It's true that bread is coming to Christ and Drink is Faith. But why Jesus use REAL bread and REAL wine when He said, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"?
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest-MALE can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
Wrong. The Eucharistic sacrifice is the SAME ONE sacrifice that Christ offered. So Hebrews does not contradict it at all. This just shows your lack of knowledge regarding what we believe.
Communion is found in Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46. This is the same breaking of bread which occurred at the Last Supper and in Luke 24:35. It is the Eucharist.
Christ is not present in the eucharist. He died once and for all 2000 years ago. Christ said "it is finished." Hebrews....."So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. . . ."
The Eucharist is the same sacrifice which Christ offered 2,000 years ago. Therefore, we are not contradicting the fact that Jesus died once or was offered once.
Plus, you COMPLETELY ignored all the verses I quoted where Jesus and Paul make it clear that Christ is present in the Eucharist.
@johnthreesixteen316 As far as the New Testament is concerned, Jesus didn't pluck part of His flesh out to be eaten by His disciples at the Last Supper, which should be the primary example of celebrating the Lord's Supper afterwards. Where does the Bible say that the bread actually turns into Christ's flesh? The Last Supper was also symbolic, the Lord's supper is symbolic. Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the one true real thing.
When Jesus says things like "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," then I find it very hard to believe that this is a mere symbol. Not to mention the fact that Ignatius, a student of the apostle John, called people heterodox if they did not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
@SeptemberCatholic18 My friend, how do you explain God forbidding man to drink blood in light of this whole communion thing? Also, what year was this adopted into the catholic church and how often should we do this? Show me biblical references please. Show me how often the apostles partook of this and show me that it mirrors what the catholic church now does.
God did not forbid drinking the blood of Christ; he forbade drinking the blood of an animal. Unless you want to compare Christ to an animal, you have to admit this is a flimsy argument.
This teaching was adopted by the Church the moment Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6:53-55.
Jesus did not say it was spiritual in verse 63. He said that his words are spirit and truth. The Spirit testifies to the truth. OUR flesh profits nothing. Christ's does.
@SeptemberCatholic18 But that is NOT what the Word of God says, does it? It says "blood". Not "blood of animals".I have a list of heresies and the dates they were instituted by the rcc. 1215 AD Mass a Sacrifice of Christ, 1217 AD Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)
Wrong. God forbids the eating of animals with their lifeblood still in them. It was a kosher law for the Jews. Nevertheless, Jesus' blood is beyond comparison. His blood saves.
You are VERY wrong about the list. Those are not the dates that the teachings were invented. Those are dates when those teachings were solemnly defined. There is a difference. For example, the Trinity was solemnly defined at Nicaea, but it was always a teaching and it was always true!
I really like your work, and I think this video is one of your best and most important ones. The only thing I don't like is the negative way you use the word "fundamentalist". You seem to use it in the same way as modern-day mass media does, letting the viewer automatically assume its something bad. But when you think about it, what other fundament or foundation are we to have than the teachigns of Jesus Christ? If someone calls me a christian fundamentalist, I'm honored
True. However, the term has become corrupt. It now no longer refers to the fundamentals of Christianity, but rather, a group of Protestants who take much of the Bible strictly literally and ignore context.
In reality, I believe that the word is an honorable title as well, and I would even go as far as to claim that Catholics are the true Fundamentalists. Nevertheless, everyone already associates the word with the group I described, and so I also use it in that sense to avoid confusion.
I like how you completely ignored all the Scripture I used in this video. Thank you for your educated comment. You really brought so much to the table. Only next time, try to defend your position with the Holy Bible okay?
That is always an option. However, I don't know where God wants me right now so until then I will continue to pray. Perhaps I will get married one day and have some children, but it is not my will, it is God's will.
"This vine represents the Synagogue, according to Isaias. The vine, or vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel. Of this vine Christ drank for some time; and though many of the branches were become useless, there were yet many that still brought forth fruit. But Christ now going to his passion, declares that it would be no longer acceptable to him, since the figures were not to pass into reality."
That doesn't make any sense. If you don't understand the paragraph I posted, please say so because I think you are confused. The paragraph I posted is kind of heavy, so I may need to explain it if necessary.
Scriptures for what? I didn't make any claim; I simply interpreted Mark 14:25 for you. You claimed that it somehow contradicts Church teaching and I explained your error.
When I make a doctrinal claim, I will back it with Scripture, but in this case, you made the claim, and I was refuting it with an alternative interpretation.
September you got excellent videos,though Christians believe that Jesus is God, there are those who dont believe that Jesus is God,yey they claim to be Christians,may you be able to present a comprehensive video on Christ divinity,thanx a lot.Will you be able to present video on the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo?
I'll try, but as of right now, I am very busy with college, and so making videos is harder since I need to find time to do it. In the mean time, Catholic Answers has articles on their website that addresses both of those issues you mentioned.
The Body & Blood of Christ, who is present under the appearances of bread and wine ??? So, Jesus literally becomes wine & crackers? In order to offer Himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion??? He was sacrificed ONCE for the sins of many. On the cross He said "It is finished." The bible teaches there is NO forgiveness of sins w/o the shedding of blood. Therefore, your unbloody sacrifice would be none other than an abomination.
Sigh...the way you sum up the Catholic position is terrible. I recommend you wikipedia the term "transubstantiation" for a decent understanding of the Catholic position.
The sacrifice of the Mass is NOT a new sacrifice; it is the same sacrifice which Jesus offered on Calvary. We simply present it once again as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:26. Yet is is literally the body and blood of Christ as he states in 1 Corinthians 10:16.
If the bread and the wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, then He died in vein. What you say then, is that His sacrifice wasn't sufficient. He was sacrificed ONCE for the sins of many; you don't need to sacrifice Him again. In that case, why don't we sacrifice lambs anymore? If transubstantiation is true then we are all dammed to hell, because there is no forgiveness of sins. Christ lied on the cross when He said "It is finished". If His sacrifice wasn't sufficient, there's no hope.
'And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." ' (Luke 22:19)
Communion is symbolic. You take a piece of bread to REPRESENT the body and a little cup of wine to REPRESENT the blood and it is to remember the sacrifice. It is to remember what it took to redeem the sins of many. To show us how truly depraved we are and how truly gracious and how good God is.
'And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it , and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Then He took the cup , and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." '
So...How are they eating and drinking the literal body and the literal blood of Jesus when He is standing right there? That's cannibalism. He also will drink of the fruit of the VINE one day...oh....is the vine figurative here or not? Is He going to drink His own blood? That's like witchcraft.
The sacrifice of Jesus surpasses all things, including time. The apostles were able to participate in the Eucharist at the Last Supper because of that.
To yell "cannibalism" is a confusion in either the meaning of the term "cannibalism" or "transubstantiation," or both. Since the Eucharist is only Christ's flesh and blood in substance and not appearance, it is not cannibalism. And even if you want to argue semantics and say it is cannibalism, I see no wrong in doing so if Christ commanded it.
SeptemberCatholic18: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you." litlebluangel mocks the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. She willfully invokes the language of demons. May God have mercy on her soul. +Peace+
litlebluangel did NOT view [8:53 min.] "But mark ...strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. ....They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) & prayer, because they deny that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, & which the Father of His goodness raised up." IGNATIUS Bishop of Antioch, 107 A.D. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."-John Henry Newman,
Jesus spoke to his disciples in figurative language all the time. Even when Lazarus died. Jesus told them he was sleeping and they didn't understand. Finally, He had to tell them he was dead. There was a time that Jesus ceased to speak to them figuratively, but that isn't until AFTER the last supper.
'His disciples said to Him, "See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speach!" ' (16:29)
Bingo is not gambling. Moreover, those activities do not take place in Mass or even in the church. They take place in the parish hall or recreation center.
Gambling is not a sin in itself. It is the excess of gambling that is the sin. There is no sin in my and my brother betting a couple of dollars on a basketball game. However, there is everything wrong with us getting obsessed with betting and betting all the time and betting high stakes.
Money is not evil; the LOVE of money is (1 Tim 6:10).
The Greek is the original with the exception of Matthew, which is believed to have been written in Aramaic at first.
Nevertheless, that argument by you would only make the English translations seem more unreliable since they are apparently translated from a translation.
Bottom line is that the Greek will always be more reliable, and the English is always a translation of the Greek. If the Greek is unreliable, then so is the English. However, I believe they're both very reliable to some extent.
"Do you believe that the bible is inspired and that all scripture is God Breathed?"
By that logic, even the Catholic Bibles are correct. And the Jehovah's Witness Bible. And the King James and NIV. Pretty much all Bibles are inspired by your logic.
Obviously some of the English Bibles are corrupted in the translation process. It is best to look at the Greek, which has gone through less "processing" if you will. How do you think we get the English Bibles? Translated from the Greek!
I seriously contest your claim to know that EVERY Catholic Bible does this, but regardless if they all do or not, it was NEVER the intention of the Catholic Church to claim that Christ's work is unfinished or insufficient.
P.S. Perhaps the Catholic translation is correct. It's hard to tell since the original Greek manuscripts do not use commas.
The original Greek has no comma, so it's hard to find out where it ought to go. If you believe that a certain Catholic Bible translation is incorrect, then power to you. Catholic translators are not infallible.
Christ's work is indeed finished. It is one and it is eternal. I do not believe that the Sacrament of the Eucharist contradicts that true view.
That is exactly what Hebrews 10:11 is talking about: animal sacrifices. The only priests around when Jesus said this were Jews! And the only sacrifices being offered were animal sacrifices to God. That is the historical context.
Stop trying to weave your anti-Catholicism in a passage that does not support your view. Read it in context. Please.
Your language demonstrates just how utterly ignorant you are of the Catholic position.
Of course it was ONE sacrifice; an ETERNAL sacrifice. Amen! Catholics celebrate the SAME ONE ETERNAL sacrifice that was offered at Calvary. It is not a separate sacrifice; it is the same one.
Because it is eternal, we are allowed to present the same sacrifice again. Jesus said "do this in memory of me." Paul says it is truly his body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16) as does Christ (Jn 6:55).
Hebrews 10:11 is referring to the Jewish priests who offer the same animal sacrifices, which cannot take away sin.
Catholic priests offer only one sacrifice: the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is a re-presentation (to present again) of Christ's offering on the cross. We show his death in the Eucharist until he comes again. Jesus' sacrifice DOES take away sins.
My friend, "the right hand of God" is figurative speech. It is a symbol of authority, and not to be taken literally. After Christ died, he ascended to heaven and took his rightful place as King of all things. That doesn't change whether he is meeting us in the Eucharist or returning in his Second Coming.
Communion is an actual participation in the Lord's flesh and blood, as Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 10:16. It does not mean he has come down from heaven in the same sense as in the Second Coming.
Actually, the Jews did get angry at Jesus for saying this (John 6:52). The Law pertained only to the blood of strangled animals, which was seen as the life of the animal. Besides, Jesus declared all foods clean in the New Testament, which is why we do not follow Kosher statures.
Drinking the blood of a strangled animal and doing what our Master commanded us to do are two very different things. If you are trying to compare the two, then you are comparing Christ to a strangled, dead animal.
That is what the Law was referring to! It was talking about strangled animals with the blood still in them which Jews were prohibited from eating. That is vastly different than what Jesus preached. You are comparing two very different biblical aspects.
Lev. 3:16-17"And the priest shall burn them upon the altar : [it is] the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat [is] the LORD'S [It shall be] a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither FAT nor BLOOD"
talking about the animals used in sacrifices...NOT just strangled animals
also in Act. 15:20 the church was commanded to ABSTAIN from BLOOD(don't mix the strangled animals with the blood again...they are 2 separate commandments! be very careful there...don't make the same mistake AGAIN)
You merely make my point. The Law pertained to food laws; things relating to killed animals, NOT to our Lord and Savior. Acts 15:20 is still talking about the blood from animals. It was a reference to the previously mentioned food law. What else in the world could it refer to?
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
"It is okay because it is the pure, precious, saving blood of our Lord Jesus"
so Jesus taught the Jews to BREAK the LAW after all,1 Corint. 10:16 talks about bread na dthe cup...no transubstantiation...no "priests" in the RCC sense...by bring it up for?
Jesus' blood is not the same as the blood of a slaughtered animal. The Eucharist is not subject to the food laws, which were abolished anyways (unless of course you adhere to Kosher laws).
In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul says that when we break bread and partake of the wine (like Catholics) IS IT NOT A COMMUNION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST?
Wrong, you cannot admit that it was solely a reference to food laws. Drinking the blood of a dead animal and consuming the body and blood of our Lord are two different matters. For one thing, we are commanded to do it in John 6! The language is so clear and people like you seek to corrupt the Word.
The Catholic Church has bread and wine during communion! It is hard to take you seriously when you don't even know the thing you are arguing against. Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY at the Last Supper.
"Wrong, you cannot admit that it was solely a reference to food laws. Drinking the blood of a dead animal and consuming the body and blood of our Lord are two different matters. "
why when it is very SPECIFIC in the OT as well in the NT...NOT TO CONSUME BLOOD,no if or buts!
Do you actually believe there were Jews marching around drinking human blood until God said "Nope." On the other hand, there were certainly Jews drinking animal blood, which God put a stop to.
All of that is irrelevant anyways because Jesus Christ is not some food which applies to Kosher laws!
"All of that is irrelevant anyways because Jesus Christ is not some food which applies to Kosher laws! "
so why the EXPLICIT command in Acts 15? which was after Jesus ascension...
"Do you actually believe there were Jews marching around drinking human blood until God said "Nope." now this is lame...but it doesn't take from the FACT that the Jews were commanded NOT TO EAT BLOOD!
The command is Acts 15 was only made so that the Jews would not be offended. That does not mean Kosher laws are still in place. Kosher laws are not applicable to the command given by Jesus Christ in John 6.
Look, I have to get back to my studies. Maybe we can continue this tomorrow. But I resolve to end this for now.
"he Catholic Church has bread and wine during communion! It is hard to take you seriously when you don't even know the thing you are arguing against. Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY at the Last Supper"
he also said"i'm the vine...i'm the door" stop taking verses out of CONTEXT (THIS IS MY BODY ) read John 6:35 again and while in John read 6:63 in CONTEXT
No, I said that the vine and door could be interpreted into symbolic meanings. However, when Jesus says that his body is true meat and his blood is true drink, there is no symbolism there. He means it. Paul meant it. And every early Christian writer meant it. Catholics mean it.
May Almighty God Bless You my friend! My heart filled up with happiness when I saw your words. Welcome home my friend! With love, I Welcome you home my friend!
That's respectable. Placing your trust in God cannot lead you in the wrong direction. You may find some interest in examining what the early Christians believed. You can find their writings fairly easily by searching for them on the internet. Start with Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.
I am also a theistic apologist, among other things. So we certainly share a common interest in "defeating" atheism. I plan on starting a theistic apologetic account in the future.
That's amazing to hear. Please take the time to carefully examine all of the issues. Conversion is an exciting, yet critical moment.
If you have any questions at all about Catholicism ("Why do you do that? Where is that in the Bible? Etc.), please feel free to send me a private message and I'll do my best to answer any questions you send my way.
are you kidding me?!?!?!? Thats ridiculous. I've been watching your stuff for a while now, my other account was (Jd3119) and honestly you are the best on YT. Your also very good at putting together videos. I cant believe your in high school. From where do you get your apologetics knowledge?
I draw heavily from the Catholic Answers website. I always give credit to them in the beginning of my videos. You can refer to the links I post on the side for my sources.
Trust me, I'm still learning, but apparently I'm good enough to be invited to speak in front of youth groups, confirmation classes, and Catholic faith seminars.
Right now my goal on Youtube is to give CatholicAnswers articles some audio and visuals, and broadcast them to the world.
Thank Catholic Answers, where I get all of my scripts from. I simply give the words audio and visuals and subsequently broadcast the message through Youtube.
The Catholic Answers book ("The Essential Catholic Survival Guide") is a great resource.
But I'm referring to the website. If you are curious in finding the article which this video is based on, go to the links on the side. It should be the second link (after the Bible link).
It's true that bread is coming to Christ and Drink is Faith. But why Jesus use REAL bread and REAL wine when He said, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"?
brijavpogi 3 months ago
@brijavpogi Actually, I believe he also said "This is my body" and "this is my blood."
SeptemberCatholic18 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Traitors inside the Church!!!
tv-pustelnia . pl/av/2011-09-22_powitanie_papieza . wmv
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest-MALE can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
God bless you and be brave
JezusSlave 5 months ago
Also the same sacrifice theory is out to lunch. HEBREWS 10:12
1 sacrifice 4 sins 4 ever!
catholicexodus 2 years ago
Wrong. The Eucharistic sacrifice is the SAME ONE sacrifice that Christ offered. So Hebrews does not contradict it at all. This just shows your lack of knowledge regarding what we believe.
Communion is found in Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46. This is the same breaking of bread which occurred at the Last Supper and in Luke 24:35. It is the Eucharist.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
And why, exactly, do we see thousands being baptized in Acts and NO ONE taking 'communion', the alleged 'source and summit of the Christian life'?
And worshipping a piece of bread? That's biblical?
catholicexodus 2 years ago
Christ is not present in the eucharist. He died once and for all 2000 years ago. Christ said "it is finished." Hebrews....."So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. . . ."
johnthreesixteen316 2 years ago
The Eucharist is the same sacrifice which Christ offered 2,000 years ago. Therefore, we are not contradicting the fact that Jesus died once or was offered once.
Plus, you COMPLETELY ignored all the verses I quoted where Jesus and Paul make it clear that Christ is present in the Eucharist.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@johnthreesixteen316 As far as the New Testament is concerned, Jesus didn't pluck part of His flesh out to be eaten by His disciples at the Last Supper, which should be the primary example of celebrating the Lord's Supper afterwards. Where does the Bible say that the bread actually turns into Christ's flesh? The Last Supper was also symbolic, the Lord's supper is symbolic. Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the one true real thing.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009
When Jesus says things like "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," then I find it very hard to believe that this is a mere symbol. Not to mention the fact that Ignatius, a student of the apostle John, called people heterodox if they did not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 My friend, how do you explain God forbidding man to drink blood in light of this whole communion thing? Also, what year was this adopted into the catholic church and how often should we do this? Show me biblical references please. Show me how often the apostles partook of this and show me that it mirrors what the catholic church now does.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 In JN 6:63 He even told us the words are SPIRITUAL! Jesus SAID the words are SPIRITUAL the FLESH profits NOTHING!
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009
God did not forbid drinking the blood of Christ; he forbade drinking the blood of an animal. Unless you want to compare Christ to an animal, you have to admit this is a flimsy argument.
This teaching was adopted by the Church the moment Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6:53-55.
Jesus did not say it was spiritual in verse 63. He said that his words are spirit and truth. The Spirit testifies to the truth. OUR flesh profits nothing. Christ's does.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 But that is NOT what the Word of God says, does it? It says "blood". Not "blood of animals".I have a list of heresies and the dates they were instituted by the rcc. 1215 AD Mass a Sacrifice of Christ, 1217 AD Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009
Wrong. God forbids the eating of animals with their lifeblood still in them. It was a kosher law for the Jews. Nevertheless, Jesus' blood is beyond comparison. His blood saves.
You are VERY wrong about the list. Those are not the dates that the teachings were invented. Those are dates when those teachings were solemnly defined. There is a difference. For example, the Trinity was solemnly defined at Nicaea, but it was always a teaching and it was always true!
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago 2
I really like your work, and I think this video is one of your best and most important ones. The only thing I don't like is the negative way you use the word "fundamentalist". You seem to use it in the same way as modern-day mass media does, letting the viewer automatically assume its something bad. But when you think about it, what other fundament or foundation are we to have than the teachigns of Jesus Christ? If someone calls me a christian fundamentalist, I'm honored
Zami9000 2 years ago
True. However, the term has become corrupt. It now no longer refers to the fundamentals of Christianity, but rather, a group of Protestants who take much of the Bible strictly literally and ignore context.
In reality, I believe that the word is an honorable title as well, and I would even go as far as to claim that Catholics are the true Fundamentalists. Nevertheless, everyone already associates the word with the group I described, and so I also use it in that sense to avoid confusion.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
godbless the holy roman catholic church
chymee 2 years ago
what kind of a god wants you to cannibalize him?
satan..
catholic church is so fake.
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
I like how you completely ignored all the Scripture I used in this video. Thank you for your educated comment. You really brought so much to the table. Only next time, try to defend your position with the Holy Bible okay?
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
That kind of God would be Jesus. Not "cannibalize", but give HIMSELF to us.
God.. people are dumber day by day...
ChrisDaron 2 years ago
@repentNOWunbelievers God, you're so dumb it isn't even funny...
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
Oh yes, forgot to mention this one.
A Baptist once told me. Why are you Catholics alway killing Jesus with this Eucharist?
They said it's no where in the Bible that Jesus should be re-sacrificed again.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
We are not making a new sacrifice, we are just presenting the same one over and over. Paul sais this is what happens in 1 Corinthians 11:26.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Who are the baptists to tell you that?
You should ask them, "who founded your sect?", and "why are you following THEM?"
ChrisDaron 2 years ago
I get into a lot of debates with Protestants on this. They think we are resacrificing Jesus when Jesus already died once for us.
They always question why Catholics are always resacrificing the Lord. I've given them my answer.
But I think you answer would be better than mine. You have such a way of organizing your thoughts.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
Amen!
Im curious, what video editor program did you use?
God Bless!
Proud2baNerd 2 years ago
Thank you. I use "Magix Movie Edit Pro 12" (there must be an updated version by now). God bless.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
we have talked for a while now and had quite of a debate, but can i ask you something out of the topic? are you going in priesthood?
hininga28 2 years ago
That is always an option. However, I don't know where God wants me right now so until then I will continue to pray. Perhaps I will get married one day and have some children, but it is not my will, it is God's will.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
shouldn't we take the eucharist only once, not twice?
"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:25
flameboy1236 2 years ago
No, Paul commanded us to receive the Eucharist often, and Christ commanded us to continue it in memory of him.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
What about mark 14:25?
flameboy1236 2 years ago
According to the Hadock's Bible Commentary,
"This vine represents the Synagogue, according to Isaias. The vine, or vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel. Of this vine Christ drank for some time; and though many of the branches were become useless, there were yet many that still brought forth fruit. But Christ now going to his passion, declares that it would be no longer acceptable to him, since the figures were not to pass into reality."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
no, that the wine that Jesus gave us.
flameboy1236 2 years ago
That doesn't make any sense. If you don't understand the paragraph I posted, please say so because I think you are confused. The paragraph I posted is kind of heavy, so I may need to explain it if necessary.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Scriptures please!
flameboy1236 2 years ago
Scriptures for what? I didn't make any claim; I simply interpreted Mark 14:25 for you. You claimed that it somehow contradicts Church teaching and I explained your error.
When I make a doctrinal claim, I will back it with Scripture, but in this case, you made the claim, and I was refuting it with an alternative interpretation.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
September you got excellent videos,though Christians believe that Jesus is God, there are those who dont believe that Jesus is God,yey they claim to be Christians,may you be able to present a comprehensive video on Christ divinity,thanx a lot.Will you be able to present video on the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo?
romcath 2 years ago
I'll try, but as of right now, I am very busy with college, and so making videos is harder since I need to find time to do it. In the mean time, Catholic Answers has articles on their website that addresses both of those issues you mentioned.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*****Doctors say my uncle only has a few hours left. Please pray for him. God bless you all.xxx<3
loveisthekey316 2 years ago
Where did you get the music?
hymnsinger5 2 years ago
I downloaded it a long time ago from a site. I can't remember which.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
This is "One Bread, One Body" from the Album "Table Of Plenty" - (1997)
Check out johnmichaeltabot [dot] com
michiganois 2 years ago
excuse typo...missing small "L": johnmichaeltalbot [dot] com
michiganois 2 years ago
The Body & Blood of Christ, who is present under the appearances of bread and wine ??? So, Jesus literally becomes wine & crackers? In order to offer Himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion??? He was sacrificed ONCE for the sins of many. On the cross He said "It is finished." The bible teaches there is NO forgiveness of sins w/o the shedding of blood. Therefore, your unbloody sacrifice would be none other than an abomination.
litlebluangel 2 years ago
Sigh...the way you sum up the Catholic position is terrible. I recommend you wikipedia the term "transubstantiation" for a decent understanding of the Catholic position.
The sacrifice of the Mass is NOT a new sacrifice; it is the same sacrifice which Jesus offered on Calvary. We simply present it once again as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:26. Yet is is literally the body and blood of Christ as he states in 1 Corinthians 10:16.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
If the bread and the wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, then He died in vein. What you say then, is that His sacrifice wasn't sufficient. He was sacrificed ONCE for the sins of many; you don't need to sacrifice Him again. In that case, why don't we sacrifice lambs anymore? If transubstantiation is true then we are all dammed to hell, because there is no forgiveness of sins. Christ lied on the cross when He said "It is finished". If His sacrifice wasn't sufficient, there's no hope.
litlebluangel 2 years ago
'And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." ' (Luke 22:19)
Communion is symbolic. You take a piece of bread to REPRESENT the body and a little cup of wine to REPRESENT the blood and it is to remember the sacrifice. It is to remember what it took to redeem the sins of many. To show us how truly depraved we are and how truly gracious and how good God is.
litlebluangel 2 years ago
'And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it , and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Then He took the cup , and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." '
(Matthew 26:26-29)
litlebluangel 2 years ago
So...How are they eating and drinking the literal body and the literal blood of Jesus when He is standing right there? That's cannibalism. He also will drink of the fruit of the VINE one day...oh....is the vine figurative here or not? Is He going to drink His own blood? That's like witchcraft.
litlebluangel 2 years ago
The sacrifice of Jesus surpasses all things, including time. The apostles were able to participate in the Eucharist at the Last Supper because of that.
To yell "cannibalism" is a confusion in either the meaning of the term "cannibalism" or "transubstantiation," or both. Since the Eucharist is only Christ's flesh and blood in substance and not appearance, it is not cannibalism. And even if you want to argue semantics and say it is cannibalism, I see no wrong in doing so if Christ commanded it.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
SeptemberCatholic18: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you." litlebluangel mocks the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. She willfully invokes the language of demons. May God have mercy on her soul. +Peace+
michiganois 2 years ago
litlebluangel did NOT view [8:53 min.] "But mark ...strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. ....They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) & prayer, because they deny that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, & which the Father of His goodness raised up." IGNATIUS Bishop of Antioch, 107 A.D. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."-John Henry Newman,
michiganois 2 years ago
Jesus spoke to his disciples in figurative language all the time. Even when Lazarus died. Jesus told them he was sleeping and they didn't understand. Finally, He had to tell them he was dead. There was a time that Jesus ceased to speak to them figuratively, but that isn't until AFTER the last supper.
'His disciples said to Him, "See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speach!" ' (16:29)
litlebluangel 2 years ago
I already addressed the claim that he was speaking figuratively (5:31 into the video).
They indeed participated in his body and blood at the Last Supper. Jesus clearly announced that their meal was his body and blood.
Jesus stated that he would drink wine again; he actually meant wine here, not his blood.
Jesus never says, "This REPRESENTS my body." Paul also confirms that it is his literal body and blood in 1 Cor 10:16.
The Eucharist is the SAME ONE sacrifice that Christ gave; not another.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Comment removed
ICouldLiveOnMusic 2 years ago
Comment removed
ICouldLiveOnMusic 2 years ago
Bingo is not gambling. Moreover, those activities do not take place in Mass or even in the church. They take place in the parish hall or recreation center.
Gambling is not a sin in itself. It is the excess of gambling that is the sin. There is no sin in my and my brother betting a couple of dollars on a basketball game. However, there is everything wrong with us getting obsessed with betting and betting all the time and betting high stakes.
Money is not evil; the LOVE of money is (1 Tim 6:10).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
The Greek is the original with the exception of Matthew, which is believed to have been written in Aramaic at first.
Nevertheless, that argument by you would only make the English translations seem more unreliable since they are apparently translated from a translation.
Bottom line is that the Greek will always be more reliable, and the English is always a translation of the Greek. If the Greek is unreliable, then so is the English. However, I believe they're both very reliable to some extent.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Anything earthly in excess is wrong, even gambling. But we do not gamble in Mass.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"Do you believe that the bible is inspired and that all scripture is God Breathed?"
By that logic, even the Catholic Bibles are correct. And the Jehovah's Witness Bible. And the King James and NIV. Pretty much all Bibles are inspired by your logic.
Obviously some of the English Bibles are corrupted in the translation process. It is best to look at the Greek, which has gone through less "processing" if you will. How do you think we get the English Bibles? Translated from the Greek!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I seriously contest your claim to know that EVERY Catholic Bible does this, but regardless if they all do or not, it was NEVER the intention of the Catholic Church to claim that Christ's work is unfinished or insufficient.
P.S. Perhaps the Catholic translation is correct. It's hard to tell since the original Greek manuscripts do not use commas.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
The original Greek has no comma, so it's hard to find out where it ought to go. If you believe that a certain Catholic Bible translation is incorrect, then power to you. Catholic translators are not infallible.
Christ's work is indeed finished. It is one and it is eternal. I do not believe that the Sacrament of the Eucharist contradicts that true view.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
That is exactly what Hebrews 10:11 is talking about: animal sacrifices. The only priests around when Jesus said this were Jews! And the only sacrifices being offered were animal sacrifices to God. That is the historical context.
Stop trying to weave your anti-Catholicism in a passage that does not support your view. Read it in context. Please.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Your language demonstrates just how utterly ignorant you are of the Catholic position.
Of course it was ONE sacrifice; an ETERNAL sacrifice. Amen! Catholics celebrate the SAME ONE ETERNAL sacrifice that was offered at Calvary. It is not a separate sacrifice; it is the same one.
Because it is eternal, we are allowed to present the same sacrifice again. Jesus said "do this in memory of me." Paul says it is truly his body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16) as does Christ (Jn 6:55).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Hebrews 10:11 is referring to the Jewish priests who offer the same animal sacrifices, which cannot take away sin.
Catholic priests offer only one sacrifice: the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is a re-presentation (to present again) of Christ's offering on the cross. We show his death in the Eucharist until he comes again. Jesus' sacrifice DOES take away sins.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
My friend, "the right hand of God" is figurative speech. It is a symbol of authority, and not to be taken literally. After Christ died, he ascended to heaven and took his rightful place as King of all things. That doesn't change whether he is meeting us in the Eucharist or returning in his Second Coming.
Communion is an actual participation in the Lord's flesh and blood, as Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 10:16. It does not mean he has come down from heaven in the same sense as in the Second Coming.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
so,would you say that Jesus asked his fellow Jews to break the LAW of Moses(by asking them to EAT HIS flesh AND HIS Blood) ?
if HE(by your reasoning) forced others to break the LAW...what kind of Messiah was HE?a false one?
martalog121 3 years ago
Actually, the Jews did get angry at Jesus for saying this (John 6:52). The Law pertained only to the blood of strangled animals, which was seen as the life of the animal. Besides, Jesus declared all foods clean in the New Testament, which is why we do not follow Kosher statures.
Drinking the blood of a strangled animal and doing what our Master commanded us to do are two very different things. If you are trying to compare the two, then you are comparing Christ to a strangled, dead animal.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
the LAW forbade the Jews to eat BLOOD.
answer my question don't go into foods !human flesh and blood is not food !
martalog121 3 years ago
That is what the Law was referring to! It was talking about strangled animals with the blood still in them which Jews were prohibited from eating. That is vastly different than what Jesus preached. You are comparing two very different biblical aspects.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Lev. 3:16-17"And the priest shall burn them upon the altar : [it is] the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat [is] the LORD'S [It shall be] a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither FAT nor BLOOD"
talking about the animals used in sacrifices...NOT just strangled animals
would you like to try again?
martalog121 3 years ago
also in Act. 15:20 the church was commanded to ABSTAIN from BLOOD(don't mix the strangled animals with the blood again...they are 2 separate commandments! be very careful there...don't make the same mistake AGAIN)
martalog121 3 years ago
You merely make my point. The Law pertained to food laws; things relating to killed animals, NOT to our Lord and Savior. Acts 15:20 is still talking about the blood from animals. It was a reference to the previously mentioned food law. What else in the world could it refer to?
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
the the Lev. account was about BLOOD by itself,the same goes in Act. 15
so if the Jews were prohibited to eat BLOOD from animals,what makes you think the Jews were OK to consume HUMAN BLOOD?
martalog121 3 years ago
No, these were strictly food laws. There were certainly not Jews going around drinking human blood.
It is okay because it is the pure, precious, saving blood of our Lord Jesus. Read Paul:
1 Corinthians 10:16
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
"It is okay because it is the pure, precious, saving blood of our Lord Jesus"
so Jesus taught the Jews to BREAK the LAW after all,1 Corint. 10:16 talks about bread na dthe cup...no transubstantiation...no "priests" in the RCC sense...by bring it up for?
martalog121 3 years ago
Jesus' blood is not the same as the blood of a slaughtered animal. The Eucharist is not subject to the food laws, which were abolished anyways (unless of course you adhere to Kosher laws).
In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul says that when we break bread and partake of the wine (like Catholics) IS IT NOT A COMMUNION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST?
That is where we get the Sacrament of Communion.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
"That is where we get the Sacrament of Communion."
Paul talks about BREAD and CUP...RCC talks about transubstantiation...a BIG diff.
as for the BLOOD consumption you can not explain it way,just admit it! Jesus KEPT the LAW and DID NOT BREAK IT ! Matt. 5:18
martalog121 3 years ago
Wrong, you cannot admit that it was solely a reference to food laws. Drinking the blood of a dead animal and consuming the body and blood of our Lord are two different matters. For one thing, we are commanded to do it in John 6! The language is so clear and people like you seek to corrupt the Word.
The Catholic Church has bread and wine during communion! It is hard to take you seriously when you don't even know the thing you are arguing against. Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY at the Last Supper.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
"Wrong, you cannot admit that it was solely a reference to food laws. Drinking the blood of a dead animal and consuming the body and blood of our Lord are two different matters. "
why when it is very SPECIFIC in the OT as well in the NT...NOT TO CONSUME BLOOD,no if or buts!
martalog121 3 years ago
Because it was referring to the FOOD LAWS.
Do you actually believe there were Jews marching around drinking human blood until God said "Nope." On the other hand, there were certainly Jews drinking animal blood, which God put a stop to.
All of that is irrelevant anyways because Jesus Christ is not some food which applies to Kosher laws!
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
"All of that is irrelevant anyways because Jesus Christ is not some food which applies to Kosher laws! "
so why the EXPLICIT command in Acts 15? which was after Jesus ascension...
"Do you actually believe there were Jews marching around drinking human blood until God said "Nope." now this is lame...but it doesn't take from the FACT that the Jews were commanded NOT TO EAT BLOOD!
martalog121 3 years ago
The command is Acts 15 was only made so that the Jews would not be offended. That does not mean Kosher laws are still in place. Kosher laws are not applicable to the command given by Jesus Christ in John 6.
Look, I have to get back to my studies. Maybe we can continue this tomorrow. But I resolve to end this for now.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
"he Catholic Church has bread and wine during communion! It is hard to take you seriously when you don't even know the thing you are arguing against. Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY at the Last Supper"
he also said"i'm the vine...i'm the door" stop taking verses out of CONTEXT (THIS IS MY BODY ) read John 6:35 again and while in John read 6:63 in CONTEXT
martalog121 3 years ago
I already address that lame claim in my video:
Click here:
5:31
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
what?you dismiss the "vine and door" and said the flesh and blood were taken "far beyond symbolism" good for you but out of CONTEXT still,too bad!
martalog121 3 years ago
No, I said that the vine and door could be interpreted into symbolic meanings. However, when Jesus says that his body is true meat and his blood is true drink, there is no symbolism there. He means it. Paul meant it. And every early Christian writer meant it. Catholics mean it.
Goodbye for now. I must continue my studies.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
"For one thing, we are commanded to do it in John 6"
yes to BELIEVE and COME to HIM not cannibalizing HIM...John 6:35..6:63
"Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY at the Last Supper."
was Jesus holding a piece of HIS Flesh and some fresh squeezed Blood at the last supper?
martalog121 3 years ago
great video....
akoanani 3 years ago
May Almighty God Bless You my friend! My heart filled up with happiness when I saw your words. Welcome home my friend! With love, I Welcome you home my friend!
Sebastian
sebastians92 3 years ago
I love our Catholic faith!
I know that stuff in the vid, but I'm still very joyful to hear it again.
*hugs bro September*
Merry Christmas :-*
paxcoder 3 years ago
That's respectable. Placing your trust in God cannot lead you in the wrong direction. You may find some interest in examining what the early Christians believed. You can find their writings fairly easily by searching for them on the internet. Start with Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.
I am also a theistic apologist, among other things. So we certainly share a common interest in "defeating" atheism. I plan on starting a theistic apologetic account in the future.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
That's amazing to hear. Please take the time to carefully examine all of the issues. Conversion is an exciting, yet critical moment.
If you have any questions at all about Catholicism ("Why do you do that? Where is that in the Bible? Etc.), please feel free to send me a private message and I'll do my best to answer any questions you send my way.
God bless. Glad you liked the video.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
septcath: amazing as always. Best catholic apologist on YT. Keep it up.
Theologica37 3 years ago
Thank you! More will be coming this Christmas break since I'll have time now (I'm still in high school).
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
are you kidding me?!?!?!? Thats ridiculous. I've been watching your stuff for a while now, my other account was (Jd3119) and honestly you are the best on YT. Your also very good at putting together videos. I cant believe your in high school. From where do you get your apologetics knowledge?
Theologica37 3 years ago
I draw heavily from the Catholic Answers website. I always give credit to them in the beginning of my videos. You can refer to the links I post on the side for my sources.
Trust me, I'm still learning, but apparently I'm good enough to be invited to speak in front of youth groups, confirmation classes, and Catholic faith seminars.
Right now my goal on Youtube is to give CatholicAnswers articles some audio and visuals, and broadcast them to the world.
I'm writing a book too; pray for me.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
well done I love this video:)
heartofmygod 3 years ago
Of course. I wish I could have put so much more into this video, but unfortunately, 10 minutes goes by very quickly.
I may make a follow-up video; a part two, if you will.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Very well done.
canman86 3 years ago
Thank you
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
That was truly awesome! You are very wise! This is the best video I have ever seen in proving the Eucharist is true!
fishe153 3 years ago
Thank Catholic Answers, where I get all of my scripts from. I simply give the words audio and visuals and subsequently broadcast the message through Youtube.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Do you mean the Catholic Answers Book? I have one in my house, or do you mean the website? I've been there, but I never saw anything like this!
fishe153 3 years ago
The Catholic Answers book ("The Essential Catholic Survival Guide") is a great resource.
But I'm referring to the website. If you are curious in finding the article which this video is based on, go to the links on the side. It should be the second link (after the Bible link).
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Okay, I'll check that out! Thanks a lot!
fishe153 3 years ago
great video,
God be with you
iosacriost 3 years ago
Thank you
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago