply has to ignore the power to loose or bind matters on Earth and Heaven as given to the Apostles by Christ.
Dodgy hair host dude is so hung up on format, when that is TOTALLY irrelevant. Arguing that Christ did not give explicit authority is simply ignorant.
MrWildbill20056 4 months ago
The atonement covers all my sin, past, present, future.Confession agrees with God about what sin is in my life. But the blood made effective was at the cross, to wash all the elects sin away.It is not a retro active atonement except to wash sins of old testament saints.In present all elect sin is atoned. Why ? because Christ has satisfied God.The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.Making way to the Holy of Holies.The way can never be closed for those atoned for sin.
polopowers1 5 months ago
i do feel sorry 4 the priest thoe he seems like a lovely guy. but we gota go by truth people. k follow the bible not the priest. God bless. all have sinned against a holy God and hes angry ie lied,stole,blasphemed,hatred,lust ect ect repent turn from sin and trust in christs finished work on the cross alone and you will be saved :)
mamainmancj 6 months ago
i confess my sins to God. he forgives me (1 jhon 1:9) i do not need a catholic high priest to be my mediator of forgiveness. i need the true high priest, Jesus, who alone is my mediator (1 timothy 2:5) he has all authority in heaven and earth (matthew 28:18) to forgive my sins and intercede for me. he finished the work on the cross (jhon 19:30) so that i dont need to perform any work in order to gain, maintain, or regain my salvation. catholic's are teaching faulse doctrine!!!!!!!
mamainmancj 6 months ago
not once did this catholic give reference to scripture, he keeps on about theology.... not scripture...
douqi333e 6 months ago in playlist Christian Sects
Fr. Pacwa, truly has the patience of a Saint! He is also brilliant! I'll never get how anyone can be so proud to protest (be a protestant) against the Church that Christ himself founded on the "Rock" our first Pope Peter. They seem to forget that around 1500 years there was only one Church.
rcarabelas 6 months ago
I'm sorry but this is not fair. It's not even a debate. The host is obviously a Protestant.
BroJeetKune 6 months ago
omg shut up already john ankerberg sheesh let the man speak
GUN644 7 months ago in playlist favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a Christian of a different denomination than Catholicism, and I thought everyone ganging up on Father Pacwa was not Christian. It reminds me of the Sanhedrin attacking Stephen for his teaching about Christ as the Son of God.
daricsoldar 7 months ago
Comment removed
daricsoldar 7 months ago
Let the bloody CATHOLIC guy SPEAK without someone squeezing a word in every 3 seconds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mtpj9654 8 months ago
@mtpj9654 Amen! this is biased! Martin simply quotes and finds any little discrepancy in the bible to argue. quite disturbing
solisdemexico 8 months ago
blind followers. open up your mind.
TSAX 8 months ago
I love how the protestant gets to answer his questions, and make statements thoroughly,, but the father, ALWAYS gets interrupted... that seems REAL fair. *rolls eyes*
lace2u1 8 months ago
GO ATHEISM!
coolieo389 8 months ago
Fr. Mitchell Pacwa right, and absolute right.
dallasez 8 months ago 2
whos debating who here I thought it said walter martin and fr mitch pacwa dosnt look that way to me
duffyc64 9 months ago
I have seen less interruption and biased from the liberal main stream media then from Ankerberg.
billyslo87 9 months ago
@billyslo87 Seems like ten seconds can't go by without Fr. Pacwa being interrupted.
GenghisKhan44 8 months ago 2
The catholics are lame brain
oldlite 9 months ago
@oldlite hmm thats not judgemental at all.
lace2u1 8 months ago
The host was not neutral. This is NOT a one on one debate. It's called, let's gang up on Fr. Pacwa!
johnpaul0501 10 months ago 17
@johnpaul0501 He always like that, plus he always has his california priest there ready to gang up up with
HalfBathBlog 9 months ago
@johnpaul0501 I agree. John A has never been neutral in any debate I've ever seen
10jfrancis 8 months ago
@johnpaul0501 and they still lost
williemetoyer1 6 months ago
@johnpaul0501 I saw the debate between the United Pentecostal Church and them, and the host train of thought is, because I pay 50K for every 30 minutes, I can speak my views. What a load of crap. He wants to host, host and stay quiet. Hence, why every debate is one sided and a gang-up.
sgal88 4 months ago
Funny how they keep interrupting Fr. Pacwa when he's explaining the Catholic position in a clear and truthful way.
The truth hurts and so they keep interrupting when truth is spoken.
Bravo! Fr. Pacwa.
1tontomato 10 months ago 2
@1tontomato absolutely, truth hurts, and every time a catholic tries to explain anything to a protestent, we cant even finish a sentence.
lace2u1 8 months ago
@lace2u1 what's the host's name? i can't stand him
solisdemexico 8 months ago
@solisdemexico i know! his name is John Ankerberg
lace2u1 8 months ago
My Sprit and my salvation are gifts from Jesus. And I need only tell Him of the sins committed against Him.
finessewes9119 10 months ago
Who is debating Father Pacwa?
Thank you Jesus for your One Holy Catholic Church.
normalsix6 10 months ago 2
Thank Father Pacwa.... You are such a good example to what it is like to become like Christ... I AM Inspired to change my wicked ways and follow the Lord....
danmichael1000 10 months ago 4
the host need to let the priest speak, i am not a catholic but i also respect my brothers in the faith. this is not a bashing party but a collaboration and a chance to understand the Word of God better.
ineedtochill 10 months ago 2
We only have to listen to Jesus.. He has said it all in His Word, the Holy Scriptures! Jesus says " have no man teach you" You have the Holy Spirit.
pauljohn788 10 months ago
fr mitch is not one to mess w/ ankerburg is like liberal gets his own people to attack keep protesting catholics have history tradition and yes we had all papers from bible the same you read except protastants changed bible king james to suit the king fucking loonatics jesus told peter you are the rock we catholics can prove spirit bloodline from bishop of rome all the way to peter grow up and stop changing your bible where does it say in bible to drink grape fruit juice is manmade
lemonlime1600 11 months ago