Besides the references in Scripture to whole families being baptized (in which infants were most likely baptized), you have Irenaeus,
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Hippolytus,
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
@SeptemberCatholic18 I would like to encourage all people that I have been talking to, on the internet. To see "Catholicism vs Biblical Faith" posted by formeragnostic. The ex priest who talks there is definitely not an arrogant anti catholic but a true Christian.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Yes the greeting does include the children, of course it does. If my mind the household means everyone in the house. If you say everyone in the house hold is Chinese. you just say that. If you say everyone in the household is communist. you usually just say that. in the second example it is implied only the adults. AFTER ALL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS ABOUT THIS TEXT " IT IS IMPLIED" When anyway there might not have been children in that instance.
@SeptemberCatholic18 SORRY MY FAITH DOESN'T COUNT FOR MY CHILDREN FAITH. yes there can be a blessing for them, from it. The all bible is fool of such statements like EXODUS 4 to 6. Not practicing idolatry has a blessing even for my descendants. but at the end of the day I cannot have faith for someone else when if comes to salvation.
The word household must be understood in the complete bibles context. Only those that could decide to be baptized were baptized, that was the household.
Baptism is necessary the Bible says repent and be baptized. This man is saying that protestant say that all that is necessary is conversion. No it is not so, it says there repent and be baptized.
so the infant original sin is forgiven, and guess this is for life. So for life he or she has received remission of the original sin. I would like bible study so see if this fantasy can be supported. THE IS ONLY ONE SIN WE MUST REPENT OF. And them be baptized. To thing there is something in scripture we are to do to have remission of the original sin, is catholic fantacy
for the promise is unto you, and to your children. This is talking about the PROMISE. So the children also when they are ready to make the decision to give their lives to God can decide to be baptized.
God's Covenants with Abraham was circumcisions, "from now on you shall circumcise your male children on the 8th day! did the child Isaac make a choice to be circumcised and Abraham's household?
Our covenant is spiritual and not of the flesh, Baptism is spiritual and likewise we get baptized in the same manner to be in Christ's covenant! Maybe this can help people understand!
If it happens like this video says and the infant recieves the holy spirit at baptism, then there is no need to trust in Jesus at a later age because they have already recieved the holy spirit as an infant. So that being said after baptism do they need to come to Christ as an adult for a second dose? The holy spirit is given once not twice. So in closing, if one recieves the holy spirit as an infant they are saved for life????
@whinda4702 The Holy Spirit is given many times. For instance, Christ gave the Spirit to the apostles in John 20:22 and they received it again at Pentecost. Plus, no child is perfect after baptism, so of course they need as much of the Spirit as they can get! Later in life, a child inevitably sins, and thus requires trust in Christ at every step. He who endures till the end will be saved; it's not over after baptism.
So your trying to say a baptized baby is saved for life according to Peter? Not true. Also Christ is the only one that saves not infant baptism. If you can not comprehend the gospel , if you die you are not accountable. Furthermore John was baptising people before Christ was even baptised himself. Constantine started infant baptism when he forced Rome as a whole to be catholics and in turn christians like myself were killed.
@whinda4702 I did not say a baptized infant is saved for life. Salvation can be lost if the person rejects God's gift while he has it. Baptism itself does not save, but rather the Holy Spirit working through the water. If baptism was merely water it could not save; but Jesus says baptism is water and Spirit (Jn 3:5). John was baptizing with mere water so it wasn't actually baptism as we know it.
Infants were being baptized since the beginning. Watch from 8:33. Constantine did not start it.
John 3,5 is the fulfillment of Ez 36,24 ff. and in parallel with Eph 5,26: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (...)."
That is not true. If you read the entire chapter of John 3, the apostles immediately head into the land to baptize people. Water and Spirit refers to baptism, which Jesus says is necessary.
"Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
And did you not read ahead to verse 22-23 where they make clear what Jesus meant?
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized."
The wind blows where it wishes. It is God the Holy Spirit's free choice to give new birth. That is, regeneration is not automatically linked to baptism. The roman-catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration is wrong.
Verses 22-23: Yes, they baptized. But they baptized those whom the Spirit gave new birth when they listened to Christ. That's the connection.
That's not true. In John 3:5, it is said that water AND spirit is needed for salvation. They make it clear that they are talking about baptism because a few verses later they go out into the city and start baptizing.
"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
But Jesus didn't baptize the infants and young children in that pericope, right? He "merely" blessed them and pointed to them as an example. We have to become children of God in order to enter His kingdom ...
The only possible NT room for infant baptism are the Oikos-pericopes in Acts ...
First of all, I love your picture. I am from Texas, and I really like "Ecce Homo" pictures of Jesus.
I didn't mean to suggest that Jesus baptized these little ones. My point was to show that Jesus is open to children of all ages, and calls them all to be part of his family regardless of mental ability.
If you need to consciously accept Jesus, then what about the mentally ill that cannot make that decision on their own? Can they never be baptized?
I would say that baptism is linked to faith and therefore mentally ill (at least at a certain degree) can not be baptized. But I also would point out that baptism isn't absolutely necessary for salvation. To be un-baptized (especially in the case of disabilities) is not an exclusion from heaven at all. David's son f.e. died on the seventh day - a day before his ritual circumcision. But David expected to see him in the afterlife nevertheless ...
Of course there are exceptions. If someone dies and was unable to be baptized, or receive admission into God's family (for the OT), he can still be saved.
However, what does Jesus say in John 3:5? "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God."
That means baptism as necessary for salvation. There can be no beating around this bush. Jesus makes it plain and simple.
@TimotheosCauvin Fight for the truth brother. Catholics take verses out of context and dont recite what is before the verse or after and extract what ever meaning they want out of it. Peace to you. I will invite you as a friend.
@whinda4702 Timotheoscauvin did not ever respond back to my refutation of his argument. Until then, there is no reason to believe his argument holds any water (no pun intended). If this is going to turn into a long dialog, I recommend you respond to me in PM so we can type more. Trust me, I have read the contexts.
Have you ever done a video on the prophecy of Pope Leo XIII? I like to use the polycarp baptism.. He states that he had served the lord for 86 years and he died when he was 86. So he had to have been baptized when he was an infant.
Sir, I was baptized when I was infant but is it right to be baptized again? as what others say(non-catholics) because they said that we should be baptized by "Immersion" as what the bible requires in John 3:22-23....
As long as you were baptized validly, you should not need a second baptism. The Church rejects re-baptisms. "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." -Nicene Creed
Jesus simply says that we must be baptized of water and Spirit (John 3:5). He never commands us to be immersed in water for it to be valid. John 3:22-23 does not command us to use immersion only. In fact, Hebrews 10:22 uses the word "sprinkle" to describe the cleaning process.
I never claimed to be a priest. I am entering the seminary (maybe one in Rome). For now, I am a simple lay person.
I've debated Sedevacantism before. It turns out to be a joke every time. I only use the KJV in my videos so Protestants can make the excuse that I use a "Catholic Bible." At home, I use the DR Bible.
It is a heresy to claim certainty of someone's eternal fate. So add that to your list of heresies. Further, JPII was Polish! The Polish kiss everything! He kissed the ground!
That is one of the worst misrepresentations I've heard come from an Emptychairist. With all due respect, I don't think I can ever take Emptychairism seriously. Who are you to call us heretics? In our eyes, you broke off from the truth.
book called "the Four Gospels. An introductory Commentary by Michael Fallon. It is used by new priests, and is an excellent simple read in explain Catholic interpretation, and how Catholic doctrine develops.
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. As long as you are not in denial of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist (body, blood, soul, and divinity), and that this occurs via transubstantiation, then I rescind my aggressive comments and whole-heartily apologize; I would never want to attack a good priest of the Church.
I thought that you, like some priests now days, denied fundamental and critical teachings of the Church. Those kind of priests send me off the deep end.
Not a problem, and no need to apologize. But thanks anyway.
In short, the bread is spiritual food, the wine is spiritual drink. This is even spoken of in the Eucharist itself, which no doubt you will know.
The bread becomes spiritual food in the form of bread, the wine, spiritual drink in the form of wine. Transubstanciation does not change the bread or wine into flesh and blood as such, we all know that by taste alone. What is does is change the bread and wine into the spiritual...
That is language I can agree with. I suppose I interpreted your use of the word "spiritual" as a denial of the literal presence. I see now what you were referring to. I tend to jump to conclusions very quickly.
That's what I thought at first. It appears that he believes in the literal presence (blood, body, soul, and divinity), but meant merely that the Eucharist was a spiritual food (since we do not eat it primarily to gain nutrients as we do with food in general).
The church basically teaches that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Jesus. This is spiritual but in the form of a physical food ie:bread and wine.
It is very confusing to be totally honest. But the bible is basically the same. Again we deal with physical language, but spiritual events.
For example was the blind man blind? No. He simply could not see he was being lead astray.
Was the Lepor treatment by Jesus in the same way you might expect medicine to heal a person..
No. The Lepor is cured of a spiritual condition, that of being a social outcast to which Jesus enables to become human again.
Did Jesus walk on water? No. Go back to the story of the storm. Jesus is teaching his disciples to understand that worry does not calm the storm. In the next part, (walk on water) he is not with them physically, but is still with them. Peter also walks on water. This is about relying on what Jesus taught. Storms happen.
I am stating a fact. Instead of wasting 9 years in the seminary you should have beome a Social Worker. That's exactly what Liberal Priests like yourself are....you feed stomachs but not souls.
I strongly suggest you speak to your local Bishop and tell him what you have been posting on YouTube.
Many Catholics are confused and frustrated by the "new theology" that you have learned and are promoting. It is not right and you are dividing the Body of Christ.
is about water (blessing of the spirit of God) to wine, (representing a covernant or agreement which marriage is)
Jesus was a spiritual teacher and leader, not a magician. What he did is not beyond anyone elses human capabilities. Why would send a human son when he was not human at all? He was human so that we might learn how humans can also represent the nature of God. This is what the bible teaches. We are taught to be like Jesus.
No offense, but I am not a fan of Midrash. I would rather you not teach these things in the name of a priest. All reputable scholars accept these miracle accounts as literal events. Midrash seems to be a liberal way of looking at things.
Further, I want to clarify on your behalf. The Eucharist is LITERALLY the body and blood in substance. However, they appear under the appearances of bread and wine, albeit there is NO MORE bread or wine after consecration--only Jesus.
I can almost 100% guarantee you that any reputable Catholic scholar does not believe in the miracles as literal events. Moreover, the Catholic Church do not teach them as being so either.
Midrash is Aramaic commentary of Hebrew. Whether you agree or disagree or whether you are a fan or not, midrash developed from this commentary.
Who to your own knowledge is a reputable Catholic scholar? I know all of them. However if what you believe makes sense to you, you believe it, and it assists..
"God and the World," pages 246-247. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is asked if the multiplication of the loaves was literal or if it was purely symbolic.
He affirms that it was literal, stating that "many exegetes today...are tempted to take the feeding miracle as merely a pictorial representation...but we ought not to be in too much of a hurry to deny possibilities to God."
He then goes on in page 248 to list two examples of contemporary miracles similar to the one Jesus performed with the loaves.
Read the whole peice, and in context. It does not say it was a literal event, nor does it say it was purely symbolic. What it says is that while the story has many symbolic aspects, the event still happened, which I agree. However while it happened, there is no such claim that it was a literal event.
What are you talking about? Either it happened, or it did not. If it happened, then the literal position is true. If it did not happen, then it is either a lie or a symbolic account.
Ratzinger denies that it was purely symbolic, and he certainly does not believe it was a lie. The only remaining option is that it happened, which is the literal view.
Was the Lepor "cured" of Leprosy? If so, name one other account in any history, medical or otherwise, where a lepor is cured of leprosy. You claim Jesus can do anything, and I am assuming like all Christians you believe he is the same now as he was then. So one account of a Lepor being "cured" would be good thank you.
Yes, he clearly denies that it was fully symbolic. "...we ought not to be in too much of a hurry to deny possibilities to God."
What liberalism. Yes, our Lord can do anything and he is unchanging. He performed miracles to vindicate his claims that he is the Son of God. He has already done so ultimately with his death and resurrection so there is no need for him to do this now.
One case of a leper being cured? The Gospels of course. Chromatius, Hilary, Chrysostom, Augustine, affirm this.
Nowhere outside the gospels is a man cured of leposy through a blessing.
Secondly, he states there are symbols in the story, so go and read again,
Thirdly, who actually claims to be the Son of God? Not Jesus himself. In fact if you were to put in google "I am the Son of God", the quote will not have come from jesus I can 100% guarantee it. I am not denying I believe he was, but jesus never makes the claim.
No one outside of the Gospels was ever God so that solves that mystery.
Yes, there are symbols, but that DOESN'T mean the story itself is fully symbolic. For instance, in the Mass, there are literally alter boys present. They symbolize they angels who serve Jesus Christ. Here we have a completely literal instance with symbolism in it.
If you would actually read the pages I quoted, Ratzinger is saying that the miracle symbolized the mana in the desert and the Eucharist.
Oh my! Did you just say what I think you said? It symbolized the Eucharist? Is that not what I have already said? Many posts back? Does the Eucharist deal with food to fill people tummys, or fill their spirits? If you were fill physically, why does the traditional Catholic not eat before communion why are those Catholics so keen to eat after Sunday morning mass? Should by your theory they not be full physically?
I never made the argument that the Eucharist was a nutritional food. Of course it is a spiritual food. What I was arguing for was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity. There is NO more bread/wine after consecration; only Jesus.
The miracle of the loaves really happened. He actually multiplied the food in a supernatural act out of his divinity. This literal miracle served as a symbol to the Jews that he was the new Moses. It also prefigured the Eucharist.
good reason why you spend as long as you do becoming a priest, and if it was as simple as the everyday Catholic understood things (ie:translation, interpretation, and doctrine) more people would enter the priesthood.
Midrash is a simple word few Catholics have heard of, and no Catholic priest will teach his congregation about, but it is Midrash that enables a priest to fully understand the bible, and the Catholic faith. You will no doubt learn about it.
Did I deny he was present at the Eucharist? I don't think so.
Good luck to you in entering the seminary. It is a challenging, eye opening time, and a time in which what you thought you believed is thrown out the window. If every Catholic was to go through the priesthood their whole faith would change for the better.
If you are truly a Catholic, print my comments out, take them to your local priest, and let him tell you they are wrong because I am telling you he won't. There is a very..
The Protestant see communion as symbolic of the physical re-enactment of the last supper. The RCC see communion, or the Eucharist as literal, though not physical but spiritual food.
To eat the bread as a Catholic is the same as the 5000 eating the bread in the story of the loaves and fish. The food is not physical, but spiritual. Bread represents the fundamentals of life. To eat the bread is to remember the fundamentals of life, while wine or blood is a covenant, or agreement to follow this.
I have a Eucharist video where I address this common Protestant view.
You see, to the Jews, eating flesh and drinking blood in a metaphorical sense meant to assault somebody with words (Psalm 27:2; Ecclesiastes 4:5; Ezekiel 39:18).
Therefore, Jesus must have been speaking in a literal sense, because to take Jesus metaphorically would be to make him promise life eternal for those who insult him.
You talk about the key to hell and discuss Matt. The Gospel of Matthew never addresses the keys to Hell. That is my take on that Gospel and the Keys to Death and Hades.
Psalms 150:1 Halleluyah! Praise God in his holy place! Praise him in the heavenly dome of his power! 2 Praise him for his mighty deeds! Praise him for his surpassing greatness! 3 Praise him with a blast on the shofar! Praise him with lute and lyre! 4 Praise him with tambourines and dancing! Praise him with flutes and strings! 5 Praise him with clanging cymbals! Praise him with loud crashing cymbals! 6 Let everything that has breath praise ADONAI! Halleluyah!
Matthew 21:16 They said to him, "Do you hear what they're saying?" Yeshua replied, "Of course! Haven't you ever read, `From the mouth of children and infants you have prepared praise for yourself'?"
Now what is this PRAISE, do Catholics Praise the Lord in Spirit and Truth? Matthew 15:9 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines. Mark 7:7 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines
Acts 2:38 Kefa answered them, "Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh! 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for those far away - as many as ADONAI our God may call!"
HOW CAN AN *INFANT*, "Turn from sin, return to God?
and are you saying you are in this church, "You need an infallible Church that CANNOT lie! ???
it could mean father mother and grown children...NO infants(and a few more combinations as well..)
it could also mean father mother and infants...
the verse you gave is not explicit enough for you to say there were infants and not explicit enough for me to say that there were not infants...so lets drop the chase !
the Bible DOES NOT speak about where dead infants go after they die so you have a false assumption when you are trying to make the case that Matt 19:14 is some how an explanation of how dead infants are going to make it into the kingdom...if those infants are going to make it into the kingdom is because of GRACE of GOD not because some RCC priest performs a ritual from which RCC makes some money
I never said what happens to infants who die. I simply mentioned the fact that many Fundamentalists assume that they are automatically saved until the age of reason, which by that point faith is required.
The Catholic position on the destiny of infants who die is vastly different, but I did not discuss it in the video, nor do I plan to here (unless requested).
Of course I'm making the case for infant baptism, but I am not making any kind of case regarding what happens to children when they die. I merely explained that many Fundamentalists make an exception for children who die, saying they are saved.
Every verse that I quote is in the correct context and serves an appropriate purpose in my video. I believe your mistake is in thinking that every verse I quote serves to prove infant baptism; this is false.
Some verses, indeed, have nothing to do with baptism. For instance, when I quote Jesus as saying "forbid them not," I am fully aware this is not a reference to baptism. My point here is that Christ wants all of his people to come to him no matter what age. Then I move on to other verses.
Acts 2:39 in context has nothing to do with children being "called",as i made the point is talking about next generations...in the video you had "your children" underlined ,i assumed that your trying to make a point for "The Sacraments:Infant Baptismal" why would you even quote the verse if you knew it had nothing to do you your claims for infant baptismal?
Yes, this interpretation is valid. "Your children" is likely a reference to the next generation. However, he did not simply say "next generation" The fact that he chose this language cannot be ignored. It was likely the case that the call was meant for the next generation starting with the children of that generation.
Second, this wording shows that the call is universal. There is nothing about any kind of restriction here. In fact, the universality of the call is emphasized here!
is universal in the sense that it was extended to the gentiles as well as Jews,and in context Peter talked specifically about the next generations(your children) otherwise Peter would have not added the one" afar off" to his enumeration..."as the Lord our GOD SHALL CALL"
I want to remind you that it is your burden of proof. I see no indication in Peter's words that baptism was to be restricted from children. Once again, I argue that he uses the word "children" as opposed to "next generation" because he meant to imply that the next generation begins with the children.
I still don't think you've adequately addressed the fact that baptism is compared to circumcision. It appears that the same pattern would follow, as the video describes at 5:17.
Paul talking about "circumcision without hands" prior to min 5:18,if you would have quoted verse 12 in Col. 2 you would see that Paul equates baptismal with Christ's death NOT HIS circumcision
and in context of chp 2 Paul exhorts the christians to be constant and not to waver in their faith after philosophies vain deceit and man made traditions
so again i have to advise you to read the verse you want to quote in context of the chapter or even the whole epistles
"11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ
"12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
It seems that he connects baptism with both circumcision and Christ's death. I can at least be honest and see both connections. Your theology requires you to reject or twist verse 11.
keep reading and you'll see that verse 13 is talking about "you being DEAD in your sins and the unCIRCUMCISION of your flesh...etc"so Paul makes the case that the "circumcision without hands" is actually what GOD does when HE changes your heart,infants can in no way be the recipients of such 'transformation'
That is not in the text. In fact, verse 13 (to which you refer) only speaks of the salvific power of this "circumcision without hands." Once again, he is talking about baptism. In baptism, you do not touch the foreskin (hence, no hands), yet through baptism, man can become part of God's covenant just as in the Old Testament with the circumcision of hands.
Why else would he speak of baptism and this new circumcision in such close proximity of one another? He is describing the same thing.
Col 2:11 only mentions "circumcision without hands"without equating it with baptism...in verse 13 the equation between DEATH and baptismal is clearly made ,so at least lets be honest to the text here and don't' get them mixed up..."close proximity" is not an excuse to mix up as you please...
Genesis 17:14 said "No uncircumcized man will be one of my people."
Acts 15:1-2, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
In 50AD Paul made an appeal in the 1st Council: Council of Jerusalem that such an act should not apply to converts, esp. to the Gentiles. Peter backed him up.
the NT is very clear that just because one was borne in the nation of Israel and one was circumcised it DID NOT mean that one was a child of GOD...so again stop with the assumptions !
"I want to remind you that it is your burden of proof."
you are the one trying to use what Peter said about "your children" to refer to infants being baptized ...i made the point that in context Peter is talking about generation NOT infants..." as many as the Lord our God shall call"(as you can see MANY is used not all!!!)
I understand that regarding my interpretation of this particular verse, it is my burden to provide evidence supporting it. However, it is your burden to provide evidence that in general, Christ's call to baptism is limited to adults and children are not called.
Just because the word "many" is used does not mean that all are not called. All people is many, is it not? Besides, many and all are used interchangeably at times in Scripture.
in 1Tim 2:6...go back to verse 1 ,"giving of thanks for ALL men"
but next Paul gives categories of people "kings" "all that are in authority"
so if you take ALL in verse 1 to mean the whole humanity then you are what Origen was ,a universalist(believing that even Satan will be saved in the end)
so now in verse 6 i understand that Christ gave himself for ALL men in the sense of all categories of men
If you deny this, then I refuse to take you seriously anymore. The same wording is used in both verses except for the interchangeability of many and all. Anyone denying this ought to have their sincerity questioned.
In THIS CASE they are used interchangeably. Any rational person who doesn't have an anti-Catholic agenda can see this without having to come up with excuses. I'll re-post the verses for the world to decide:
just repeating something ad infinitum and ad noseum and throwing in "anti-catholic is not an answer...again is it your position that the "ALL" in 1 Tim. 2:6 is referring to humanity as a whole?
Considering that "all" means "all," then yes I do believe it is a reference to all men. Especially since two verses earlier (v.4) he actually uses the words "all men." It cannot get clearer than that.
Only someone who had an agenda would twist this meaning and turn it into something else to fit their theology.
"God our Saviour...will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth...[Christ] gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Tim 2:3-6).
That's not what the passage says. It says that God desires all men to be saved. It also says that he died as a ransom for all. Jesus' sacrifice was a gift of love to all humanity.
Some will reject this gift through grave sin and disbelief. Those will not be saved unless they repent and believe.
"So you are seriously claiming that many and all are not used interchangeably in these two verses"
Yes i DO,even in today's language we use universal terms as ALL,but we don't always mean it literally
so you have to address the assertion that i've made about 1 Tim 2:6 and answer my implied question....do you believe that Christ died for ALL(meaning every single person that ever lived and will live in the future)?
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I think this from Timothy is quite self explanatory. However, for your sake, let's negate the sentence twice (should give us the same thing), so that it says what *I* think it means:"He doesn't want anyone to perish, and not learn the truth."
You'd disagree, but 2Peter 3:9 says the same thing:
"The Lord (...)dealeth patiently for your sake, *not willing that any should perish*, but that all should return to penance."
lets get back to the original discussion 1Tim 2:6...are you going to answer my question: is your position that ALL (humanity as a whole) will be saved based on the universal term "all" in verse 6?
I disagree. Verse 3-5 switches to the unbelievers also, and only coming back to speak exclusively to faithful in verse 13. In other words the letter is clearly sent to faithful, but addresses a universal matter. I'm sure you disagree, but now you're just desperate for firm ground and I might stop answering such weak objections.
Anyway, do you admit that the "elect" can lose salvation?
Repentance also seems to imply this - it is needed even after being "born again".
NO..household means spouse, children, infant, slaves, and other families in that house according to Greek.
Read Homer's "Illiad" (this was written in Greek and almost a thousand years before the NT Bible) you'll see that Odyseus took his household to his brother in-law. This included his wife, mother, children and his new born.
Also, there's NOTHING in the Bible that said do not Baptize infants.
"*not willing that any should perish*, but that all should return to penance."
it is REPENTANCE not penance!the Latin Vulgate mistranslated the Greek word for repentance and because of that the church in the middle ages got into "work salvation" !
That was introduced by Christ, and confirmed at many places, most notably James 2 and NOT in some ambiguous time in middle ages as you'd like it to be. The Church goes way back to Jesus, and up to here. It didn't change. The hierarchy was also present from the earliest of days of the Church. As for how st. Jerome translated the verse in 5th ct., I doubt you have anything more authentic then Vulgate.
>what church is that? RCC?(if you say yes..time to wake up!!!)
Yes! I believe now is the time for you to wake up (start with the Church father called Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from the 1st century - that's the same century Jesus and the apostles lived in btw).
Of course the Church had NT, but it had to be approved and compiled. And guess who did that? The Catholic Church (for the first reference of "Catholic" - see again st. Ignatius).
did Ignatius believed ALL the dogmas of RCC that you are to obey today?if NO then stop using his name !!
just quoting sentences and passages from Ignatius that most of the time are quoted ANACHRONISTICALLY...does NOT make Ignatius a roman catholic as for the "approval and compiling" what the council did was to agree with what the believers accepted long before any council got together
Did he not? What he wrote about is pretty Catholic. He might've not covered the whole Catholic faith, I'm sorry.
What the council did was discerning apocrypha (like Enoch which not a few had) from genuine scripture that individual churches had.
Also, please note that "big" words don't need to be spelled in capital letters. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about (Ignatius), so do yourself a favor if you can put aside your pride for one second, and look it up.
Pretty was just an expression. What he said was all Catholic, and no "Protestant". Had you looked it up, you would've seen that (besides what I already said, eg. Transubstantiation).
really? do you call roman catholic dogma the fact that Ignatius did not say anything about Rome having supremacy over other churches? and that the roman bishop is NOT infallible?
see what happens when you quote a 'father' out of context?
What happens man? I didn't say he said everything (in fact, I said he didn't, and of course he didn't). However, he *did* speak about Rome having supremacy!
"However, he *did* speak about Rome having supremacy!"
here is Schaff again
"...entire silence respecting a Roman primacy,even in the epistle to the Romans,where we should most expect it.The roman church is highly recommended indeed,BUT the Roman bishop is not even mentioned"(vol. 2 pg 663...History of the Christian Church)
so,do you agree with Ignatius now? let me know i really want to know !!!
Thanks for the warning. In fear you might want to discredit the quote on my channel, here's a better one:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans: newadvent org / fathers / 0109 htm)
Whatever. Ignatius talks about Eucharist. A thing you don't have. He also talks about "bishops", "presbyters", "deacons", a "catholic church" with "church in Rome" "presiding in love" over other churches. You have none of this, and your comments are futile, and seem like real arguments only to you by now (if that).
I'll take Ignatius advice about deniers of the Eucharist (in the continuation of the quote I gave you), and stop talking to you.
Priest have the authority because it was given to them by Christ in the last supper when it comes to breaking of bread and wine.
This authority was passed on in Act 6:5. Which is about laying of hands by the Apostles.
This is why your church has no authority. You broke off from this tradition by starting your own church. Again, 52000 world wide and 20000 in USA alone.
Besides the references in Scripture to whole families being baptized (in which infants were most likely baptized), you have Irenaeus,
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Hippolytus,
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
SeptemberCatholic18 4 months ago
What is the earliest reference to infant baptism in history?
horseman528 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeptemberCatholic18 I would like to encourage all people that I have been talking to, on the internet. To see "Catholicism vs Biblical Faith" posted by formeragnostic. The ex priest who talks there is definitely not an arrogant anti catholic but a true Christian.
medusa210562 5 months ago
Comment removed
medusa210562 5 months ago
Comment removed
medusa210562 5 months ago
Comment removed
medusa210562 5 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Jesus was baptized as an adult.
medusa210562 5 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Yes the greeting does include the children, of course it does. If my mind the household means everyone in the house. If you say everyone in the house hold is Chinese. you just say that. If you say everyone in the household is communist. you usually just say that. in the second example it is implied only the adults. AFTER ALL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS ABOUT THIS TEXT " IT IS IMPLIED" When anyway there might not have been children in that instance.
medusa210562 5 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 SORRY MY FAITH DOESN'T COUNT FOR MY CHILDREN FAITH. yes there can be a blessing for them, from it. The all bible is fool of such statements like EXODUS 4 to 6. Not practicing idolatry has a blessing even for my descendants. but at the end of the day I cannot have faith for someone else when if comes to salvation.
medusa210562 5 months ago
The word household must be understood in the complete bibles context. Only those that could decide to be baptized were baptized, that was the household.
medusa210562 5 months ago
Of these is the KIndoom of heaven, that is it. Not these that have come to me. ALL CHILDREN
medusa210562 5 months ago
Baptism is necessary the Bible says repent and be baptized. This man is saying that protestant say that all that is necessary is conversion. No it is not so, it says there repent and be baptized.
medusa210562 5 months ago
so the infant original sin is forgiven, and guess this is for life. So for life he or she has received remission of the original sin. I would like bible study so see if this fantasy can be supported. THE IS ONLY ONE SIN WE MUST REPENT OF. And them be baptized. To thing there is something in scripture we are to do to have remission of the original sin, is catholic fantacy
medusa210562 5 months ago
for the promise is unto you, and to your children. This is talking about the PROMISE. So the children also when they are ready to make the decision to give their lives to God can decide to be baptized.
medusa210562 5 months ago
great video, really thanks a lot brother.
milly8389 5 months ago
Look up key words in Genesis in regards to HOUSEHOLD and Circumcision! 8th day all male child, no choice, shall be cut off if uncircumcised!
Likewise in the New Testament HOUSEHOLD and BAPTISM Is a requirement command!
Pantherfitness 1 year ago
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you
Acts 16:15
When she and the members of her HOUSEHOLD were baptized
Acts 16:33
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and ALL his FAMILY were baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:16
(Yes, I also baptized the HOUSEHOLD of Stephanas;
HOUSEHOLD baptized, circumcision HOUSEHOLD, everyone male and female all a like! Suffer not the little children to come unto me!
Pantherfitness 1 year ago
God's Covenants with Abraham was circumcisions, "from now on you shall circumcise your male children on the 8th day! did the child Isaac make a choice to be circumcised and Abraham's household?
Our covenant is spiritual and not of the flesh, Baptism is spiritual and likewise we get baptized in the same manner to be in Christ's covenant! Maybe this can help people understand!
Pantherfitness 1 year ago
SeptemberCatholic, how has your conversation gone with @whinda4702? Just curious?
ebolingUtube 1 year ago
@ebolingUtube Unfortunately he has not yet messaged me.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
I figured as much. Excellent references you provided. I have seen some of them but not all. Thanks.
ebolingUtube 1 year ago
If it happens like this video says and the infant recieves the holy spirit at baptism, then there is no need to trust in Jesus at a later age because they have already recieved the holy spirit as an infant. So that being said after baptism do they need to come to Christ as an adult for a second dose? The holy spirit is given once not twice. So in closing, if one recieves the holy spirit as an infant they are saved for life????
whinda4702 1 year ago
@whinda4702 The Holy Spirit is given many times. For instance, Christ gave the Spirit to the apostles in John 20:22 and they received it again at Pentecost. Plus, no child is perfect after baptism, so of course they need as much of the Spirit as they can get! Later in life, a child inevitably sins, and thus requires trust in Christ at every step. He who endures till the end will be saved; it's not over after baptism.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
So your trying to say a baptized baby is saved for life according to Peter? Not true. Also Christ is the only one that saves not infant baptism. If you can not comprehend the gospel , if you die you are not accountable. Furthermore John was baptising people before Christ was even baptised himself. Constantine started infant baptism when he forced Rome as a whole to be catholics and in turn christians like myself were killed.
whinda4702 1 year ago
@whinda4702 I did not say a baptized infant is saved for life. Salvation can be lost if the person rejects God's gift while he has it. Baptism itself does not save, but rather the Holy Spirit working through the water. If baptism was merely water it could not save; but Jesus says baptism is water and Spirit (Jn 3:5). John was baptizing with mere water so it wasn't actually baptism as we know it.
Infants were being baptized since the beginning. Watch from 8:33. Constantine did not start it.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
whats the title of the song? thanks
zaraki8000 1 year ago
@zaraki8000 "Our God is an Awesome God"
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
John 3,5 is the fulfillment of Ez 36,24 ff. and in parallel with Eph 5,26: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (...)."
TimotheosCauvin 1 year ago
That is not true. If you read the entire chapter of John 3, the apostles immediately head into the land to baptize people. Water and Spirit refers to baptism, which Jesus says is necessary.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
"Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
Infant baptism, eh?
TimotheosCauvin 1 year ago
How does this verse disprove infant baptism?
And did you not read ahead to verse 22-23 where they make clear what Jesus meant?
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized."
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
The wind blows where it wishes. It is God the Holy Spirit's free choice to give new birth. That is, regeneration is not automatically linked to baptism. The roman-catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration is wrong.
Verses 22-23: Yes, they baptized. But they baptized those whom the Spirit gave new birth when they listened to Christ. That's the connection.
TimotheosCauvin 1 year ago
That's not true. In John 3:5, it is said that water AND spirit is needed for salvation. They make it clear that they are talking about baptism because a few verses later they go out into the city and start baptizing.
1 Peter 3:21
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now SAVE US..."
Hebrews 10:22
"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
But Jesus didn't baptize the infants and young children in that pericope, right? He "merely" blessed them and pointed to them as an example. We have to become children of God in order to enter His kingdom ...
The only possible NT room for infant baptism are the Oikos-pericopes in Acts ...
TimotheosCauvin 1 year ago
First of all, I love your picture. I am from Texas, and I really like "Ecce Homo" pictures of Jesus.
I didn't mean to suggest that Jesus baptized these little ones. My point was to show that Jesus is open to children of all ages, and calls them all to be part of his family regardless of mental ability.
If you need to consciously accept Jesus, then what about the mentally ill that cannot make that decision on their own? Can they never be baptized?
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
Thanks.
I would say that baptism is linked to faith and therefore mentally ill (at least at a certain degree) can not be baptized. But I also would point out that baptism isn't absolutely necessary for salvation. To be un-baptized (especially in the case of disabilities) is not an exclusion from heaven at all. David's son f.e. died on the seventh day - a day before his ritual circumcision. But David expected to see him in the afterlife nevertheless ...
TimotheosCauvin 1 year ago
Of course there are exceptions. If someone dies and was unable to be baptized, or receive admission into God's family (for the OT), he can still be saved.
However, what does Jesus say in John 3:5? "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God."
That means baptism as necessary for salvation. There can be no beating around this bush. Jesus makes it plain and simple.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@TimotheosCauvin Fight for the truth brother. Catholics take verses out of context and dont recite what is before the verse or after and extract what ever meaning they want out of it. Peace to you. I will invite you as a friend.
whinda4702 1 year ago
@whinda4702 Timotheoscauvin did not ever respond back to my refutation of his argument. Until then, there is no reason to believe his argument holds any water (no pun intended). If this is going to turn into a long dialog, I recommend you respond to me in PM so we can type more. Trust me, I have read the contexts.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
Have you ever done a video on the prophecy of Pope Leo XIII? I like to use the polycarp baptism.. He states that he had served the lord for 86 years and he died when he was 86. So he had to have been baptized when he was an infant.
RockyBalboa211 2 years ago
I have never heard of that. I'll look into it.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Sir, I was baptized when I was infant but is it right to be baptized again? as what others say(non-catholics) because they said that we should be baptized by "Immersion" as what the bible requires in John 3:22-23....
Thank You & GOD BLESS US ALL....
pRiMeJeSsz 2 years ago
As long as you were baptized validly, you should not need a second baptism. The Church rejects re-baptisms. "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." -Nicene Creed
Jesus simply says that we must be baptized of water and Spirit (John 3:5). He never commands us to be immersed in water for it to be valid. John 3:22-23 does not command us to use immersion only. In fact, Hebrews 10:22 uses the word "sprinkle" to describe the cleaning process.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
You are the one who deos not know your faith and claims to be a priest .
I will debate you anyday on Sedevacantism . (you won't )
think about that .
YOU are the one using a KJV baaabal
as the word of "god"
and follow koran kissing heretics to hell .
you are a modernist /heretic
SAYYOURROSARY 2 years ago
I never claimed to be a priest. I am entering the seminary (maybe one in Rome). For now, I am a simple lay person.
I've debated Sedevacantism before. It turns out to be a joke every time. I only use the KJV in my videos so Protestants can make the excuse that I use a "Catholic Bible." At home, I use the DR Bible.
It is a heresy to claim certainty of someone's eternal fate. So add that to your list of heresies. Further, JPII was Polish! The Polish kiss everything! He kissed the ground!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SAYYOURROSARY .....Did you stop taking your medicine again Steve ???
You should let your psychiatrist know. You are talking cuckoo again. LOL.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
That is one of the worst misrepresentations I've heard come from an Emptychairist. With all due respect, I don't think I can ever take Emptychairism seriously. Who are you to call us heretics? In our eyes, you broke off from the truth.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
As always, your apologetics are incredible!
God Bless
stcatherineofsiena 2 years ago
book called "the Four Gospels. An introductory Commentary by Michael Fallon. It is used by new priests, and is an excellent simple read in explain Catholic interpretation, and how Catholic doctrine develops.
All the best and God Bless.
goofy6622 2 years ago
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. As long as you are not in denial of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist (body, blood, soul, and divinity), and that this occurs via transubstantiation, then I rescind my aggressive comments and whole-heartily apologize; I would never want to attack a good priest of the Church.
I thought that you, like some priests now days, denied fundamental and critical teachings of the Church. Those kind of priests send me off the deep end.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Not a problem, and no need to apologize. But thanks anyway.
In short, the bread is spiritual food, the wine is spiritual drink. This is even spoken of in the Eucharist itself, which no doubt you will know.
The bread becomes spiritual food in the form of bread, the wine, spiritual drink in the form of wine. Transubstanciation does not change the bread or wine into flesh and blood as such, we all know that by taste alone. What is does is change the bread and wine into the spiritual...
goofy6622 2 years ago
food and drink. The Church make it her responsiblity to make this known during the Eucharist.
Anyway, all the best for the future. You will find the seminary both challenging and enlightening I am sure.
Good luck and God Bless.
goofy6622 2 years ago
That is language I can agree with. I suppose I interpreted your use of the word "spiritual" as a denial of the literal presence. I see now what you were referring to. I tend to jump to conclusions very quickly.
May God bless you as well, now an forever.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@goofy6622 Just curious.....so are you saying that the Eucharist and Wine are just a symbol ?
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
That's what I thought at first. It appears that he believes in the literal presence (blood, body, soul, and divinity), but meant merely that the Eucharist was a spiritual food (since we do not eat it primarily to gain nutrients as we do with food in general).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
No. The Eucharist is about spiritual not physical food.
goofy6622 2 years ago
The church basically teaches that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Jesus. This is spiritual but in the form of a physical food ie:bread and wine.
It is very confusing to be totally honest. But the bible is basically the same. Again we deal with physical language, but spiritual events.
For example was the blind man blind? No. He simply could not see he was being lead astray.
Was the Lepor treatment by Jesus in the same way you might expect medicine to heal a person..
goofy6622 2 years ago
No. The Lepor is cured of a spiritual condition, that of being a social outcast to which Jesus enables to become human again.
Did Jesus walk on water? No. Go back to the story of the storm. Jesus is teaching his disciples to understand that worry does not calm the storm. In the next part, (walk on water) he is not with them physically, but is still with them. Peter also walks on water. This is about relying on what Jesus taught. Storms happen.
Did Jesus change water into wine? No. This..
goofy6622 2 years ago
@goofy6622 You claim to be a Priest ???
You are NOT a Priest. I don't care if you "graduated" from a seminary. You deny the miracles of Christ and you are a fraud.
You are a clear example of the problem with the Church today: priests like you deny miracles, water-down the Holy Scriptures, give boring sermons etc.
You need to repent.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
You are more than entitled to your opinion.
goofy6622 2 years ago
I am stating a fact. Instead of wasting 9 years in the seminary you should have beome a Social Worker. That's exactly what Liberal Priests like yourself are....you feed stomachs but not souls.
It is a shame.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
You have the right to believe what you may.
All the best.
goofy6622 2 years ago
I wish you the best as well.
I strongly suggest you speak to your local Bishop and tell him what you have been posting on YouTube.
Many Catholics are confused and frustrated by the "new theology" that you have learned and are promoting. It is not right and you are dividing the Body of Christ.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago
is about water (blessing of the spirit of God) to wine, (representing a covernant or agreement which marriage is)
Jesus was a spiritual teacher and leader, not a magician. What he did is not beyond anyone elses human capabilities. Why would send a human son when he was not human at all? He was human so that we might learn how humans can also represent the nature of God. This is what the bible teaches. We are taught to be like Jesus.
goofy6622 2 years ago
No offense, but I am not a fan of Midrash. I would rather you not teach these things in the name of a priest. All reputable scholars accept these miracle accounts as literal events. Midrash seems to be a liberal way of looking at things.
Further, I want to clarify on your behalf. The Eucharist is LITERALLY the body and blood in substance. However, they appear under the appearances of bread and wine, albeit there is NO MORE bread or wine after consecration--only Jesus.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I can almost 100% guarantee you that any reputable Catholic scholar does not believe in the miracles as literal events. Moreover, the Catholic Church do not teach them as being so either.
Midrash is Aramaic commentary of Hebrew. Whether you agree or disagree or whether you are a fan or not, midrash developed from this commentary.
Who to your own knowledge is a reputable Catholic scholar? I know all of them. However if what you believe makes sense to you, you believe it, and it assists..
goofy6622 2 years ago
Pope Benedict XVI for one. In his writings as a cardinal and as a pope, he clearly does not hold to the midrash perspective.
Neither have I EVER heard of any serious person to profess this. You are quite literally the first.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Even the Catholic Encylopedia discusses its origins. I would certainly be keen to view the words of Pope Benedict and a link please.
goofy6622 2 years ago
"God and the World," pages 246-247. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is asked if the multiplication of the loaves was literal or if it was purely symbolic.
He affirms that it was literal, stating that "many exegetes today...are tempted to take the feeding miracle as merely a pictorial representation...but we ought not to be in too much of a hurry to deny possibilities to God."
He then goes on in page 248 to list two examples of contemporary miracles similar to the one Jesus performed with the loaves.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Read the whole peice, and in context. It does not say it was a literal event, nor does it say it was purely symbolic. What it says is that while the story has many symbolic aspects, the event still happened, which I agree. However while it happened, there is no such claim that it was a literal event.
goofy6622 2 years ago
What are you talking about? Either it happened, or it did not. If it happened, then the literal position is true. If it did not happen, then it is either a lie or a symbolic account.
Ratzinger denies that it was purely symbolic, and he certainly does not believe it was a lie. The only remaining option is that it happened, which is the literal view.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
He denies it was PURELY symbolic. He does not deny it was fully symbolic.
Answer this question. Was the blind man of Jerico physically blind, ie: he had no eyesight?
goofy6622 2 years ago
Was the Lepor "cured" of Leprosy? If so, name one other account in any history, medical or otherwise, where a lepor is cured of leprosy. You claim Jesus can do anything, and I am assuming like all Christians you believe he is the same now as he was then. So one account of a Lepor being "cured" would be good thank you.
goofy6622 2 years ago
Yes, he clearly denies that it was fully symbolic. "...we ought not to be in too much of a hurry to deny possibilities to God."
What liberalism. Yes, our Lord can do anything and he is unchanging. He performed miracles to vindicate his claims that he is the Son of God. He has already done so ultimately with his death and resurrection so there is no need for him to do this now.
One case of a leper being cured? The Gospels of course. Chromatius, Hilary, Chrysostom, Augustine, affirm this.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Nowhere outside the gospels is a man cured of leposy through a blessing.
Secondly, he states there are symbols in the story, so go and read again,
Thirdly, who actually claims to be the Son of God? Not Jesus himself. In fact if you were to put in google "I am the Son of God", the quote will not have come from jesus I can 100% guarantee it. I am not denying I believe he was, but jesus never makes the claim.
goofy6622 2 years ago
No one outside of the Gospels was ever God so that solves that mystery.
Yes, there are symbols, but that DOESN'T mean the story itself is fully symbolic. For instance, in the Mass, there are literally alter boys present. They symbolize they angels who serve Jesus Christ. Here we have a completely literal instance with symbolism in it.
If you would actually read the pages I quoted, Ratzinger is saying that the miracle symbolized the mana in the desert and the Eucharist.
John 1:18.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Oh my! Did you just say what I think you said? It symbolized the Eucharist? Is that not what I have already said? Many posts back? Does the Eucharist deal with food to fill people tummys, or fill their spirits? If you were fill physically, why does the traditional Catholic not eat before communion why are those Catholics so keen to eat after Sunday morning mass? Should by your theory they not be full physically?
Anyway, this is a pointless argument.
All the best.
goofy6622 2 years ago
I never made the argument that the Eucharist was a nutritional food. Of course it is a spiritual food. What I was arguing for was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity. There is NO more bread/wine after consecration; only Jesus.
The miracle of the loaves really happened. He actually multiplied the food in a supernatural act out of his divinity. This literal miracle served as a symbol to the Jews that he was the new Moses. It also prefigured the Eucharist.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Fair enough. All the best.
goofy6622 2 years ago
good reason why you spend as long as you do becoming a priest, and if it was as simple as the everyday Catholic understood things (ie:translation, interpretation, and doctrine) more people would enter the priesthood.
Midrash is a simple word few Catholics have heard of, and no Catholic priest will teach his congregation about, but it is Midrash that enables a priest to fully understand the bible, and the Catholic faith. You will no doubt learn about it.
See if you can get hold of a ....
goofy6622 2 years ago
Did I deny he was present at the Eucharist? I don't think so.
Good luck to you in entering the seminary. It is a challenging, eye opening time, and a time in which what you thought you believed is thrown out the window. If every Catholic was to go through the priesthood their whole faith would change for the better.
If you are truly a Catholic, print my comments out, take them to your local priest, and let him tell you they are wrong because I am telling you he won't. There is a very..
goofy6622 2 years ago
The Protestant see communion as symbolic of the physical re-enactment of the last supper. The RCC see communion, or the Eucharist as literal, though not physical but spiritual food.
To eat the bread as a Catholic is the same as the 5000 eating the bread in the story of the loaves and fish. The food is not physical, but spiritual. Bread represents the fundamentals of life. To eat the bread is to remember the fundamentals of life, while wine or blood is a covenant, or agreement to follow this.
goofy6622 2 years ago
I have a Eucharist video where I address this common Protestant view.
You see, to the Jews, eating flesh and drinking blood in a metaphorical sense meant to assault somebody with words (Psalm 27:2; Ecclesiastes 4:5; Ezekiel 39:18).
Therefore, Jesus must have been speaking in a literal sense, because to take Jesus metaphorically would be to make him promise life eternal for those who insult him.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Concerning Matt 16 and Matt 18
You talk about the key to hell and discuss Matt. The Gospel of Matthew never addresses the keys to Hell. That is my take on that Gospel and the Keys to Death and Hades.
sulkow82 2 years ago
Psalms 150:1 Halleluyah! Praise God in his holy place! Praise him in the heavenly dome of his power! 2 Praise him for his mighty deeds! Praise him for his surpassing greatness! 3 Praise him with a blast on the shofar! Praise him with lute and lyre! 4 Praise him with tambourines and dancing! Praise him with flutes and strings! 5 Praise him with clanging cymbals! Praise him with loud crashing cymbals! 6 Let everything that has breath praise ADONAI! Halleluyah!
Christian3269 2 years ago
Matthew 21:16 They said to him, "Do you hear what they're saying?" Yeshua replied, "Of course! Haven't you ever read, `From the mouth of children and infants you have prepared praise for yourself'?"
Now what is this PRAISE, do Catholics Praise the Lord in Spirit and Truth? Matthew 15:9 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines. Mark 7:7 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines
Christian3269 2 years ago
Acts 2:38 Kefa answered them, "Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh! 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for those far away - as many as ADONAI our God may call!"
HOW CAN AN *INFANT*, "Turn from sin, return to God?
and are you saying you are in this church, "You need an infallible Church that CANNOT lie! ???
Christian3269 2 years ago
i hope you'll take the time to rethink your theology
martalog121 2 years ago
excelente!
iosacriost 2 years ago
In Greek household also includes slaves and servants.
So this means that not only spouses, children, family, and slaves.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
can you from the text of the Bible prove that those households had any infants?
you can NOT so stop assuming !
martalog121 2 years ago
Yes, the NT in the Bible is written in Greek and household in Greek means consisting Spouses, Children, Babies, other Families, and even Slaves.
If you want proof of this in Greek read Homer's Odyssey. You can see the language of Greek meaning household means Spouse, Children, and Slaves.
Early Christians understood this. What do you think household means?
Naturalhit 2 years ago
it could mean father mother and grown children...NO infants(and a few more combinations as well..)
it could also mean father mother and infants...
the verse you gave is not explicit enough for you to say there were infants and not explicit enough for me to say that there were not infants...so lets drop the chase !
martalog121 2 years ago
the Bible DOES NOT speak about where dead infants go after they die so you have a false assumption when you are trying to make the case that Matt 19:14 is some how an explanation of how dead infants are going to make it into the kingdom...if those infants are going to make it into the kingdom is because of GRACE of GOD not because some RCC priest performs a ritual from which RCC makes some money
martalog121 2 years ago
I never said what happens to infants who die. I simply mentioned the fact that many Fundamentalists assume that they are automatically saved until the age of reason, which by that point faith is required.
The Catholic position on the destiny of infants who die is vastly different, but I did not discuss it in the video, nor do I plan to here (unless requested).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
you have used verses in which children and kingdom are present so logically you're trying to make a case for infant baptismal...
martalog121 2 years ago
Of course I'm making the case for infant baptism, but I am not making any kind of case regarding what happens to children when they die. I merely explained that many Fundamentalists make an exception for children who die, saying they are saved.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
stop it with the red herring fallacy...you are the one quoting verses in this video...OUT of CONTEXT verses to be exact
martalog121 2 years ago
Every verse that I quote is in the correct context and serves an appropriate purpose in my video. I believe your mistake is in thinking that every verse I quote serves to prove infant baptism; this is false.
Some verses, indeed, have nothing to do with baptism. For instance, when I quote Jesus as saying "forbid them not," I am fully aware this is not a reference to baptism. My point here is that Christ wants all of his people to come to him no matter what age. Then I move on to other verses.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Acts 2:39 in context has nothing to do with children being "called",as i made the point is talking about next generations...in the video you had "your children" underlined ,i assumed that your trying to make a point for "The Sacraments:Infant Baptismal" why would you even quote the verse if you knew it had nothing to do you your claims for infant baptismal?
martalog121 2 years ago
Yes, this interpretation is valid. "Your children" is likely a reference to the next generation. However, he did not simply say "next generation" The fact that he chose this language cannot be ignored. It was likely the case that the call was meant for the next generation starting with the children of that generation.
Second, this wording shows that the call is universal. There is nothing about any kind of restriction here. In fact, the universality of the call is emphasized here!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
is universal in the sense that it was extended to the gentiles as well as Jews,and in context Peter talked specifically about the next generations(your children) otherwise Peter would have not added the one" afar off" to his enumeration..."as the Lord our GOD SHALL CALL"
martalog121 2 years ago
I want to remind you that it is your burden of proof. I see no indication in Peter's words that baptism was to be restricted from children. Once again, I argue that he uses the word "children" as opposed to "next generation" because he meant to imply that the next generation begins with the children.
I still don't think you've adequately addressed the fact that baptism is compared to circumcision. It appears that the same pattern would follow, as the video describes at 5:17.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Paul talking about "circumcision without hands" prior to min 5:18,if you would have quoted verse 12 in Col. 2 you would see that Paul equates baptismal with Christ's death NOT HIS circumcision
and in context of chp 2 Paul exhorts the christians to be constant and not to waver in their faith after philosophies vain deceit and man made traditions
so again i have to advise you to read the verse you want to quote in context of the chapter or even the whole epistles
martalog121 2 years ago
"11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ
"12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
It seems that he connects baptism with both circumcision and Christ's death. I can at least be honest and see both connections. Your theology requires you to reject or twist verse 11.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
keep reading and you'll see that verse 13 is talking about "you being DEAD in your sins and the unCIRCUMCISION of your flesh...etc"so Paul makes the case that the "circumcision without hands" is actually what GOD does when HE changes your heart,infants can in no way be the recipients of such 'transformation'
martalog121 2 years ago
That is not in the text. In fact, verse 13 (to which you refer) only speaks of the salvific power of this "circumcision without hands." Once again, he is talking about baptism. In baptism, you do not touch the foreskin (hence, no hands), yet through baptism, man can become part of God's covenant just as in the Old Testament with the circumcision of hands.
Why else would he speak of baptism and this new circumcision in such close proximity of one another? He is describing the same thing.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Col 2:11 only mentions "circumcision without hands"without equating it with baptism...in verse 13 the equation between DEATH and baptismal is clearly made ,so at least lets be honest to the text here and don't' get them mixed up..."close proximity" is not an excuse to mix up as you please...
martalog121 2 years ago
Genesis 17:14 said "No uncircumcized man will be one of my people."
Acts 15:1-2, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
In 50AD Paul made an appeal in the 1st Council: Council of Jerusalem that such an act should not apply to converts, esp. to the Gentiles. Peter backed him up.
Refer. to Paul Col 2:11-12; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27
Naturalhit 2 years ago
continue..
Peter accepting the first Gentiles into the Church: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48.
See: 1 Peter 3:21 John 3:5 & Acts 2:38
Naturalhit 2 years ago
the NT is very clear that just because one was borne in the nation of Israel and one was circumcised it DID NOT mean that one was a child of GOD...so again stop with the assumptions !
martalog121 2 years ago
The passages I gave you to look up doesn't get any clearer.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
"I want to remind you that it is your burden of proof."
you are the one trying to use what Peter said about "your children" to refer to infants being baptized ...i made the point that in context Peter is talking about generation NOT infants..." as many as the Lord our God shall call"(as you can see MANY is used not all!!!)
did anybody say ELECTION?...lol
martalog121 2 years ago
I understand that regarding my interpretation of this particular verse, it is my burden to provide evidence supporting it. However, it is your burden to provide evidence that in general, Christ's call to baptism is limited to adults and children are not called.
Just because the word "many" is used does not mean that all are not called. All people is many, is it not? Besides, many and all are used interchangeably at times in Scripture.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Example of how many and all are used interchangeably:
Matthew 20:28- MANY
1Tim 2:6- ALL
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"Example of how many and all are used interchangeably"
this is a contradiction in terms...
again look at context...
martalog121 2 years ago
They do not contradict. Many means a great amount and all meant all included. All included would be a great amount.
The verses clearly use the terms interchangeably. Show me otherwise.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
in Matt. is easy MANY DOES NOT mean ALL !
in 1Tim 2:6...go back to verse 1 ,"giving of thanks for ALL men"
but next Paul gives categories of people "kings" "all that are in authority"
so if you take ALL in verse 1 to mean the whole humanity then you are what Origen was ,a universalist(believing that even Satan will be saved in the end)
so now in verse 6 i understand that Christ gave himself for ALL men in the sense of all categories of men
martalog121 2 years ago
So you are seriously claiming that many and all are not used interchangeably in these two verses:
1 Tim 2:6
"Who gave himself a ransom for all..."
Matt. 20:28
"...and to give his life a ransom for many."
If you deny this, then I refuse to take you seriously anymore. The same wording is used in both verses except for the interchangeability of many and all. Anyone denying this ought to have their sincerity questioned.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"If you deny this, then I refuse to take you seriously anymore."
how about addressing my assertion instead of just dismissing it?
again MANY is NOT the same with ALL !
martalog121 2 years ago
In THIS CASE they are used interchangeably. Any rational person who doesn't have an anti-Catholic agenda can see this without having to come up with excuses. I'll re-post the verses for the world to decide:
1 Tim 2:6
"Who gave himself a ransom for all..."
Matt. 20:28
"...and to give his life a ransom for many."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
just repeating something ad infinitum and ad noseum and throwing in "anti-catholic is not an answer...again is it your position that the "ALL" in 1 Tim. 2:6 is referring to humanity as a whole?
give an answer and then we can discuss more...
martalog121 2 years ago
Considering that "all" means "all," then yes I do believe it is a reference to all men. Especially since two verses earlier (v.4) he actually uses the words "all men." It cannot get clearer than that.
Only someone who had an agenda would twist this meaning and turn it into something else to fit their theology.
"God our Saviour...will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth...[Christ] gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Tim 2:3-6).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"Considering that "all" means "all,"
so are you saying then that ALL will be saved?
martalog121 2 years ago
That's not what the passage says. It says that God desires all men to be saved. It also says that he died as a ransom for all. Jesus' sacrifice was a gift of love to all humanity.
Some will reject this gift through grave sin and disbelief. Those will not be saved unless they repent and believe.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"So you are seriously claiming that many and all are not used interchangeably in these two verses"
Yes i DO,even in today's language we use universal terms as ALL,but we don't always mean it literally
so you have to address the assertion that i've made about 1 Tim 2:6 and answer my implied question....do you believe that Christ died for ALL(meaning every single person that ever lived and will live in the future)?
martalog121 2 years ago
No, nobody did.
paxcoder 2 years ago
you have to give the quotation and then make your comment...i have no idea what is it you 're trying to say...sorry
martalog121 2 years ago
How am I going to give a quotation when I'm trying to argue it doesn't exist?
However, I can give you one that says the contrary, for example:
I Timothy 2:3-4
paxcoder 2 years ago
?
as for 1Tim. 2:3-4
read my replies to SeptemberChatolic18...and answer my questions i've raised in regards to that
keep in mind that even today, we in our speech use universal terms when in fact we do not mean them literally
i'll wait to see if you are one of Origen's disciples..lol
martalog121 2 years ago
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I think this from Timothy is quite self explanatory. However, for your sake, let's negate the sentence twice (should give us the same thing), so that it says what *I* think it means:"He doesn't want anyone to perish, and not learn the truth."
You'd disagree, but 2Peter 3:9 says the same thing:
"The Lord (...)dealeth patiently for your sake, *not willing that any should perish*, but that all should return to penance."
paxcoder 2 years ago
first
you did not answer my question(the same that i've asked SeptemberChatolic)
is your position that ALL humanity will be SAVED based on 1Tim 2:6?
yes or no...this way we will see if your position is consistent and taken to its logical conclusion holds any "water"
martalog121 2 years ago
No, it clearly says in the verse God WISHES everyone to be saved, and He died for all, but His sacrifice is dependable on free will of each man.
paxcoder 2 years ago
free will?where did you find that in the Bible?
martalog121 2 years ago
I don't need to have it spelled out in the Bible to be there (logically follow from what I gave you).
paxcoder 2 years ago
you gave nothing...all you have done was to dismiss my "weak objections"
how about answering my question and stop the red herring !?
martalog121 2 years ago
"No, it clearly says in the verse God WISHES everyone to be saved"
so are you going to pretend that i did not prove you wrong from 2 Peter ?and continue with a mantra?nice, but that is not good enough..try again!
martalog121 2 years ago
no, i won't. i answered you in a latter comment. be patient.
paxcoder 2 years ago
lets get back to the original discussion 1Tim 2:6...are you going to answer my question: is your position that ALL (humanity as a whole) will be saved based on the universal term "all" in verse 6?
martalog121 2 years ago
I did answer this. And I won't repeat.
paxcoder 2 years ago
second
2Pet.3:9,if you start at the beginning of that epistle and in verse 1 of the chapter 3 Peter is addressing
"you ,the beloved"(in context Peter is talking to the BELIEVERS) then in verse 3 he mentions "scoffers"(or UNBELIEVERS)
in verse 9 when he said that the LORD is long suffering to whom(the whole humanity?.NOOO) but
to US..Peter and the BELIEVERS) read the verse you are quoting in CONTEXT and then try to use it as a valid argument !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
I disagree. Verse 3-5 switches to the unbelievers also, and only coming back to speak exclusively to faithful in verse 13. In other words the letter is clearly sent to faithful, but addresses a universal matter. I'm sure you disagree, but now you're just desperate for firm ground and I might stop answering such weak objections.
Anyway, do you admit that the "elect" can lose salvation?
Repentance also seems to imply this - it is needed even after being "born again".
paxcoder 2 years ago
"but now you're just desperate for firm ground and I might stop answering such weak objections."
just saying that you will not answer "weak objections" without even trying to refute my position means NOTHING
as many of your catholic brother/sisters when you dismiss something/someone it DOES NOT mean that you've refuted them!!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Vulgate is one of the most authentic things we have. We trust the sources as well as the translators. Why would I need to trust yours instead?
(good enough answer?)
paxcoder 2 years ago
"Vulgate is one of the most authentic things we have"
the translator of the Vulgate,Jerome,admitted himself that the translation is very flawed translation,read some of your own church history !
martalog121 2 years ago
NO..household means spouse, children, infant, slaves, and other families in that house according to Greek.
Read Homer's "Illiad" (this was written in Greek and almost a thousand years before the NT Bible) you'll see that Odyseus took his household to his brother in-law. This included his wife, mother, children and his new born.
Also, there's NOTHING in the Bible that said do not Baptize infants.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
"*not willing that any should perish*, but that all should return to penance."
it is REPENTANCE not penance!the Latin Vulgate mistranslated the Greek word for repentance and because of that the church in the middle ages got into "work salvation" !
martalog121 2 years ago
That was introduced by Christ, and confirmed at many places, most notably James 2 and NOT in some ambiguous time in middle ages as you'd like it to be. The Church goes way back to Jesus, and up to here. It didn't change. The hierarchy was also present from the earliest of days of the Church. As for how st. Jerome translated the verse in 5th ct., I doubt you have anything more authentic then Vulgate.
paxcoder 2 years ago
"The Church goes way back to Jesus"
what church is that? RCC?(if you say yes..time to wake up!!!)
"I doubt you have anything more authentic then Vulgate."
100s of yrs before the first council(Nicea, 325 AD)
the church(NOT the RC one) had the NT that we today have except around 6 verses so again do some research before you post something...
martalog121 2 years ago
>what church is that? RCC?(if you say yes..time to wake up!!!)
Yes! I believe now is the time for you to wake up (start with the Church father called Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from the 1st century - that's the same century Jesus and the apostles lived in btw).
Of course the Church had NT, but it had to be approved and compiled. And guess who did that? The Catholic Church (for the first reference of "Catholic" - see again st. Ignatius).
paxcoder 2 years ago
did Ignatius believed ALL the dogmas of RCC that you are to obey today?if NO then stop using his name !!
just quoting sentences and passages from Ignatius that most of the time are quoted ANACHRONISTICALLY...does NOT make Ignatius a roman catholic as for the "approval and compiling" what the council did was to agree with what the believers accepted long before any council got together
martalog121 2 years ago
Did he not? What he wrote about is pretty Catholic. He might've not covered the whole Catholic faith, I'm sorry.
What the council did was discerning apocrypha (like Enoch which not a few had) from genuine scripture that individual churches had.
Also, please note that "big" words don't need to be spelled in capital letters. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about (Ignatius), so do yourself a favor if you can put aside your pride for one second, and look it up.
paxcoder 2 years ago
"Did he not? What he wrote about is pretty Catholic. He might've not covered the whole Catholic faith"
pretty catholic?
maybe it is time for you to stop making a "father" roman catholic on the bases that the father said something "pretty catholic"...
don't make claims that you did not even bother to check before you've posted them!
martalog121 2 years ago
Pretty was just an expression. What he said was all Catholic, and no "Protestant". Had you looked it up, you would've seen that (besides what I already said, eg. Transubstantiation).
paxcoder 2 years ago
"What he said was all Catholic"
really? do you call roman catholic dogma the fact that Ignatius did not say anything about Rome having supremacy over other churches? and that the roman bishop is NOT infallible?
see what happens when you quote a 'father' out of context?
martalog121 2 years ago
What happens man? I didn't say he said everything (in fact, I said he didn't, and of course he didn't). However, he *did* speak about Rome having supremacy!
And what did I quote out of context, accuser?
paxcoder 2 years ago
"However, he *did* speak about Rome having supremacy!"
here is Schaff again
"...entire silence respecting a Roman primacy,even in the epistle to the Romans,where we should most expect it.The roman church is highly recommended indeed,BUT the Roman bishop is not even mentioned"(vol. 2 pg 663...History of the Christian Church)
so,do you agree with Ignatius now? let me know i really want to know !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
"Transubstantiation"
ok..lets hear it,what is it that you are claiming ?
transubstantiation and Ignatius by any chance?
be very careful what you post next !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Thanks for the warning. In fear you might want to discredit the quote on my channel, here's a better one:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans: newadvent org / fathers / 0109 htm)
paxcoder 2 years ago
ohh yeahhh,i've seen this quote somewhere before...lol
Ignatius is addressing the heresy of his day..docetism
read a bit about what the docetics believed and then read Ignatius in the context of his period !
martalog121 2 years ago
Whatever. Ignatius talks about Eucharist. A thing you don't have. He also talks about "bishops", "presbyters", "deacons", a "catholic church" with "church in Rome" "presiding in love" over other churches. You have none of this, and your comments are futile, and seem like real arguments only to you by now (if that).
I'll take Ignatius advice about deniers of the Eucharist (in the continuation of the quote I gave you), and stop talking to you.
paxcoder 2 years ago
"Ignatius talks about Eucharist" you should know that Ignatian "episcopapy is FREE from Sacerdotal idea"
so guess what RCC priests are OUT ,no more consacration of the host for you or any catholics !
you really need to inform yourself better and stop being a CULT member !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Read Gen. 24-25:56
It talk about Isaac and Rebecca. The word household popped in in Gen. 24:10 in which Rebecca was pregnant.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
Priest have the authority because it was given to them by Christ in the last supper when it comes to breaking of bread and wine.
This authority was passed on in Act 6:5. Which is about laying of hands by the Apostles.
This is why your church has no authority. You broke off from this tradition by starting your own church. Again, 52000 world wide and 20000 in USA alone.
Naturalhit 2 years ago