If you stand in front of a protestant church with a sign asking any question that goes against what they believe, you will probably not succed in convincing them. Just like when protestants knock at my door and try to convince me that Jesus is not God. I don't think an apologist's "job" is to convince anyone to become Catholic. Concentrate more on teaching catholics to believe what the Church teaches. I think you would help much more. Start at home; many don't even believe in confession anymore.
You come across as intelligent and thoughtful and yet you believe in a God. You hovered around the edges of admitting that there is zero proof of any God.
Thousands of years ago our ancestors believed in many Gods, we have slowly whittled it down to a handful as we have realised what a complex universe we live in.
I live in hope for the day that rationality will finally defeat belief.
Remember: The only difference between us is that I believe in 1 less God than you :)
@DDogsK You'll have eternity to think about the day that rationality will defeat belief if you do not change yours. I'll pray for you. I suggest reading some books by Scott Hahn ("Last Supper" would be a good one to start), Karl Keating ("Catholism and Fundementalism"), Patrick Madrid ("Surprised by Truth"). Great books to research to lead you to the truth. God bless!
I can tell you why i accept the 66 books in my Bible..because God gave them to the world...He gets all the credit..not any humans..and when a human takes the credit for God's word...then they are trying to be an authority over God...and there is only one God...man's heart is evil above all....but God is truth..not a church...but a church should strive to tell God's truth through His word..not what it feels it should make up.
@shanana000 God worked through humans to both inspire the books to be written and then through humans who discerned which books those were. God chose to do it that way and not drop the books from the sky. So your argument does not work.
@dsr9996 They were preached and taught (oral tradition) before they were compiled...meaning they were already known...no concil picked the books out...they were already known and just compiled in one book for all...and that was God's plan from the get... before any roman catholic church came to be. And the Bible is clear, the oracls of God are through the Jews...not the rcc...same with Christians..Jews were the first Christians also.
@shanana000 This is wishful thinking. Certainly the books were written and read in various churches by 100 AD, but so were other letters, like 1 Clement. So it took about 300 more years for even the twenty-seven books of the New Testament to settle out. Look into it. The first bishop of the Church to list the correct 27 books of the NT was Athanasius, and that wasn't until the year 367 AD. God bless.
@dsr9996 They were written sixty years after Christ accended to heaven. and were preached and taught by tyhe apostles before they wrote them down. And where in turn taught a preached by new believers in Christ. That is true succession and oral tradition..which is stin enforced today by born again believers. compiling doesn't mean deciding which books are to be in the Bible...God decides that. Since He is the Author...get it?
@shanana000 God is the author but He worked through human beings to discern that which He inspired. As I demonstrated by pointing out that the 27 books of the NT were not listed correctly until Athanasius in 367 AD. You have not countered that.
@dsr9996 The Peshita or the Syriac version of the New Testament, finalized well before the end of the first century, is the oldest known canon. It contains all the books of our canon today and in the same order except for Revelation, Jude, 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter. The book of Revelation is missing simply because it had not yet been written while the other books were in the process of being written and circulated. The Peshita is one of the most accurate and reliable translations
@shanana000 At the earliest (based on only one vague reference by Eusebius) the Peshitta was listed in the mid to late 2nd century, not before the 1st century, and that one was also missing all the general (or catholic) epistles. The "finalized" Peshitta canon did not come until around 400 AD and by that time was missing only the books you list (meaning, it was still the wrong list even that late).
@dsr9996 Eusebius’ catalog names all 27 books of the New Testament. He lists them in two categories: the recognized and the contested Scriptures, or the antilegomens. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude made up the latter category. Eusebius added that the antilegomens were recognized by most ecclesiastical writers and were publicly read in the majority of the churches, but were exposed to some contradictions and were less cited by the ancient authors.
@shanana000 On Eusebius, you are still talking about 324 AD or so. By that time the Church was teaching veneration of the saints, baptismal regeneration, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, etc. etc. Do you believe all that, too? Then why believe Eusebius? And anyway, he was chronicling how the books were settling out, many still divided on this one or that one, etc. Athanasius comes some decades later and finally gets the exact list.
@dsr9996 Eusebius’ catalog names all 27 books of the New Testament. He lists them in two categories: the recognized and the contested Scriptures, or the antilegomens. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude made up the latter category. Eusebius added that the antilegomens were recognized by most ecclesiastical writers and were publicly read in the majority of the churches, but were exposed to some contradictions and were less cited by the ancient authors. Both were befofe Athanasius
We are called to faith, not success. At least this bloke is doing more than many others. We are way to weak on Evangelization, especially the "New Evangelization." Lotta wolves in the fold. It goes much to explain the damage and nonsense on places like this. Our fault.
"The enemies of the Church often do not hate the Church: they only hate what they erroneously believe to be the Church." Archbishop Fulton Sheen
"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics" Pope S. Pius V
@m1chae15 Hi Michael, this video as I think you see is a bit of a misnomer, intended to show that God is the one who converts hearts. I'm a lay Catholic apologist who has a blog (St. Joseph's Vanguard), wrote a book (If Protestantism is True), has a podcast (Catholic Apologetics podcast), and has this youtube channel for Catholic apologetics videos. I'm a former atheist who became Baptist who became Catholic. Feel free to connect with me and God bless you!
@dsr9996 Wow, that's cool. Perhaps you could shed some light on Atheism from the inside. Not sure that I get it. Can't really disagree if you don't know what you're disagreeing with. Most of them I try to talk with either offer no substantive answers, or think I'm attacking/trying to convert them. Understandable. I think that most of the time, and not just with theology, it boils down to terms. For example 'evidence' or 'justification'. I believe that the more informed Atheists, the real ones...
@dsr9996 ... the ones that, ostensibly, truly hold that position through reason, mean empirical evidence. An empirically proven god, isn't, and thus the problem. It is the same with words like 'spirit'. So we need to establish a common criteria, or we're basically wasting our time. That or posit a 'god' that has already possibly run the transhumanist like gauntlet and so, Mormon like, already filled the naturalist throne of creation, at least possibly. "ET phone home!" Dubious to say the least.
@dsr9996 Also, I don't see anything but more backpedalling even if we could provide the currently stated criteria ('miracles') anyway. Is scientifically verifiable/falsifiable and demonstrable coming back from the dead really, truly, undeniably and absolutely proof that God exists? "Well, this is just nature we don't understand yet, and so ... more science." I think this is another reason why God doesn't, and why Christ didn't do "miracles on demand." "He performed no miracles there because ..."
@dsr9996 .... of little faith" Scripture check that. Hazard of reading too many translations. Mix and match. Upside to knowing Chapter and verse. This segues to 'criteria' prev. The arguments and evidences ultimately MUST be unempiricales or miracles. In a common, secular, Atheistic realm, this means philosophic and meta-physic, no? After that ... "He's dead Jim."
Interestingly enough, he goes on to say that ten different people he has spoken to have converted, he is just humble enough to see that that is not his doing. I like this man.
To me, catholics seem more interested with being right, then converting. Besides, how does one go from judging everybody who believes differently, as most catholics do, to trying to convert people. Popes elected by man, not God = Fail. Praying to Mary, when only Jesus can save = Fail, Confessing to man, when only Jesus can save = Fail, Mardi Gras = Massive Fail
@rokkernumber2 Hi Rokker, sorry you have had such a bad experience with Catholics. I desire to know God in the truth and want that for others, too. That can sometimes come across pridefully and trying to be "right," which is unfortunate. God works through man. We are His hands and feet, so it is a false dichotomy to say its EITHER God OR man but cannot be both. That's a logical Fail. :) Anyway, pray and read the Bible (especially John 17 to the end of that gospel) and strive for unity in truth
@rokkernumber2 For someone who is for holding hands with all demonic religions, you seem quite confident that you have judged Catholics believe accurately. How does a Pope being elected by a man preclude that he was not also elected by God. Are you going to deny that Matthias, for example, was not elected by God? How does praying to Mary preclude the fact that only Jesus can save? Or perhaps you are confused about what the word save even means or HOW one can be saved? And by the way, "Mardi
@petrusprimus Furthermore the Holy Bible has one Author. Many writers and one Author. God is the Author. The book of the apocalypse is written by man equating it to crap. I read some Catholic Doctrine. Apparently since Jesus is dead the pope is now the one who took his place? Ha sorry, Jesus isn't dead. He rose from the grave and eternally the Head of the church, not the pope. And you can pray for others, i do. But dead people can't intercede. Jesus can. why would you need anybody else to?
@rokkernumber2 Gras" is mostly a pagan festival. "Shrove Tuesday" is more aligned with Catholic sensibilities. It is the day that Catholics confess their sins so they are forgiven.
@petrusprimus You must be Catholic because your first statement was about how I follow a demonic religion, Why? Because i don't believe like you do. See, you just proved my point. Joshua was chosen by God and all the Israelites witnessed it. I didn't see the hand of God touch the pope. Praying to Mary to intercede God is like praying to a stone for salvation. Worthless. Jesus himself said, "There is NO way to the Father (God), but through ME." Not Mary, not saints, and not through some man.
@rokkernumber2 I proved your point? 2 John 2: 9-12 "He who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, HAS NOT GOD". You either are with Christ or you are a prisoner of Satan. By rejecting Christ's teachings on His True Body and Blood, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the intercession of the saints, and the establishment of Peter as Vicar of His Church, you have shown you belong to the Church of Antichrist, not Christ. Asking a saint for intercession is not unbiblical, it is COMPLETELY biblical
@petrusprimus Wow. So you honestly think the pope never sinned? I say you are proving my point because your so dedicated to being right. Jesus himself said "If you are not with me you're against me, if you are not against me, you are with me." So le tme ask you this, in what part of the Bible did Jesus pray to Mary? Or to one of his disciples? He prayed to God. Now Jesus is the bridge, nobody else can intercede.
@rokkernumber2 The real question here is whether you want to follow anti-Catholic propaganda & live a lie like other protestants or whether you will investigate what I say. I NEVER SAID the Pope was "immaculate (that he didn't sin)". That is a false & superstitious idea that is NOWHERE in Catholicism. The teaching is that he has a "chair", as Moses did, & even the Scribes and Pharisees did, BY CHRIST'S OWN WORDS. True authority: "whatever u (single) will bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."
@petrusprimus thats funny seeing as Moses was leading the Israelites in the old Testiment and wasn't even the high priest. Aaron was. That means your comparison to Moses and the Pope is flawed. Jesus is the new covenant High Priest. So what your saying is all Protestants are going to burn in hell for all eternity simply because we don't pray to saints or Mary, because we believe the pope is no greater than any other sinful man, and because we don't believe confessing to man can save you? Sad.
@rokkernumber2 No, Christ was PRIEST, PROPHET, AND KING. Moses was the ultimate prophet as he told the people that there would be a prophet LIKE HIM. CHRIST fulfilled this role, as He gave A NEW LAW WITH NEW COMMANDMENTS. Moses was the type in other ways, including his birth, his life being sought after by a blood thirsty tyrant who killed children in his stead, being the first born, etc, that he was saved in an ark, fasted for forty days in the desert, that his people were in bondage, etc.And
@rokkernumber2 yes, the Pope IS a prophet WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH. Read Matthew 23:2: Christ CLEARLY told the people that they must OBEY the scribes and pharisees AS THEY SAT ON THE SEAT OF MOSES. Much more is the Pope sitting in the place of Christ as HE ALONE has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But you wicked heretics rebel because you whine that God's Law too hard. Waaah. Grow up and act like a man. With God's grace ALL things are possible, unless you want to fornicate like Luther.
On top of that, YES, Christians can interceded for one another, ESPECIALLY in Heaven. Christ says that the saints are more alive in Heaven than we are-- that they are like THE ANGELS. If you read the book of the Apocalypse you will see that the prayers of the saints are carried up before God, that they can see what is going on down on earth, and that the angels carry these same prayers before the thrown of the Lamb. The principle is that Christians pray for one another, during life AND death.
@rokkernumber2 FURTHERMORE, of course GOD is the Author, NOT Martin Luther who ADDED to the Bible and was CURSED by GOD. The book of the apocalypse is the BOOK OF REVELATION, hence the title of the movie "Apocalypse Now". Peter is the PRIME MINISTER of God's Kingdom who is to hold it together until Christ returns so HERETICS LIKE YOU don't PERVERT IT. "Dead people can't intercede? Apoc 8:4 "And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God". Yes,
@rokkernumber2 they are in Heaven, but no, not dead, for CHRIST HIMSELF says "HE IS THE GOD OF THE DEAD BUT OF THE LIVING. You have made a SERIOUS error". Matt 12:27 And you will BURN for rejecting the truth of God, for the blood of the Son of God is ON YOUR HEAD.
@petrusprimus All you catholics do is judge others. Judge away but don't bring it to me. You believe what you want. I have nothing further to say to you. Anything you say to me after this will just prove how childish you are. And you might as well quit because I am blocking you.
@rokkernumber2 There's Pharisees among almost all Christian bodies, not just Catholics.
We try to teach others that what we believe is right because, well, wouldn't you? If you believe Christ is the way, the Truth, and the Life, you would try to teach others this is so, right? And if you actually believe He is the Truth, wouldn't you want to follow His truth to the letter? That is how I see it. All I am trying to do as a Catholic is lead people to be as Christian as they can be. :-/
@rokkernumber2 Forgive us if we seem judgemental. I certainly do not mean it in that way. But our mission, as it is with all Christians, is to lead people to Heaven. And if someone is putting his soul in harm's way by taking an apathetic attitude, or even a hostile one, to something which is true and good, why, what else can I do but try to correct him?
You say we seem interested in being right. If you want others to believe what you believe, wouldn't you want to be right, too?
@GenghisKhan44 I don't believe catholic church is the single way into heaven. I never would believe that about any denomination, with the acception of mormon. I just see alot more anger and "Holier than thou art" types coming from catholic church. Claiming only the catholic church will enter the kingdom is a lie and flawed. I believe what Jesus Himself said "Those who call on my name, and truly believe, will be saved." I don't believe you have to be catholic, because Jesus didn't say that.
@rokkernumber2 There are a LOT of things Jesus didn't say. There are a lot of things not spoken about at all in the Bible. Like abortion, or gay marriage (homosexual sex is condemned, but unions between them are not mentioned).
Besides, how do you believe? As James said in his letter, "even the demons believe [in the Christ] and shudder" (2:19) There is more to belief than just saying "Lord, Lord!" You must also do the will of God, and learn what it is. There is ONE Truth, not many.
Diverse churches have diverse ideas of truth. The Catholics say, for example, that contraception is sinful and contrary to the natural law. The Orthodox generally saw it is up to the married couple. Many Protestants say contraception is OK. Who is right, then? Us? The Orthodox? The Protestants?
Only one of us may have the right idea. Contraception cannot both be good and evil at the same time. :-/
@GenghisKhan44 I know Jesus Christ is the only way, but not only one denomination will be saved. MAny will. Like a sin of faith. Paul in his letter said that if your brother believes its a sin to eat meat, don't eat meat around him simply because he believes its a sin if he eats meat he's willfully disobeying what he believes God says not to do. I paraphrase. So does that mean since I'm not Catholic, I believe in Christ and i only desire to do Gods will, if i eat meat on Fridays I'll go to hell?
@rokkernumber2 "...but not only one denomination will be saved. ... So does that mean since I'm not Catholic, I believe in Christ and i only desire to do Gods will, if i eat meat on Fridays I'll go to hell?"
Didn't you answer your own question? If not, then short answer, if you aren't Catholic, no, you aren't damned.
@rokkernumber2 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] ... brought up in the faith ... the Catholic Church accepts ... as brothers . . . . All ... justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; ... therefore ... called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
@m1chae15 I never said church has a place in heaven or faith. Trinity is our word for the complete being of God. Are you implying that Jesus has to tell us things we already know. That would defeat the purpose of him coming to teach us and ultimately die for our sins. You pretty much changed my entire view of Catholics by saying I'm not damned. I am not saying Catholics will not go to heaven, not my place to judge anyway.
@rokkernumber2 "@GenghisKhan44 ... Claiming only the catholic church will enter the kingdom is a lie and flawed. I believe what Jesus Himself said "Those who call on my name, and truly believe, will be saved." I don't believe you have to be catholic, because Jesus didn't say that.
rokkernumber2 2 months ago"
What you are saying is that this isn't what you meant. I could have written more plainly. You didn't directly say this of faith regardless. Fair enough. MTF
@rokkernumber2 Perhaps this is another misunderstanding but, I don't need to imply this. There are numerous scripture where Jesus clearly tells us what we already know. The 'two' commandments for starters. Perhaps this isn't what you mean though. Also, (thanks?), but I didn't say it, I just relayed it....MTF
@rokkernumber2 I've read quite a few of your exchanges with other Catholics and, well, quite frankly they are more than a bit caddywhumpus on many points. For example, not to pick on anyone, but being sinless in the case of, say, a Pope would be a claim of IMPECCABILITY, not (immaculateness?) . Immaculate is a word used in reference to the Virgin Mary's being saved from sin, BY CHRIST, at her conception.
@rokkernumber2 Oh yeah. Finally, for now, if you have questions, remember that sourcing is primary. Go to the source when possible. I still see and hear many Catholics propagate things that set my teeth on edge. If a monkey's driving, don't blame the car, yunno?
John 20:21-23 Matt. 9:8 Where in Scripture is this gift taken from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6 Mark 2:10 Luke 5:24 Matt. 18:18 John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 "indulgence" 2 Cor. 2:10 2 Cor. 5:18 reconciliation/confession/penance. James 5:15-16 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the ONLY mediator. Are we to tell HIM how to go about his business? Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22
That was my floodgate: why those 66 books? Before I read it in an apologetics piece, I didn't even KNOW that Catholics and Protestants had different canons. The knowledge that not every traditional Christian agreed on Biblical canon--set me on the path. So, you may or may not have personally changed a Protestant's mind. But the things you are saying, the core and key truths, have changed hearts over and over again. And the more that information spreads, the more people will be won by truth.
I would say conversion is a consequence of apologetics, but not the goal.
If protestants/non-believers who hear well reasoned arguments and still refuse to understand, accept or at least tolerate them, is beyond any apologist reach, specially when faith and grace are such big factors for conversion.
Apologetics is first and foremost defending the position of the Catholic faith, and I think you do a great job at that!
@lunaix Thanks for the wise words and encouragement. This video was self-deprecating with the goal of reminding myself and others that it is God who works in people's hearts, but you are right that defending the Faith is vitally important to help people see that the Catholic Church is reasonable
I want to offer another angle to your work which i'm sure you already know but just to encourage you. There are MANY Catholics who are confused or have doubts and who need to be STRENGTHENED in their faith. So it is not only about making converts. You may have made converts indirectly by strengthening somebody in their faith who went on and by their example drew some one into the church because that some one could see that this Catholic they knew REALLY BELIEVED and could defend his faith.
@urbanh196398105 Thanks urban for your comments. I am writing a book with the primary purpose of helping fellow Catholics know their faith and defend it better, just as you are saying. That is a great goal and one that I hope will see fruition with my book.
@BaronGrackle Hi Baron! By the way, I love that name. Yes, I am writing a book. It's working title is "50 Roads to Rome" and you can google it. I have a facebook page for it where I post some of my youtube videos, podcasts, and give updates about the progress. I am seeking a publisher currently and recently got some good feedback from one.
I would post a link or a url to the facebook page but youtube seems to disallow it. Thanks for your interest!
If you stand in front of a protestant church with a sign asking any question that goes against what they believe, you will probably not succed in convincing them. Just like when protestants knock at my door and try to convince me that Jesus is not God. I don't think an apologist's "job" is to convince anyone to become Catholic. Concentrate more on teaching catholics to believe what the Church teaches. I think you would help much more. Start at home; many don't even believe in confession anymore.
fatima34me 1 week ago
You come across as intelligent and thoughtful and yet you believe in a God. You hovered around the edges of admitting that there is zero proof of any God.
Thousands of years ago our ancestors believed in many Gods, we have slowly whittled it down to a handful as we have realised what a complex universe we live in.
I live in hope for the day that rationality will finally defeat belief.
Remember: The only difference between us is that I believe in 1 less God than you :)
DDogsK 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DDogsK You'll have eternity to think about the day that rationality will defeat belief if you do not change yours. I'll pray for you. I suggest reading some books by Scott Hahn ("Last Supper" would be a good one to start), Karl Keating ("Catholism and Fundementalism"), Patrick Madrid ("Surprised by Truth"). Great books to research to lead you to the truth. God bless!
AMIsland1 1 week ago
I can tell you why i accept the 66 books in my Bible..because God gave them to the world...He gets all the credit..not any humans..and when a human takes the credit for God's word...then they are trying to be an authority over God...and there is only one God...man's heart is evil above all....but God is truth..not a church...but a church should strive to tell God's truth through His word..not what it feels it should make up.
shanana000 3 months ago
@shanana000 God worked through humans to both inspire the books to be written and then through humans who discerned which books those were. God chose to do it that way and not drop the books from the sky. So your argument does not work.
dsr9996 3 months ago
@dsr9996 They were preached and taught (oral tradition) before they were compiled...meaning they were already known...no concil picked the books out...they were already known and just compiled in one book for all...and that was God's plan from the get... before any roman catholic church came to be. And the Bible is clear, the oracls of God are through the Jews...not the rcc...same with Christians..Jews were the first Christians also.
shanana000 3 months ago
@shanana000 This is wishful thinking. Certainly the books were written and read in various churches by 100 AD, but so were other letters, like 1 Clement. So it took about 300 more years for even the twenty-seven books of the New Testament to settle out. Look into it. The first bishop of the Church to list the correct 27 books of the NT was Athanasius, and that wasn't until the year 367 AD. God bless.
dsr9996 3 months ago
@dsr9996 They were written sixty years after Christ accended to heaven. and were preached and taught by tyhe apostles before they wrote them down. And where in turn taught a preached by new believers in Christ. That is true succession and oral tradition..which is stin enforced today by born again believers. compiling doesn't mean deciding which books are to be in the Bible...God decides that. Since He is the Author...get it?
shanana000 3 months ago
@shanana000 God is the author but He worked through human beings to discern that which He inspired. As I demonstrated by pointing out that the 27 books of the NT were not listed correctly until Athanasius in 367 AD. You have not countered that.
dsr9996 3 months ago
@dsr9996 The Peshita or the Syriac version of the New Testament, finalized well before the end of the first century, is the oldest known canon. It contains all the books of our canon today and in the same order except for Revelation, Jude, 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter. The book of Revelation is missing simply because it had not yet been written while the other books were in the process of being written and circulated. The Peshita is one of the most accurate and reliable translations
shanana000 3 months ago
@shanana000 At the earliest (based on only one vague reference by Eusebius) the Peshitta was listed in the mid to late 2nd century, not before the 1st century, and that one was also missing all the general (or catholic) epistles. The "finalized" Peshitta canon did not come until around 400 AD and by that time was missing only the books you list (meaning, it was still the wrong list even that late).
dsr9996 3 months ago
@dsr9996 Eusebius’ catalog names all 27 books of the New Testament. He lists them in two categories: the recognized and the contested Scriptures, or the antilegomens. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude made up the latter category. Eusebius added that the antilegomens were recognized by most ecclesiastical writers and were publicly read in the majority of the churches, but were exposed to some contradictions and were less cited by the ancient authors.
shanana000 3 months ago
@shanana000 On Eusebius, you are still talking about 324 AD or so. By that time the Church was teaching veneration of the saints, baptismal regeneration, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, etc. etc. Do you believe all that, too? Then why believe Eusebius? And anyway, he was chronicling how the books were settling out, many still divided on this one or that one, etc. Athanasius comes some decades later and finally gets the exact list.
dsr9996 3 months ago
@dsr9996 Eusebius’ catalog names all 27 books of the New Testament. He lists them in two categories: the recognized and the contested Scriptures, or the antilegomens. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude made up the latter category. Eusebius added that the antilegomens were recognized by most ecclesiastical writers and were publicly read in the majority of the churches, but were exposed to some contradictions and were less cited by the ancient authors. Both were befofe Athanasius
shanana000 3 months ago
We are called to faith, not success. At least this bloke is doing more than many others. We are way to weak on Evangelization, especially the "New Evangelization." Lotta wolves in the fold. It goes much to explain the damage and nonsense on places like this. Our fault.
"The enemies of the Church often do not hate the Church: they only hate what they erroneously believe to be the Church." Archbishop Fulton Sheen
"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics" Pope S. Pius V
m1chae15 4 months ago
@m1chae15 Hi Michael, this video as I think you see is a bit of a misnomer, intended to show that God is the one who converts hearts. I'm a lay Catholic apologist who has a blog (St. Joseph's Vanguard), wrote a book (If Protestantism is True), has a podcast (Catholic Apologetics podcast), and has this youtube channel for Catholic apologetics videos. I'm a former atheist who became Baptist who became Catholic. Feel free to connect with me and God bless you!
dsr9996 4 months ago
@dsr9996 Wow, that's cool. Perhaps you could shed some light on Atheism from the inside. Not sure that I get it. Can't really disagree if you don't know what you're disagreeing with. Most of them I try to talk with either offer no substantive answers, or think I'm attacking/trying to convert them. Understandable. I think that most of the time, and not just with theology, it boils down to terms. For example 'evidence' or 'justification'. I believe that the more informed Atheists, the real ones...
m1chae15 4 months ago
@dsr9996 ... the ones that, ostensibly, truly hold that position through reason, mean empirical evidence. An empirically proven god, isn't, and thus the problem. It is the same with words like 'spirit'. So we need to establish a common criteria, or we're basically wasting our time. That or posit a 'god' that has already possibly run the transhumanist like gauntlet and so, Mormon like, already filled the naturalist throne of creation, at least possibly. "ET phone home!" Dubious to say the least.
m1chae15 4 months ago
@dsr9996 "Most problems, are problems with language." Wittgenstein
m1chae15 4 months ago
@dsr9996 Also, I don't see anything but more backpedalling even if we could provide the currently stated criteria ('miracles') anyway. Is scientifically verifiable/falsifiable and demonstrable coming back from the dead really, truly, undeniably and absolutely proof that God exists? "Well, this is just nature we don't understand yet, and so ... more science." I think this is another reason why God doesn't, and why Christ didn't do "miracles on demand." "He performed no miracles there because ..."
m1chae15 4 months ago
@dsr9996 .... of little faith" Scripture check that. Hazard of reading too many translations. Mix and match. Upside to knowing Chapter and verse. This segues to 'criteria' prev. The arguments and evidences ultimately MUST be unempiricales or miracles. In a common, secular, Atheistic realm, this means philosophic and meta-physic, no? After that ... "He's dead Jim."
m1chae15 4 months ago
"Meet a Catholic apologist who hasn't convinced anyone..."
If Christianity is true, then isn't this between the Holy Spirit and the individual?
"... to become Catholic even after 10 years trying."
Given that your implicit assumption is true, and speaking of assumptions, how do you know this? Omniscience?
We are called to faith, not success, in any event. Faith not sight?
m1chae15 4 months ago
I'll convince you of Gnosticism
pandirasbox 5 months ago
Great video,
Ave Maria!
redbaron998 9 months ago
Interestingly enough, he goes on to say that ten different people he has spoken to have converted, he is just humble enough to see that that is not his doing. I like this man.
TrasguTravieso 10 months ago
To me, catholics seem more interested with being right, then converting. Besides, how does one go from judging everybody who believes differently, as most catholics do, to trying to convert people. Popes elected by man, not God = Fail. Praying to Mary, when only Jesus can save = Fail, Confessing to man, when only Jesus can save = Fail, Mardi Gras = Massive Fail
rokkernumber2 11 months ago
@rokkernumber2 Hi Rokker, sorry you have had such a bad experience with Catholics. I desire to know God in the truth and want that for others, too. That can sometimes come across pridefully and trying to be "right," which is unfortunate. God works through man. We are His hands and feet, so it is a false dichotomy to say its EITHER God OR man but cannot be both. That's a logical Fail. :) Anyway, pray and read the Bible (especially John 17 to the end of that gospel) and strive for unity in truth
dsr9996 11 months ago
@rokkernumber2 For someone who is for holding hands with all demonic religions, you seem quite confident that you have judged Catholics believe accurately. How does a Pope being elected by a man preclude that he was not also elected by God. Are you going to deny that Matthias, for example, was not elected by God? How does praying to Mary preclude the fact that only Jesus can save? Or perhaps you are confused about what the word save even means or HOW one can be saved? And by the way, "Mardi
petrusprimus 9 months ago
@petrusprimus Furthermore the Holy Bible has one Author. Many writers and one Author. God is the Author. The book of the apocalypse is written by man equating it to crap. I read some Catholic Doctrine. Apparently since Jesus is dead the pope is now the one who took his place? Ha sorry, Jesus isn't dead. He rose from the grave and eternally the Head of the church, not the pope. And you can pray for others, i do. But dead people can't intercede. Jesus can. why would you need anybody else to?
rokkernumber2 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 Gras" is mostly a pagan festival. "Shrove Tuesday" is more aligned with Catholic sensibilities. It is the day that Catholics confess their sins so they are forgiven.
petrusprimus 9 months ago
@petrusprimus You must be Catholic because your first statement was about how I follow a demonic religion, Why? Because i don't believe like you do. See, you just proved my point. Joshua was chosen by God and all the Israelites witnessed it. I didn't see the hand of God touch the pope. Praying to Mary to intercede God is like praying to a stone for salvation. Worthless. Jesus himself said, "There is NO way to the Father (God), but through ME." Not Mary, not saints, and not through some man.
rokkernumber2 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 I proved your point? 2 John 2: 9-12 "He who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, HAS NOT GOD". You either are with Christ or you are a prisoner of Satan. By rejecting Christ's teachings on His True Body and Blood, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the intercession of the saints, and the establishment of Peter as Vicar of His Church, you have shown you belong to the Church of Antichrist, not Christ. Asking a saint for intercession is not unbiblical, it is COMPLETELY biblical
petrusprimus 7 months ago
@petrusprimus Wow. So you honestly think the pope never sinned? I say you are proving my point because your so dedicated to being right. Jesus himself said "If you are not with me you're against me, if you are not against me, you are with me." So le tme ask you this, in what part of the Bible did Jesus pray to Mary? Or to one of his disciples? He prayed to God. Now Jesus is the bridge, nobody else can intercede.
rokkernumber2 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 The real question here is whether you want to follow anti-Catholic propaganda & live a lie like other protestants or whether you will investigate what I say. I NEVER SAID the Pope was "immaculate (that he didn't sin)". That is a false & superstitious idea that is NOWHERE in Catholicism. The teaching is that he has a "chair", as Moses did, & even the Scribes and Pharisees did, BY CHRIST'S OWN WORDS. True authority: "whatever u (single) will bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."
petrusprimus 7 months ago
@petrusprimus thats funny seeing as Moses was leading the Israelites in the old Testiment and wasn't even the high priest. Aaron was. That means your comparison to Moses and the Pope is flawed. Jesus is the new covenant High Priest. So what your saying is all Protestants are going to burn in hell for all eternity simply because we don't pray to saints or Mary, because we believe the pope is no greater than any other sinful man, and because we don't believe confessing to man can save you? Sad.
rokkernumber2 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 No, Christ was PRIEST, PROPHET, AND KING. Moses was the ultimate prophet as he told the people that there would be a prophet LIKE HIM. CHRIST fulfilled this role, as He gave A NEW LAW WITH NEW COMMANDMENTS. Moses was the type in other ways, including his birth, his life being sought after by a blood thirsty tyrant who killed children in his stead, being the first born, etc, that he was saved in an ark, fasted for forty days in the desert, that his people were in bondage, etc.And
petrusprimus 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 yes, the Pope IS a prophet WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH. Read Matthew 23:2: Christ CLEARLY told the people that they must OBEY the scribes and pharisees AS THEY SAT ON THE SEAT OF MOSES. Much more is the Pope sitting in the place of Christ as HE ALONE has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But you wicked heretics rebel because you whine that God's Law too hard. Waaah. Grow up and act like a man. With God's grace ALL things are possible, unless you want to fornicate like Luther.
petrusprimus 7 months ago
On top of that, YES, Christians can interceded for one another, ESPECIALLY in Heaven. Christ says that the saints are more alive in Heaven than we are-- that they are like THE ANGELS. If you read the book of the Apocalypse you will see that the prayers of the saints are carried up before God, that they can see what is going on down on earth, and that the angels carry these same prayers before the thrown of the Lamb. The principle is that Christians pray for one another, during life AND death.
petrusprimus 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 I agree with you! :) May you hold tightly to your faith in Jesus and DO NOT be consumed by this church!
Danielezerable 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 FURTHERMORE, of course GOD is the Author, NOT Martin Luther who ADDED to the Bible and was CURSED by GOD. The book of the apocalypse is the BOOK OF REVELATION, hence the title of the movie "Apocalypse Now". Peter is the PRIME MINISTER of God's Kingdom who is to hold it together until Christ returns so HERETICS LIKE YOU don't PERVERT IT. "Dead people can't intercede? Apoc 8:4 "And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God". Yes,
petrusprimus 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 they are in Heaven, but no, not dead, for CHRIST HIMSELF says "HE IS THE GOD OF THE DEAD BUT OF THE LIVING. You have made a SERIOUS error". Matt 12:27 And you will BURN for rejecting the truth of God, for the blood of the Son of God is ON YOUR HEAD.
petrusprimus 7 months ago
@petrusprimus All you catholics do is judge others. Judge away but don't bring it to me. You believe what you want. I have nothing further to say to you. Anything you say to me after this will just prove how childish you are. And you might as well quit because I am blocking you.
rokkernumber2 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 There's Pharisees among almost all Christian bodies, not just Catholics.
We try to teach others that what we believe is right because, well, wouldn't you? If you believe Christ is the way, the Truth, and the Life, you would try to teach others this is so, right? And if you actually believe He is the Truth, wouldn't you want to follow His truth to the letter? That is how I see it. All I am trying to do as a Catholic is lead people to be as Christian as they can be. :-/
GenghisKhan44 7 months ago
@rokkernumber2 Forgive us if we seem judgemental. I certainly do not mean it in that way. But our mission, as it is with all Christians, is to lead people to Heaven. And if someone is putting his soul in harm's way by taking an apathetic attitude, or even a hostile one, to something which is true and good, why, what else can I do but try to correct him?
You say we seem interested in being right. If you want others to believe what you believe, wouldn't you want to be right, too?
GenghisKhan44 7 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 I don't believe catholic church is the single way into heaven. I never would believe that about any denomination, with the acception of mormon. I just see alot more anger and "Holier than thou art" types coming from catholic church. Claiming only the catholic church will enter the kingdom is a lie and flawed. I believe what Jesus Himself said "Those who call on my name, and truly believe, will be saved." I don't believe you have to be catholic, because Jesus didn't say that.
rokkernumber2 6 months ago
@rokkernumber2 There are a LOT of things Jesus didn't say. There are a lot of things not spoken about at all in the Bible. Like abortion, or gay marriage (homosexual sex is condemned, but unions between them are not mentioned).
Besides, how do you believe? As James said in his letter, "even the demons believe [in the Christ] and shudder" (2:19) There is more to belief than just saying "Lord, Lord!" You must also do the will of God, and learn what it is. There is ONE Truth, not many.
GenghisKhan44 6 months ago
Diverse churches have diverse ideas of truth. The Catholics say, for example, that contraception is sinful and contrary to the natural law. The Orthodox generally saw it is up to the married couple. Many Protestants say contraception is OK. Who is right, then? Us? The Orthodox? The Protestants?
Only one of us may have the right idea. Contraception cannot both be good and evil at the same time. :-/
GenghisKhan44 6 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 I know Jesus Christ is the only way, but not only one denomination will be saved. MAny will. Like a sin of faith. Paul in his letter said that if your brother believes its a sin to eat meat, don't eat meat around him simply because he believes its a sin if he eats meat he's willfully disobeying what he believes God says not to do. I paraphrase. So does that mean since I'm not Catholic, I believe in Christ and i only desire to do Gods will, if i eat meat on Fridays I'll go to hell?
rokkernumber2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rokkernumber2 "...but not only one denomination will be saved. ... So does that mean since I'm not Catholic, I believe in Christ and i only desire to do Gods will, if i eat meat on Fridays I'll go to hell?"
Didn't you answer your own question? If not, then short answer, if you aren't Catholic, no, you aren't damned.
1. Fish friday is discipline, not dogma.
2. More to follow...
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] ... brought up in the faith ... the Catholic Church accepts ... as brothers . . . . All ... justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; ... therefore ... called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
From the Catholic Catechism, entry 818
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and that's it.
However...
1. What is the need of Church, or Faith for that matter, in Heaven? Who said that besides you? It is flawed.
2. If you say that you truly believe me, and I tell you that your house is on fire, and you don't move ...
3. " ... because Jesus didn't say that ..." He didn't say Trinity either, for example.
m1chae15 4 months ago
@m1chae15 I never said church has a place in heaven or faith. Trinity is our word for the complete being of God. Are you implying that Jesus has to tell us things we already know. That would defeat the purpose of him coming to teach us and ultimately die for our sins. You pretty much changed my entire view of Catholics by saying I'm not damned. I am not saying Catholics will not go to heaven, not my place to judge anyway.
rokkernumber2 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 "@GenghisKhan44 ... Claiming only the catholic church will enter the kingdom is a lie and flawed. I believe what Jesus Himself said "Those who call on my name, and truly believe, will be saved." I don't believe you have to be catholic, because Jesus didn't say that.
rokkernumber2 2 months ago"
What you are saying is that this isn't what you meant. I could have written more plainly. You didn't directly say this of faith regardless. Fair enough. MTF
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 Perhaps this is another misunderstanding but, I don't need to imply this. There are numerous scripture where Jesus clearly tells us what we already know. The 'two' commandments for starters. Perhaps this isn't what you mean though. Also, (thanks?), but I didn't say it, I just relayed it....MTF
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 I've read quite a few of your exchanges with other Catholics and, well, quite frankly they are more than a bit caddywhumpus on many points. For example, not to pick on anyone, but being sinless in the case of, say, a Pope would be a claim of IMPECCABILITY, not (immaculateness?) . Immaculate is a word used in reference to the Virgin Mary's being saved from sin, BY CHRIST, at her conception.
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 Oh yeah. Finally, for now, if you have questions, remember that sourcing is primary. Go to the source when possible. I still see and hear many Catholics propagate things that set my teeth on edge. If a monkey's driving, don't blame the car, yunno?
Peace. Sorry for any scrambled signals.
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 "To me, catholics seem more interested with being right, then converting." Possibly. Impeccability... must be nice.
m1chae15 4 months ago
Comment removed
m1chae15 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rokkernumber2 " ... how does one go from judging everybody who believes differently, as most catholics do, to trying to convert people."
'judging'. Define please. We can't convert anyone. See "Holy Spirit". So, we try to live our faith, do our part in saving souls = 'Fail' ?
"Popes elected by man, not God = Fail" Prove it, or "Fail".
"Praying to Mary" True. So what?
"...when only Jesus can save ... " True ... and?
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 I. Apostolic Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21-23 Matt. 9:8 Where in Scripture is this gift taken from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6 Mark 2:10 Luke 5:24 Matt. 18:18 John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 "indulgence" 2 Cor. 2:10 2 Cor. 5:18 reconciliation/confession/penance. James 5:15-16 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the ONLY mediator. Are we to tell HIM how to go about his business? Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22
m1chae15 4 months ago
@rokkernumber2 II. The Sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession/Penance
James 5:14-16 Acts 19:18 Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 1 Tim. 6:12 1 John 1:9 Num. 5:7 2 Sam. 12:14 sin forgiven, consequence remains. Neh. 9:2-3 Sir. 4:26 Baruch 1:14 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 mortal and venial sins. Matt. 5:19 - Venial: Saved but least. Mortal: Cut off. Confess or die. HELLo.
m1chae15 4 months ago
The effect is gradual not instant.Thanks for caring and presenting the truth and fullness of faith.
wealththinkers 11 months ago
That was my floodgate: why those 66 books? Before I read it in an apologetics piece, I didn't even KNOW that Catholics and Protestants had different canons. The knowledge that not every traditional Christian agreed on Biblical canon--set me on the path. So, you may or may not have personally changed a Protestant's mind. But the things you are saying, the core and key truths, have changed hearts over and over again. And the more that information spreads, the more people will be won by truth.
BaronGrackle 1 year ago
I would say conversion is a consequence of apologetics, but not the goal.
If protestants/non-believers who hear well reasoned arguments and still refuse to understand, accept or at least tolerate them, is beyond any apologist reach, specially when faith and grace are such big factors for conversion.
Apologetics is first and foremost defending the position of the Catholic faith, and I think you do a great job at that!
lunaix 1 year ago
@lunaix Thanks for the wise words and encouragement. This video was self-deprecating with the goal of reminding myself and others that it is God who works in people's hearts, but you are right that defending the Faith is vitally important to help people see that the Catholic Church is reasonable
dsr9996 1 year ago
I want to offer another angle to your work which i'm sure you already know but just to encourage you. There are MANY Catholics who are confused or have doubts and who need to be STRENGTHENED in their faith. So it is not only about making converts. You may have made converts indirectly by strengthening somebody in their faith who went on and by their example drew some one into the church because that some one could see that this Catholic they knew REALLY BELIEVED and could defend his faith.
urbanh196398105 1 year ago
@urbanh196398105 Thanks urban for your comments. I am writing a book with the primary purpose of helping fellow Catholics know their faith and defend it better, just as you are saying. That is a great goal and one that I hope will see fruition with my book.
dsr9996 1 year ago
@dsr9996 You are writing a book? I demand that you keep us updated through this channel!
BaronGrackle 1 year ago
@BaronGrackle Hi Baron! By the way, I love that name. Yes, I am writing a book. It's working title is "50 Roads to Rome" and you can google it. I have a facebook page for it where I post some of my youtube videos, podcasts, and give updates about the progress. I am seeking a publisher currently and recently got some good feedback from one.
I would post a link or a url to the facebook page but youtube seems to disallow it. Thanks for your interest!
dsr9996 1 year ago