Matt 22:31-32 - And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.The holy people (Saints) who have gone before us are more alive than we are. As this verse says, God is the God of the living, not the dead; it makes it clear in naming Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as being alive.
You usurp Christ, who has His Chair of the King in His Church in Rome. The Pontiff is a Vicar of Christ. And you, the generation of vipers- will choose to rob Him.
In order to join an existing church in Paul's day one needed to believe the message: "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Rom10:9-11,13
Read and meditate on the New Testament for the rest of your life. The New Testament, which both scholars hold in high regard, is the oldest written revelation concerning Jesus' life on earth, His apostles, and the beginnings of His Church. The New Testament is sufficient for understanding what it takes to be reconciled to God. From a lay person's perspective, the pattern in Acts seems to be: preach the message; people believe the message; believers form churches.
@tymmy724 U were right unitil ur statement about the NT being sufficient (ALL that is NEEDED) to be reconciled to God and ALL that is NEEDED. Jesus Christ and His Blessed Apostles NEVER taught that garbage b/c ur trying to be slick with it and NOT mention that ur arguing for Bible Alone and/or Faith Alone.
@eljunior98 --Not really trying to be 'slick', just want people to be reconciled to God thru our Lord Jesus. What did Jesus teach? "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins...For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." Peter, speaking to gentiles in Acts 10:43 said, "To Him alll the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His Name."
@eljunior98 Friend, when Peter and Paul and others were preaching the gospel, I don't think that people became Christians by filling out some sort of application and submitting it to the Bishop of Rome for approval. Acts 4:4 "But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand." When the jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul how to be saved, Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." In rom 5 Paul says we have peace w/ God.
@eljunior98 Jesus Christ taught a lot less than the entire NT--mostly believe in Jesus--that He is Lord (Adonai) in the flesh. But this was following a pattern established by God with Abram in Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abram) believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness." Paul tells us in rom 3:21-25 and on through chap 8 of "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe"(vs 22) And they "are justified by His grace as a gift" (vs24).
@eljunior98 In Acts8 Philip went down to Samaria and "proclaimed to them the Christ." "When they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Remember that Philip wasn't an apostle yet he was baptizing people as they believed. --Just seems to be a lot of emphasis placed on believing the gospel verses entering some sort of training program in order to become a Christian. No disrespect intended.
Catholics, Protestants, please don't be distracted by some of the side issues. The main issue is how human beings can be reconciled to God. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (Jn 5:24) Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." Jn6:28,29
Very sad watching this. All 3 of these guys focus on Peter and debate on Peter. Peter was Never the Vicar (instead) of Christ on Earth. The True Vicar on Earth is the HOLY SPIRIT. All 3 of these guys never mention the Holy Spirit. Peter's Preaching Authority was the Holy Spirit indwelling him (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit indwells every Believer. Amazing in this debate they all DENY or ignore the Holy Spirit. The CROSS is the True Church, A believers FAITH and SIINS Assemble at the Cross in Jesus.
@manard099 Hate to break this to you but the Holy Spirit can not abide residing in a sinful man, but we can receive the Holy Spirit, and that is to put off the old and put on the new and read hebrews 6 and it makes one wonder if we are not all headed to becoming a reprobate.
the catholic should be using the authoritative sources, like those promulgated by the Office of the magerstrium for the faithful, not what the new york catechism says.
Simon Magus of Acts 8 was the first pope. He was a Kabaalist and the first Gnostic and eventually had the TITLE Petr or Petre after a number of years in Rome. Or Simon Petr..... but not the fisherman from Galilee, friend of Jesus, he never walked on water, denied Jesus, and was restored by Jesus in John 21. But he did have the gift of levitation via his demons via his sorcerery.
Cathlic popes in the middle ages sacrificed babies on their altars, and also popes tortured and executed about one billion people, good resources assert
Why do Mark (8:27-30) and Luke (9:18-21), while they also recount the Caesarea Philippi conversation between Jesus and Peter, omit all reference to that part of Jesus' conversation which grants to Peter his alleged priority over the other apostles, the point which for Rome is the very heart and central point of our Lord's teaching ministry?
@ZhongZheng87 Hey, the line "I am the resurrection and the life" are found ONLY in John; ergo, it is a void concept ...accroding to your 'logic.' ONLY Luke mentions shepherds at Jesus' birth, and only Matthew mentions the Magi. Ergo, there were no shepherds and Magi...because the other writers didn't mention them. Sensible?
@MrLamontSanford Why can the disciples after the Caesarea Philippi incident still dispute among themselves concerning who was the greatest (Matthew 18:1; 20:20-28; Luke 22:24)? Apparently they did not understand that Jesus' statement had given Peter any priority over them. And if Christ had in fact intended by his Caesarea Philippi pronouncement that Peter was to be his vicar and the leader of all Christendom, why did he not clear up the disciples' confusion once and for all.?
@MrLamontSanford He stands at the head of the list of the twelve apostles in each of the lists given in the New Testament (Matthew 10:2 [note Matthew’s “first” here]; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), and he is included among that “inner circle” of disciples (Peter, James, and John), which alone witnessed certain miraculous events such as Jesus’ transfiguration; he is the spokesman for the disciples on several occasions (Matthew 15:15; 17:24-25; 19:27; John 6:68-69
@MrLamontSanford Now it is true that in the early years of the New Testament era Peter was a leader among the apostles. A case can even be made that he was the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) in some sense.8 Consider the following data. There are approximately 140 references to Peter in the four Gospels, some 30 more than all the references to the other disciples combined.
@MrLamontSanford Why, if Peter was the living, earthly head of the church at that time, does he disappear completely from Luke's Acts after Acts 15, with very few references to him, apart from his own two letters, in the rest of the New Testament?
@ZhongZheng87 It is irrelevant that in the narrative he vanishes. Note -in the narrative. He went on 'somewhere', and contrary to what people (fundamentalists) wish to assert, all evidence says he went to Rome. Luke simply chooses to shift his focus in part II to Paul. Just because the Book of Joshua is all about Joshua and not moses does not mean Moses had been a leader in his time.
@ZhongZheng87 We RCs dont believe Peter had the only authority, we just say the authority of the other Apostles must be in union with him, and that he is still supreme over them, though in actuality popes dont lord it over other bishops, and bishops are all free to exercise full jurisdiction in their diocese
@ZhongZheng87 Paul no doubt is a mega figure for all he did and developed in theology. Yet it is still clear that Peter was in a leadership position. Not a tyrant, not the ONLY one with authority, but certainly the leader. Even Paul had to go to Peter first before being fully accepted into Chrsitianity. Paul has authority -he was a bishop, as all Apostles were -but this authority must be with union with Peter. The authority comes from Jesus, but it is in union with Peter
@MrLamontSanford This raises the larger question, namely, while the church at Rome was no doubt influential, why is there no indication in the first two centuries of the Christian era that the rest of the church recognized the Roman church as supreme or that the rest of the church acceded to Rome any claimed or recognized sovereignty over Christendom?
You don't know your Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, co-worker of St John said;
"to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, " Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus of Lyon 189AD ".... by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the GREATEST and most ancient CHURCH known to all, founded and organized at ROME by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, .....With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
" With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Letters 59:14).
"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
@hockeyrulesus Since this thread is about Peter and popes, I would like to ask you a question. You as a Roman Catholic believe Rome's claim that there is an unbroken succession of popes from Peter to the present. In 1309-1378, there reigned multiple popes (all were even outside of the city of Rome). Therefore, doesn't that make Rome's claim inconsistent with the facts?
1) Your facts are wrong. There never were three popes at once--and never two at once either. But there were times when there were two claimants to the office, and once, in the 14th century, there were three claimants.
All Catholics knew there could be only one pope. The question was which of the claimants was the true pope. There was confusion and scandal, but the succession from Peter was never broken.
2) One can be a Bishop of Rome and not reside there.
@hockeyrulesus Thanks for your response. The problem is that there were 2 to 3 who proclaimed to be Pope at the same time, not claimants. The question I have still is: If you and I lived back then, and I asked you which one was the true Vicar of Christ on earth and which were the phony's, how would you have known WITHOUT DOUBT, that you would follow the correct one? What would have wrong with the other ones? Remember, you have to absolutely have no doubt whatsoever.
Taking into context, that BEFORE this happened, the Bishop's of Rome governed from FRANCE, due to war.
So, I would only recognize the Bishop governing in Rome. History shows Gregory XII was the True Pope. Spain supported the Spaniard Benedict XIII, and France wanted to keep the Papacy in France and supported Alexander V. Neither, were in Rome. Simple really.
When I originally saw this broadcast, they kept stopping the tape and we heard John Ankerberg give his interpretation of what the Cathoic Church teaches. This is the first time I was able to actually hear what Fr. Mitch Pacwa said. No wonder they edited the tape when I saw it, Fr. Pacwa is nailing them to the wall on every point! Two Prods against one Catholic, and the Catholic is winning!
That one adventist... The church is one. 1.5 billion in 3 parts, Roman, west traditional anglican( Isaac Newton was one), Eastern orthodox, all respect the roman catholic pontifical academy and the Pope
Guys, stop fighting and realize that the Lord of the second advent is already on earth. Thats why we have all the confusion, because the Last Days, when the Lord has arrived, is a time of greatest confusion. The Lord is Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Study his teachings on reverendsunmyungmoon. org and find the complete truth that God wants you to know.
Do you have to become protestant just because Vatican 2 has done a strong inappropriate reform from Vatican 1? You´re switching religions almost by doing so. Why not just stay Catholic and hold onto Vatican 1? ???
if the first church was built upon what Jesus christ our savior said to Peter and Jesus himself and his disciples keep the 4th commandment how come "catholic church" change the law?
The following question is not rhetorical. Are we dealing with a Sirius-Centered Babylonian/Egyptian/Greek/Roman Theocracy Ruled by Human/Reptile Goddesses in Underground Bases and Stargate Temples? Does Lucifer = Lilith = Hathor = Isis = Mary = Inanna = 'Anna' in 'V' = Anu = Whore of Babylon? Does she rule the United Nations, Washington DC, City of London, Vatican, Secret Government, Secret Space Program, Underground Bases, Alphabet Agencies, Jesuits, Royal Family, et al? So burn me!
So is Joseph ??/ joseph is less inporten the mary son this topic is so uniportent i cant belive i spend one sec on mary . just worship her if you want to be a good rc and make her god of your life. your brainwashed how do i know .
have you ever in your life talkd to a unbeliver about jesus as much as your trying to tell me about mary . who are you a witness for jesus or mary . you love mary more then jesus .so sad
@beingther She is the Queen of all creation not just the universe. Plus I pwnd everything. It's close to worship but not worship. Nevertheless, it's very close just 5 inches close to God. Respect! Plus the Pope!!
facts about mary queen of heaven =she has no book in the holy scriptures . she has no letters to or from the church . she was not a profetess or aposle or precher or techer . she was the vesal that god used to hide jesus glory he took of his glroy when he was born. she is not in namy ministery its funny all the things she she was not. and nothing talked about in the word that she did the lack info about her in the bible is amazing for this queen of heaven
@sinterminator The queen also refers to the Mary in the Bible. Her body and blood did not die and gt ascended into heaven then return to some 15 18 year old state and virginity. That's the real shit! Plus Jesus' church was the roman catholicism. Check out where the succession of the apostles is coming from. I know I'm hurting your eastern cult secularism.
Mary is not a queen at all. Jesus Christ is King, that's all. NO QUEEN IN HEAVEN !
First of all Mary wasn't ascended to heaven. Who made up that story ?
Roman catholicism ? You mean the church that forbid to read the bible ? The church that killed real bible believing christians because they didn't respect the pope's doctrine ? The church that is overloaded with gold and money ?
Don't worhip a person created by Jesus Christ himself. Mary is just a person
@sinterminator You're nothing. Just plain bullshit w , bunch of critique and accusations. I given all against you. Protestantism is built by men not by Jesus. Jesus built RC which are the successors of Peter. Mary being the Queen in your Bible. It is you who destroys the Bible. You created the Sola scriptura and sola fide which is not in the Bible. Where thus the Bible say that scripture is enough without interpretation? Where does the Bible say that faith is enough without having to do good?
the catholic church added to the Word of God, they invented doctrines that are unbiblical, the queen of heaven is the church of Jesus Christ, it is His bride, it doesn't talk about the mother of God, because she was CREATED by Jesus Christ. Not the other way around.
I never said that faith is enough without works. Works with a false religion will not bring you to heaven eighter.
@sinterminator What do you think is a church? It's people not one woman! The church is the body. Good works are good works. Not the other way around, It is only the ability and quality of the Holy Ghost. You can't do good works without having the ability and grace that is given in RC aka sacraments. You have been defiled from grace by your pretesting fathers aka Martin Luther. Every baptists looks to him as their hero. You've created your own religion! ENOUGH!!!
Marten Luther ? I don't even know what he did for the body of Christ, but I know for one thing that the pope is not belonging to the body of Christ. I don't want to be part of his religion nor Marten Luther's religion. I read my bible. Where two people or more gather discussing and searching for the wisdom of God in the scriptures, that is church, not some holier than thou kind of mystic who reads some sacred texts written in Rome, not inspired by the Holy Gost
@sinterminator You say you don't need the church, just your bible. You are aware that it was the Catholic Church that gave you your bible. It decided what writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit at the end of the 4th century at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
@sinterminator read the Catholic bible, the saints, the martyrs, the apostles, the fathers. These things group very well quite completely and interchangeably. No proof for you, protestants! Just blind faith aka protestant Bible dropping out from the sky of 21st century by a pastor. Tell these saints and martyrs that they are pedophiles
@beingther Wrong. Disservice again! Mary was not born with sin and she don't need to be cleansed. She is created sinless. She suffer the EFFECTS (temptation/test) of sin just like us but she was not a sinner. Our sins where cleansed at baptism and has the capacity to do as she did using our free will to accept the grace and the sacraments by the power of the church!
@CHECKrayrobionson The bible say she was born a sinner just like everyone but rcc says she was not who is the lire?both cant be true . you chose the rcc. no problem go and belive the lies but when you stand befor god you are without excuse
There you fallacious Baptist! If you look and see in the Bible, Jesus is perfectly in nature, a man.
That would mean all man have sin then you should include Him! But really you're committing error and disrespect the power given in the Church! God was indeed a Man:
"Let us create in our own image"
It's a supernatural concept So is the Immaculate Conception!
@CHECKrayrobionson ok your right he was a man but he did not have the adam nature his father was god . so he was not of adam the curse was not in him like it was in mary
really its too deep for you to undestand why god calls humans, man.
all god used mary for was to produce a body for god . thats it . thats all he did . now rcc brings her to queen of heaven (demon) to coredemer cointerseder co creater co saver and in 100 yrs if it keeps up swhell be mother of the father and jesus and holy spirit . whuy all come from her look at ever mother of all liveing things
@beingther Christ is the son of Adam and had the effects of sin but not sin. You see his temptation at the mountain where he fasts?? All man had sin with the exception of both Mary and Jesus. Your Sola Scriptura is debunk saying the Bible is self suficient , again you can interpret it even in demonical way. The dogmas are more important than the Bible.
@CHECKrayrobionson so your saying god could sin o ok and you get this from rcc
o ok sure . no his human nature had to overcome silly he had no sin . but mary had sin where in the bible does it say she had no sin . o i get it you need the rcc to prove your point ,. hey if you want to worship her go ahead but ill worship god and him alone
@CHECKrayrobionson chapter and verse wherein the bible says mary was immaculate . in fact if you just take the bible (i know you rc hate the word of god ) but it dont say anything cloes to that .
Me a sinner ? Okay. I agree, I am. I don't worship Mary. Even Jesus Christ neglected her when He made his point. He is in control. Mary was only a vessel to bring him from heaven into an earthly body. Mary wasn't sinless. Every man is a sinner. Mary was his mother... so what ? She is NOT a queen. Jesus Christ never treated her as a queen and never mentioned her in the revelation to John.
RCC wins on this. Fuck biased ridiculous. The priest agreeing doesn't necessarily mean they are correct upon the infallible claim, but they are wrong on making the infallible claim for RCC.
We do not worship Mary rather, she was not a sinner at all so is like a grandeur container to receive another holy thing as to put gold in a trash container, or garbage plastic, that would be fallacy.
Mary should be holy and sinless to incorporate Jesus Christ. That's dogma and logic!
@CHECKrayrobionson Mary was a human making her a sinner at birth. Only God (Jesus) did not sin.. Where did u guys get off thinking she didn't have sin. Christ must have been a liar then saying "that ALL have sinned and come short to the glory of God. Full of grace doesn't translate "no sin" wow heretic. All means All. that's All it means All of the time. Blind guides
Rome's Decree declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception include "let the children of the Catholic Church most dear to us hear these words and with a more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."
so why do cathlics say thay dont why would they not worship her if they belive all this foolishness
@beingther * it's worship to God not Mary. Invoking her is irrelevant to worship. You pray with Mary to worship God not pray with Mary to worship Mary.
@14greg14 Lol. I was reading some of your arguments about Mary. 1) When some one is "Full of Grace" there is no room for sin. 2) Yes, Jesus said we are all sinners, we all are subject to "Original Sin", Mary as well, but the difference is, Mary was cleansed from this Sin at Her Conception, through the Merits of Jesus Christ. This was done to preserve Her for Her role as Mother of God/Man Jesus the Savior. Let's repent together sometime. lol. Luv Ya!!
@hockeyrulesus Wrong. Mary had the effects of sin but she don't have original sin. What "at conception"? We're all cleanse at baptism from original sin. By sinning, the grace is still there supernaturally however our soul turn dark.
@CHECKrayrobionson You didn't understand what I wrote, so I'll change the wording, " Mary like all humans was subject to Original Sin, but the only difference was, Mary was cleansed at Her Conception, by the Merits of Jesus Christ. God can do anything, and this was done so Mary would be a Pure Vessel, for the Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible says "All generations WILL call me Blessed" Who fits this bill?????
Mary was not subject to original sin. You're saying at ovum, she had original sin and cleansed before she got out of pussy? WRONG Rather, She was product of sex and has the EFFECTS of sin but not sin. Be CLEARLY!
She feel tempted and has the same tests as us including Christ.
@hockeyrulesus The same way God mad Eve without sin, So was Mary made without sin, difference being Mary triumphed, Eve did not. Nothing is imposable to God. You put restrictions on God, not Catholics. "Hail Mary full of Grace" "The Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou amongst women, and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb" The Truth will set you free, Bro!!
@hockeyrulesus Now it gets even fallacious. Mary triumphed through tests just like eve and us. Yes she did not sin. We actually have capacity to do it by keeping grace, sacrament etc FREE WILL.
You're saying eve don't triumphed? What now you. You're getting random shit!
I don't understand how anyone can watch this with an open mind and say that Dr. Martin lost. Although I am protestant and disagree with 95% of what the catholic church teaches, I do have tremendous respect for Fr. Pacwa
What I find most interesting about catholics is that they claim the RCC has the authority and not the Bible. Yet, when you ask them how they can prove the RCC has the authority, they quote the Bible! Circle reasoning. You can't have it both ways.
where in the Bible does it say that every issue concerning faith is explicitly defined in the Bible? A question for anyone who believes in "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone).
@onclave6 I am a Roman Catholic, my name is to invite Catholics who have left the Church (or any Christian) to come home to the Catholic Church. Are you a sedevacantist?
I am ABSOLUTED NOT a sedevacantist, they are a heretical schismatic church. Why would you think that, because I'm questioning protestants about sola scriptura? CCC 95 "...sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magistgerium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others..." I am just defending the Catholic faith, and I am completely loyal to Pope Benedict XVI.
@ComeHomeCatholics I was under the impression that you challenged me for some reason .Perhaps the name you have may give others the impression that your a protestant telling Catholics to leave their faith and come home to God (which we all know they are wrong)
Thats understandable, I see how my name could give that impression. But if people look at my channel they will clearly see I am Roman Catholic. My name is actually calling Catholics who have left the Church to come back home, but it could be misinterpreted. I'm glad our misunderstaning was resolved. God bless you and have a spiritually productive Lent.
but you didn't answer the question. If you believe in "sola scriptura" then share with me where you find that idea in the Bible. I'll save you some time and tell you that this novel idea was invented by the protestant reformers in the 16th century.
2 Timothy 3: 16-17 is clear. Reading the text in it's Greek setting is beneficial. The term "theopneustos" (used in the text) means God-breathed. The term "artios" means complete or perfect.
Can ANY protestants explain to me, why JESUS changed SIMON name to PETER -CHEPAS, ROCK ???? Why Jesus did that ?
ANY protestat, explain this to me please, what that means, ? I want to know what`s the teologycal protestant view of the simple truth of JESUS CHANGING SIMON NAME TO PETER, CHEPAS, ROCK...
I did not tell you that. I simply asked you a question, which you did not answer. If Jesus renamed him, then why did He go back to calling him by his old name?
I know Abraham and Jacob had their names changed. I began my comment "changing of name is a common thing in Scripture." I'm not saying it isn't important, but I am saying that it is not so important as to base a whole doctrine (such as the papacy) on.
As you know then, if you have read Abraham and Israel, When God changes somone name, it is because that person will play and mportant Role in history.
Look up for the meaning of israel, Abraham, Khepas.
It is not your, mine or the magisterium decition, it is the second person of the Trinity decition, not a doctrine, it`t a seat and a ROLE Peter and his succesors will play in history, Jesus knew it.
You have to fight against Jesus words to oppose all Biblical evidence of the ROLE OF PETER
Your answer to my first question of Why Jesus changed Simon names to KHEPAS was those bunch of question you make TO AVOID MY QUESTION,, I will not play your game,, sorry,,, I have the answer but not discuss with players
"not only that he should be a lively stone in the spiritual building, the church, but should have a considerable hand in that work, and abide firm and steadfast to Christ, and his interest, notwithstanding his fall; and continue constant and immoveable until death, as he did." - John Gill.
poor answer, so, the second person of the Holy Trinity didn`t intend to do out of this man, simon, a visible rock for His Church, nothing special, not important to give it attention.. that`s all this "John Gill" (Not you) said.
You really have to fight against Jesus words to Peter in SINGULAR "Feed my sheeep" "give YOU the Keys" "whatever YOU bind/lose" "I´ve prayed for YOU"
One time Jesus said "Satan has demanded the right to test each one of you" Each ONE, test ALL disciples, Included John, James "sons of thunder" "Boanerges" and Jesus continue "But Simon, I have prayed that your faith fail not." It is Obvious Jesus intended to make something out of Peter ALONE, the Logic here will be "I have prayed for EACH of YOU" but Jesus prayed for PETER ALONE.. I can`t believe you guys can`t see the SINGULAR way that the second person of God aproach Peter
You know why i believe in / to Jesus stablishing a "role" out of this man?, because Jesus prayed for UNITY in His Church "I want all of them to be one....just as I am one with you and you are one with me. ...Then the people of this world WILL BELIEVE that you sent me."
How can the world believe if we are not ONE/UNITED ? The papacy is the Simbol of UNITY/ONE in the Church for the world to believe in Jesus,, JESUS KNEW IT,,, HE IS GOD
@exodusx599 in the bible named denotes the nature of the thing all names every one has a nature jesus = deliverer christ means anointed put it together he is the anointed deliverer
@exodusx599 if you take jacob trixster lire desiver = adams human sinfull nature nature but the name of isreal = son of god
so when god said he is the god of jacob . he is realy saying he is the god of jacob but he has a differant relationship then when he called him isreal. same as peter when when peter was not spiritual jesus calld him simmon but when peter was spiritual mature he called him peter as he was acting so was his name
Were you watching these debates ? Father Paqua never losses one . does this on a regular basis .During the week at least two hours a week he talks on the radio .Its an open line . Many people challenge the faith .He always wins.He knows more then any preacher
Are you kiddin' me ? Did YOU watch this ? He stutters and awful lot, he makes no sense whatsoever he clearly contradicts himself with popes from the past (who are suppose to be infallible btw)
Catholics and Mormons tend to do this: take one little section from the Bible and totally blow it out of proportion without ever looking at any other scripture to check if what they were interpreting was valid.
Why is it these two keep saying that the keys are given to the othere Apostles when there is no such text? The power to bind and loose? Yes. The keys? Nope.
your opinion is poor first of all Catholics have apostolic succession while Mormons do not.Catholics are Christian while Mormons are far from it . Catholics do not pick and choose what scripture to follow we accept it all as Gods inspired word.
Try telling a Mormon he/she is not Christian. They will say they are the true Christians and that we, as in, you and me, are receiving half truths. And if you just accept it all, how come you guys discarded the book of Eve? How come you discarded some of the same prophets we did? The truth is, Catholics did choose and pick what their Hierarchy wanted, which resulted in some sketchy scripture leaking their way into the Bible, which resulted in the Catholic Bible.
A mormon is most certainly false as well as Jahova witness God says in Pauls teachings as well as others that even if an angel shall come and preach another Gospel it is false. that would prove Muslim faith wrong as well. What Faith are you? (it does not seem you read King James )
Walter isnt even paying attention to what father pacwa is saying,hes so into his notes that he repeats what father pacwa just said in 5:37. As you can see he(walter) isnt trying to learn anything hes trying to prove something.All that he prove is that hes wrong
This is a DEBATE. The point of a debate is to PROVE one side true, and/or another side false. And you are saying Martin is wrong because he's trying to prove something? That makes no sense at all.
Walter too a spanking here yes I have heard him win debates against atheists (which all protestants should be doing rather then arguing against the church) but here he was just out of his league. I understand Martin past a while back.
He's not arguing against the church, he's arguing against Catholics; Catholics like Father Pacwa, who is probably a very loving and awesome person if I ever met him, who have been led astray from the true Gospel of Jesus.
The Church consists of over 1billion Catholics so if he is arguing against Catholics he is arguing against the church. he is right where he needs to Be .The man he is debating I here past away some time ago.I only hope that GOd let him into the kingdom of Heaven
i would like to know where the popes hat and costume came from? i am guessing the peter didnt wear it so it must all come from pagan tradtions which the RCC borrowed from....
where else would the staff hat and rings come from.... its amazing that the RCC would say that they were all christian ...
Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa has caught out John Ankerberg so many times, and all John Ankerberg can do is talk over Mitchell Pacwa. Walter Martin has no idea , so agrees with John Ankerberg & stops Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa from answering the question [typical fundies]]
Keep up the good work Mitchell Pacwa [Walter Martin and John Ankerberg just talk in circles] That Ankerberg has no respect, keeps interrupting you everytime you speak.
@loks1100 Saints are Alive
Matt 22:31-32 - And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.The holy people (Saints) who have gone before us are more alive than we are. As this verse says, God is the God of the living, not the dead; it makes it clear in naming Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as being alive.
MementoMori384 5 months ago
@lulutheladybug why would you pray to a women that has past rather then a God that is alive??
loks1100 6 months ago
You usurp Christ, who has His Chair of the King in His Church in Rome. The Pontiff is a Vicar of Christ. And you, the generation of vipers- will choose to rob Him.
Be pure in heart- and you will see the truth.
Until it-
You are in outer darkness!
10WiseVirgins 7 months ago
Wow this really made the Catholic arguments look utterly ridiculous even preposterous beyond belief. These video's are a nightmare for a Catholic.
southernpreacher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In order to join an existing church in Paul's day one needed to believe the message: "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Rom10:9-11,13
tymmy724 8 months ago
Read and meditate on the New Testament for the rest of your life. The New Testament, which both scholars hold in high regard, is the oldest written revelation concerning Jesus' life on earth, His apostles, and the beginnings of His Church. The New Testament is sufficient for understanding what it takes to be reconciled to God. From a lay person's perspective, the pattern in Acts seems to be: preach the message; people believe the message; believers form churches.
tymmy724 8 months ago
@tymmy724 U were right unitil ur statement about the NT being sufficient (ALL that is NEEDED) to be reconciled to God and ALL that is NEEDED. Jesus Christ and His Blessed Apostles NEVER taught that garbage b/c ur trying to be slick with it and NOT mention that ur arguing for Bible Alone and/or Faith Alone.
eljunior98 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eljunior98 --Not really trying to be 'slick', just want people to be reconciled to God thru our Lord Jesus. What did Jesus teach? "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins...For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." Peter, speaking to gentiles in Acts 10:43 said, "To Him alll the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His Name."
tymmy724 3 months ago
@eljunior98 Friend, when Peter and Paul and others were preaching the gospel, I don't think that people became Christians by filling out some sort of application and submitting it to the Bishop of Rome for approval. Acts 4:4 "But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand." When the jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul how to be saved, Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." In rom 5 Paul says we have peace w/ God.
tymmy724 3 months ago
@eljunior98 Jesus Christ taught a lot less than the entire NT--mostly believe in Jesus--that He is Lord (Adonai) in the flesh. But this was following a pattern established by God with Abram in Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abram) believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness." Paul tells us in rom 3:21-25 and on through chap 8 of "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe"(vs 22) And they "are justified by His grace as a gift" (vs24).
tymmy724 3 months ago
@eljunior98 In Acts8 Philip went down to Samaria and "proclaimed to them the Christ." "When they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Remember that Philip wasn't an apostle yet he was baptizing people as they believed. --Just seems to be a lot of emphasis placed on believing the gospel verses entering some sort of training program in order to become a Christian. No disrespect intended.
tymmy724 3 months ago
Catholics, Protestants, please don't be distracted by some of the side issues. The main issue is how human beings can be reconciled to God. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (Jn 5:24) Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." Jn6:28,29
tymmy724 8 months ago
i wonder why catholics add their own revalations to God's word, and seem to ignore much of scripture but deny that by using their own scripture!
TheStyx44 9 months ago
@TheStyx44 Don't you do the same thing, lol.
sgal88 5 months ago
Very sad watching this. All 3 of these guys focus on Peter and debate on Peter. Peter was Never the Vicar (instead) of Christ on Earth. The True Vicar on Earth is the HOLY SPIRIT. All 3 of these guys never mention the Holy Spirit. Peter's Preaching Authority was the Holy Spirit indwelling him (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit indwells every Believer. Amazing in this debate they all DENY or ignore the Holy Spirit. The CROSS is the True Church, A believers FAITH and SIINS Assemble at the Cross in Jesus.
manard099 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manard099 Well said, the Father told Peter via revelation and that is the rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.
LDS4Life71 11 months ago
@manard099 Hate to break this to you but the Holy Spirit can not abide residing in a sinful man, but we can receive the Holy Spirit, and that is to put off the old and put on the new and read hebrews 6 and it makes one wonder if we are not all headed to becoming a reprobate.
oldlite 9 months ago
@manard099 Other than that I agree with you.
oldlite 9 months ago
@manard099 My favorite Pope is Pope Joan.
oldlite 9 months ago
I love how the Protestants on here have poor grammar. Lol.
policydeb8er321 1 year ago
the catholic should be using the authoritative sources, like those promulgated by the Office of the magerstrium for the faithful, not what the new york catechism says.
smartspick 1 year ago
Simon Magus of Acts 8 was the first pope. He was a Kabaalist and the first Gnostic and eventually had the TITLE Petr or Petre after a number of years in Rome. Or Simon Petr..... but not the fisherman from Galilee, friend of Jesus, he never walked on water, denied Jesus, and was restored by Jesus in John 21. But he did have the gift of levitation via his demons via his sorcerery.
loggerbuck 1 year ago
I love how my reasonable comments are censored and removed, yet loons who say" popes eat babies" are free to stay on this blog.
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford LOL....it is sad is it now. It is amazing what America is becoming. There is no more freedom of speech.
wajutiem08 1 year ago
The ignorance, and hatred, of fundamentalists is profound, staggering. Catholics -pray the Rosary and offer mass for them.
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
Cathlic popes in the middle ages sacrificed babies on their altars, and also popes tortured and executed about one billion people, good resources assert
MegaFaithalone 1 year ago
@MegaFaithalone I like my babies barbecued, well done -mmmm!
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
Why do Mark (8:27-30) and Luke (9:18-21), while they also recount the Caesarea Philippi conversation between Jesus and Peter, omit all reference to that part of Jesus' conversation which grants to Peter his alleged priority over the other apostles, the point which for Rome is the very heart and central point of our Lord's teaching ministry?
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87 Hey, the line "I am the resurrection and the life" are found ONLY in John; ergo, it is a void concept ...accroding to your 'logic.' ONLY Luke mentions shepherds at Jesus' birth, and only Matthew mentions the Magi. Ergo, there were no shepherds and Magi...because the other writers didn't mention them. Sensible?
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87 Stop deleting my answers!
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford Why can the disciples after the Caesarea Philippi incident still dispute among themselves concerning who was the greatest (Matthew 18:1; 20:20-28; Luke 22:24)? Apparently they did not understand that Jesus' statement had given Peter any priority over them. And if Christ had in fact intended by his Caesarea Philippi pronouncement that Peter was to be his vicar and the leader of all Christendom, why did he not clear up the disciples' confusion once and for all.?
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford He stands at the head of the list of the twelve apostles in each of the lists given in the New Testament (Matthew 10:2 [note Matthew’s “first” here]; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), and he is included among that “inner circle” of disciples (Peter, James, and John), which alone witnessed certain miraculous events such as Jesus’ transfiguration; he is the spokesman for the disciples on several occasions (Matthew 15:15; 17:24-25; 19:27; John 6:68-69
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford Now it is true that in the early years of the New Testament era Peter was a leader among the apostles. A case can even be made that he was the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) in some sense.8 Consider the following data. There are approximately 140 references to Peter in the four Gospels, some 30 more than all the references to the other disciples combined.
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford Why, if Peter was the living, earthly head of the church at that time, does he disappear completely from Luke's Acts after Acts 15, with very few references to him, apart from his own two letters, in the rest of the New Testament?
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87 It is irrelevant that in the narrative he vanishes. Note -in the narrative. He went on 'somewhere', and contrary to what people (fundamentalists) wish to assert, all evidence says he went to Rome. Luke simply chooses to shift his focus in part II to Paul. Just because the Book of Joshua is all about Joshua and not moses does not mean Moses had been a leader in his time.
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87 We RCs dont believe Peter had the only authority, we just say the authority of the other Apostles must be in union with him, and that he is still supreme over them, though in actuality popes dont lord it over other bishops, and bishops are all free to exercise full jurisdiction in their diocese
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford Why in the earliest Patristic literature is Paul venerated as often as Peter, a fact admitted by Roman Catholic scholars?
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87 Paul no doubt is a mega figure for all he did and developed in theology. Yet it is still clear that Peter was in a leadership position. Not a tyrant, not the ONLY one with authority, but certainly the leader. Even Paul had to go to Peter first before being fully accepted into Chrsitianity. Paul has authority -he was a bishop, as all Apostles were -but this authority must be with union with Peter. The authority comes from Jesus, but it is in union with Peter
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
@MrLamontSanford This raises the larger question, namely, while the church at Rome was no doubt influential, why is there no indication in the first two centuries of the Christian era that the rest of the church recognized the Roman church as supreme or that the rest of the church acceded to Rome any claimed or recognized sovereignty over Christendom?
ZhongZheng87 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87
You don't know your Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, co-worker of St John said;
"to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, " Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
Irenaeus of Lyon 189AD ".... by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the GREATEST and most ancient CHURCH known to all, founded and organized at ROME by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, .....With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87
Cyprian of Carthage 253AD
" With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Letters 59:14).
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@ZhongZheng87
Firmilian 253AD
"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Since this thread is about Peter and popes, I would like to ask you a question. You as a Roman Catholic believe Rome's claim that there is an unbroken succession of popes from Peter to the present. In 1309-1378, there reigned multiple popes (all were even outside of the city of Rome). Therefore, doesn't that make Rome's claim inconsistent with the facts?
TheJpgr1958 1 year ago
@TheJpgr1958
1) Your facts are wrong. There never were three popes at once--and never two at once either. But there were times when there were two claimants to the office, and once, in the 14th century, there were three claimants.
All Catholics knew there could be only one pope. The question was which of the claimants was the true pope. There was confusion and scandal, but the succession from Peter was never broken.
2) One can be a Bishop of Rome and not reside there.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Thanks for your response. The problem is that there were 2 to 3 who proclaimed to be Pope at the same time, not claimants. The question I have still is: If you and I lived back then, and I asked you which one was the true Vicar of Christ on earth and which were the phony's, how would you have known WITHOUT DOUBT, that you would follow the correct one? What would have wrong with the other ones? Remember, you have to absolutely have no doubt whatsoever.
TheJpgr1958 1 year ago
Comment removed
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@TheJpgr1958
Taking into context, that BEFORE this happened, the Bishop's of Rome governed from FRANCE, due to war.
So, I would only recognize the Bishop governing in Rome. History shows Gregory XII was the True Pope. Spain supported the Spaniard Benedict XIII, and France wanted to keep the Papacy in France and supported Alexander V. Neither, were in Rome. Simple really.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
When I originally saw this broadcast, they kept stopping the tape and we heard John Ankerberg give his interpretation of what the Cathoic Church teaches. This is the first time I was able to actually hear what Fr. Mitch Pacwa said. No wonder they edited the tape when I saw it, Fr. Pacwa is nailing them to the wall on every point! Two Prods against one Catholic, and the Catholic is winning!
sylviekell 1 year ago
@sylviekell Yep!!!
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
That one adventist... The church is one. 1.5 billion in 3 parts, Roman, west traditional anglican( Isaac Newton was one), Eastern orthodox, all respect the roman catholic pontifical academy and the Pope
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Guys, stop fighting and realize that the Lord of the second advent is already on earth. Thats why we have all the confusion, because the Last Days, when the Lord has arrived, is a time of greatest confusion. The Lord is Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Study his teachings on reverendsunmyungmoon. org and find the complete truth that God wants you to know.
brunoklotz 1 year ago
Do you have to become protestant just because Vatican 2 has done a strong inappropriate reform from Vatican 1? You´re switching religions almost by doing so. Why not just stay Catholic and hold onto Vatican 1? ???
DianaBetancur1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if the first church was built upon what Jesus christ our savior said to Peter and Jesus himself and his disciples keep the 4th commandment how come "catholic church" change the law?
stutterthepimp 1 year ago
The following question is not rhetorical. Are we dealing with a Sirius-Centered Babylonian/Egyptian/Greek/Roman Theocracy Ruled by Human/Reptile Goddesses in Underground Bases and Stargate Temples? Does Lucifer = Lilith = Hathor = Isis = Mary = Inanna = 'Anna' in 'V' = Anu = Whore of Babylon? Does she rule the United Nations, Washington DC, City of London, Vatican, Secret Government, Secret Space Program, Underground Bases, Alphabet Agencies, Jesuits, Royal Family, et al? So burn me!
redletterchurch 1 year ago
@redletterchurch uhm , WHAT?
MrLamontSanford 1 year ago
So is Joseph ??/ joseph is less inporten the mary son this topic is so uniportent i cant belive i spend one sec on mary . just worship her if you want to be a good rc and make her god of your life. your brainwashed how do i know .
have you ever in your life talkd to a unbeliver about jesus as much as your trying to tell me about mary . who are you a witness for jesus or mary . you love mary more then jesus .so sad
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther She is the Queen of all creation not just the universe. Plus I pwnd everything. It's close to worship but not worship. Nevertheless, it's very close just 5 inches close to God. Respect! Plus the Pope!!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
facts about mary queen of heaven =she has no book in the holy scriptures . she has no letters to or from the church . she was not a profetess or aposle or precher or techer . she was the vesal that god used to hide jesus glory he took of his glroy when he was born. she is not in namy ministery its funny all the things she she was not. and nothing talked about in the word that she did the lack info about her in the bible is amazing for this queen of heaven
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther So is Joseph but that has nothing to do with your crack. Mary sinned and where is this on the Bible?
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@beingther
you make a good point
the queen of heaven is the church of Jesus Christ, not this earthly mother of Jesus Christ, who created her in the first place
sinterminator 1 year ago
@sinterminator The queen also refers to the Mary in the Bible. Her body and blood did not die and gt ascended into heaven then return to some 15 18 year old state and virginity. That's the real shit! Plus Jesus' church was the roman catholicism. Check out where the succession of the apostles is coming from. I know I'm hurting your eastern cult secularism.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
Mary is not a queen at all. Jesus Christ is King, that's all. NO QUEEN IN HEAVEN !
First of all Mary wasn't ascended to heaven. Who made up that story ?
Roman catholicism ? You mean the church that forbid to read the bible ? The church that killed real bible believing christians because they didn't respect the pope's doctrine ? The church that is overloaded with gold and money ?
Don't worhip a person created by Jesus Christ himself. Mary is just a person
sinterminator 1 year ago
@sinterminator You're nothing. Just plain bullshit w , bunch of critique and accusations. I given all against you. Protestantism is built by men not by Jesus. Jesus built RC which are the successors of Peter. Mary being the Queen in your Bible. It is you who destroys the Bible. You created the Sola scriptura and sola fide which is not in the Bible. Where thus the Bible say that scripture is enough without interpretation? Where does the Bible say that faith is enough without having to do good?
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
the catholic church added to the Word of God, they invented doctrines that are unbiblical, the queen of heaven is the church of Jesus Christ, it is His bride, it doesn't talk about the mother of God, because she was CREATED by Jesus Christ. Not the other way around.
I never said that faith is enough without works. Works with a false religion will not bring you to heaven eighter.
sinterminator 1 year ago
@sinterminator What do you think is a church? It's people not one woman! The church is the body. Good works are good works. Not the other way around, It is only the ability and quality of the Holy Ghost. You can't do good works without having the ability and grace that is given in RC aka sacraments. You have been defiled from grace by your pretesting fathers aka Martin Luther. Every baptists looks to him as their hero. You've created your own religion! ENOUGH!!!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
Marten Luther ? I don't even know what he did for the body of Christ, but I know for one thing that the pope is not belonging to the body of Christ. I don't want to be part of his religion nor Marten Luther's religion. I read my bible. Where two people or more gather discussing and searching for the wisdom of God in the scriptures, that is church, not some holier than thou kind of mystic who reads some sacred texts written in Rome, not inspired by the Holy Gost
sinterminator 1 year ago
@sinterminator You say you don't need the church, just your bible. You are aware that it was the Catholic Church that gave you your bible. It decided what writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit at the end of the 4th century at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
100PercentCatholic 1 year ago
@100PercentCatholic Yes folks! I need no reply, up to you X]]!!!!!!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@100PercentCatholic
No, the catholic church has forbidden the bible more than a thousand years.
That is in and out of itself the most criminal act of Rome.
The church of Rome is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Look at its fruits.
More people have become atheists in this last century because of the lies spread by the pope. Don't be a catholic. Leave that cult.
sinterminator 1 year ago
@sinterminator read the Catholic bible, the saints, the martyrs, the apostles, the fathers. These things group very well quite completely and interchangeably. No proof for you, protestants! Just blind faith aka protestant Bible dropping out from the sky of 21st century by a pastor. Tell these saints and martyrs that they are pedophiles
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@100PercentCatholic depends what Bible, kjv comes straight from the hebrew and greek scriptures
perp92 1 year ago
Great video thanks for posting
quest2k 1 year ago
Martin sounds like obama why dont he just blame it on bush
beingther 1 year ago
mary was born in sin just like you and me . she sinnd sorry to tell you this but you belive the bible or the rcc .you cant belive both
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther Wrong. Disservice again! Mary was not born with sin and she don't need to be cleansed. She is created sinless. She suffer the EFFECTS (temptation/test) of sin just like us but she was not a sinner. Our sins where cleansed at baptism and has the capacity to do as she did using our free will to accept the grace and the sacraments by the power of the church!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson The bible say she was born a sinner just like everyone but rcc says she was not who is the lire?both cant be true . you chose the rcc. no problem go and belive the lies but when you stand befor god you are without excuse
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther The Bible supports rcc since the power of God is established in it and sealed with authority to hold the keys of it's dominion.
All have sinned but not Mary and Christ.
Verse?
All man have sinned so you include Jesus? You include Mary? You're making a fallacy and denying the word of God.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson jesus was not a man .he was son of god born of mary
mary was all human .as for rcc does not belive the bible . the bible says holy spirit leads to all truth rcc says they do . how is right ?
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther
There you fallacious Baptist! If you look and see in the Bible, Jesus is perfectly in nature, a man.
That would mean all man have sin then you should include Him! But really you're committing error and disrespect the power given in the Church! God was indeed a Man:
"Let us create in our own image"
It's a supernatural concept So is the Immaculate Conception!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson ok your right he was a man but he did not have the adam nature his father was god . so he was not of adam the curse was not in him like it was in mary
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther It's funny why He's son of Man
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson what? son of man does not meann he had a human dad
really its too deep for you to undestand why god calls humans, man.
all god used mary for was to produce a body for god . thats it . thats all he did . now rcc brings her to queen of heaven (demon) to coredemer cointerseder co creater co saver and in 100 yrs if it keeps up swhell be mother of the father and jesus and holy spirit . whuy all come from her look at ever mother of all liveing things
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther Christ is the son of Adam and had the effects of sin but not sin. You see his temptation at the mountain where he fasts?? All man had sin with the exception of both Mary and Jesus. Your Sola Scriptura is debunk saying the Bible is self suficient , again you can interpret it even in demonical way. The dogmas are more important than the Bible.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson so your saying god could sin o ok and you get this from rcc
o ok sure . no his human nature had to overcome silly he had no sin . but mary had sin where in the bible does it say she had no sin . o i get it you need the rcc to prove your point ,. hey if you want to worship her go ahead but ill worship god and him alone
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther
Mary never had sex with anyone. She is virginal. Because RC accepts IC I can say, look it up. It;s biblically supported
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson how care she could have been a vergin or a hooker makes no differants once jesus was born she finished her work for god
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther
It made difference since Mary is Immaculate
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson chapter and verse wherein the bible says mary was immaculate . in fact if you just take the bible (i know you rc hate the word of god ) but it dont say anything cloes to that .
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther IC don't violate the Bible
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
says who ? Where is that in the bible ?
sinterminator 1 year ago
@sinterminator Shit. Be specific, sinner!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
Me a sinner ? Okay. I agree, I am. I don't worship Mary. Even Jesus Christ neglected her when He made his point. He is in control. Mary was only a vessel to bring him from heaven into an earthly body. Mary wasn't sinless. Every man is a sinner. Mary was his mother... so what ? She is NOT a queen. Jesus Christ never treated her as a queen and never mentioned her in the revelation to John.
sinterminator 1 year ago
pacwa is not a debater but he does a good job educating scripture.
xukeith33 1 year ago
@xukeith33 scripture
xukeith33 1 year ago
RCC wins on this. Fuck biased ridiculous. The priest agreeing doesn't necessarily mean they are correct upon the infallible claim, but they are wrong on making the infallible claim for RCC.
We do not worship Mary rather, she was not a sinner at all so is like a grandeur container to receive another holy thing as to put gold in a trash container, or garbage plastic, that would be fallacy.
Mary should be holy and sinless to incorporate Jesus Christ. That's dogma and logic!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson Mary was a human making her a sinner at birth. Only God (Jesus) did not sin.. Where did u guys get off thinking she didn't have sin. Christ must have been a liar then saying "that ALL have sinned and come short to the glory of God. Full of grace doesn't translate "no sin" wow heretic. All means All. that's All it means All of the time. Blind guides
14greg14 1 year ago
@14greg14 HAHA, wrong again!
Look what the Bible said. Say I'm God. I'm going to put my Son on a sinless girl rather than say a bitch or a slut.
Every sin is actually equal. Read Immaculate conception.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson You're 20 and as dumb as they come.wow
14greg14 1 year ago
@14greg14 14greg14 you are 14 years old
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Rome's Decree declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception include "let the children of the Catholic Church most dear to us hear these words and with a more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."
so why do cathlics say thay dont why would they not worship her if they belive all this foolishness
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther * it's worship to God not Mary. Invoking her is irrelevant to worship. You pray with Mary to worship God not pray with Mary to worship Mary.
What an ass. I haven't pawned this yet!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson check no your not right . i do not pray to her and nether should anyone
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther praying to her =/= worshiping her. Nobody prays to her that worship her but worship the father and the other 2 persons.
Your shit was refuted the beginning I withheld the authority of the body of Christ. You're doing a disservice!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
walter martin won this debate clearly.you must be blind if you think otherwise.
sins4givenmain 1 year ago
@sins4givenmain Guess I'm Blind, my ears hear Father Pacwa won.LOL
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus you said it. lol.
sins4givenmain 1 year ago
@sins4givenmain Glad you agree.lol
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes you definately are now, but that doesn't mean to can't repent and be forgiveness free to serve Christ..the true Christ
14greg14 1 year ago
@14greg14 Lol. I was reading some of your arguments about Mary. 1) When some one is "Full of Grace" there is no room for sin. 2) Yes, Jesus said we are all sinners, we all are subject to "Original Sin", Mary as well, but the difference is, Mary was cleansed from this Sin at Her Conception, through the Merits of Jesus Christ. This was done to preserve Her for Her role as Mother of God/Man Jesus the Savior. Let's repent together sometime. lol. Luv Ya!!
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Wrong. Mary had the effects of sin but she don't have original sin. What "at conception"? We're all cleanse at baptism from original sin. By sinning, the grace is still there supernaturally however our soul turn dark.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson You didn't understand what I wrote, so I'll change the wording, " Mary like all humans was subject to Original Sin, but the only difference was, Mary was cleansed at Her Conception, by the Merits of Jesus Christ. God can do anything, and this was done so Mary would be a Pure Vessel, for the Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible says "All generations WILL call me Blessed" Who fits this bill?????
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus WRONG.
Mary was not subject to original sin. You're saying at ovum, she had original sin and cleansed before she got out of pussy? WRONG Rather, She was product of sex and has the EFFECTS of sin but not sin. Be CLEARLY!
She feel tempted and has the same tests as us including Christ.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus The same way God mad Eve without sin, So was Mary made without sin, difference being Mary triumphed, Eve did not. Nothing is imposable to God. You put restrictions on God, not Catholics. "Hail Mary full of Grace" "The Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou amongst women, and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb" The Truth will set you free, Bro!!
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Now it gets even fallacious. Mary triumphed through tests just like eve and us. Yes she did not sin. We actually have capacity to do it by keeping grace, sacrament etc FREE WILL.
You're saying eve don't triumphed? What now you. You're getting random shit!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Comment removed
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHECKrayrobionson what verse is that in
beingther 1 year ago
@beingther verse what..
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus what verse is that in
beingther 1 year ago
I don't understand how anyone can watch this with an open mind and say that Dr. Martin lost. Although I am protestant and disagree with 95% of what the catholic church teaches, I do have tremendous respect for Fr. Pacwa
InDefenseofChrist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What I find most interesting about catholics is that they claim the RCC has the authority and not the Bible. Yet, when you ask them how they can prove the RCC has the authority, they quote the Bible! Circle reasoning. You can't have it both ways.
johnthreesixteen316 2 years ago
where in the Bible does it say that every issue concerning faith is explicitly defined in the Bible? A question for anyone who believes in "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone).
ComeHomeCatholics 2 years ago
very ironic name for you to have since it is you who need to come home.Catholics are already here ,so let me extend my invite to you to come home .
onclave6 2 years ago
@onclave6 I am a Roman Catholic, my name is to invite Catholics who have left the Church (or any Christian) to come home to the Catholic Church. Are you a sedevacantist?
ComeHomeCatholics 2 years ago
Im a Roman Catholic and after seeing your comments I found it hard to believe that your catholic . Sedevacanist?
onclave6 2 years ago
I am ABSOLUTED NOT a sedevacantist, they are a heretical schismatic church. Why would you think that, because I'm questioning protestants about sola scriptura? CCC 95 "...sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magistgerium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others..." I am just defending the Catholic faith, and I am completely loyal to Pope Benedict XVI.
ComeHomeCatholics 2 years ago
@ComeHomeCatholics I was under the impression that you challenged me for some reason .Perhaps the name you have may give others the impression that your a protestant telling Catholics to leave their faith and come home to God (which we all know they are wrong)
onclave6 2 years ago
Thats understandable, I see how my name could give that impression. But if people look at my channel they will clearly see I am Roman Catholic. My name is actually calling Catholics who have left the Church to come back home, but it could be misinterpreted. I'm glad our misunderstaning was resolved. God bless you and have a spiritually productive Lent.
ComeHomeCatholics 2 years ago
@ComeHomeCatholics Thank you and May God Bless you
onclave6 2 years ago
@ComeHomeCatholics If doctrine isn't exclusive to the Bible then it has to come from men or demons. I think Christ had something to say about that.
johnthreesixteen316 2 years ago
but you didn't answer the question. If you believe in "sola scriptura" then share with me where you find that idea in the Bible. I'll save you some time and tell you that this novel idea was invented by the protestant reformers in the 16th century.
ComeHomeCatholics 2 years ago
2 Timothy 3: 16-17 is clear. Reading the text in it's Greek setting is beneficial. The term "theopneustos" (used in the text) means God-breathed. The term "artios" means complete or perfect.
loveworthfinding 2 years ago
To Any protestant, I have a question..
Can ANY protestants explain to me, why JESUS changed SIMON name to PETER -CHEPAS, ROCK ???? Why Jesus did that ?
ANY protestat, explain this to me please, what that means, ? I want to know what`s the teologycal protestant view of the simple truth of JESUS CHANGING SIMON NAME TO PETER, CHEPAS, ROCK...
I`ll wait for someone to answer me,,,,
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
Changing of name is a common thing in Scripture.
Jesus also named James and John Boanerges, the sons of thunder. Mark 3:17. Why did he do that?
And if you think it is so important that Jesus changed his name, then why did Jesus Himself refer to Peter by his old name, Simon, in John 21:15-17?
Besides, all believers will get new names. Revelation 2:17.
exodusx599 2 years ago
That`s all your answer about Jesus changing Simon`s name ?
You said: " then why did Jesus Himself refer to Peter by his old name, Simon, in John 21:15-17?"
So, you are telling me, Jesus CHANGED is mind, he regret of naming CHEPAS to this simon, ? mmm
You should see what happen to Abram that became ABRAHAM, Jacob-Israel,.
If it is not important for you, I don`t know what spirit guides you,,
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
I did not tell you that. I simply asked you a question, which you did not answer. If Jesus renamed him, then why did He go back to calling him by his old name?
I know Abraham and Jacob had their names changed. I began my comment "changing of name is a common thing in Scripture." I'm not saying it isn't important, but I am saying that it is not so important as to base a whole doctrine (such as the papacy) on.
exodusx599 2 years ago
As you know then, if you have read Abraham and Israel, When God changes somone name, it is because that person will play and mportant Role in history.
Look up for the meaning of israel, Abraham, Khepas.
It is not your, mine or the magisterium decition, it is the second person of the Trinity decition, not a doctrine, it`t a seat and a ROLE Peter and his succesors will play in history, Jesus knew it.
You have to fight against Jesus words to oppose all Biblical evidence of the ROLE OF PETER
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
You have still not answered my question as to why Jesus called him Simon (his old name) three times in John 21.
You still have not answered why James and John were renamed to Boanerges.
You still have not answered why all believers will receive a new name.
As for "Israel," he was also (most of the time actually) called Jacob still.
As we see biblically, many people have had their name changed. Peter's name change is not sufficient proof that he had the "role" of a pope.
exodusx599 2 years ago
I will not play you game ,,, sorry,,,
Your answer to my first question of Why Jesus changed Simon names to KHEPAS was those bunch of question you make TO AVOID MY QUESTION,, I will not play your game,, sorry,,, I have the answer but not discuss with players
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
"not only that he should be a lively stone in the spiritual building, the church, but should have a considerable hand in that work, and abide firm and steadfast to Christ, and his interest, notwithstanding his fall; and continue constant and immoveable until death, as he did." - John Gill.
Your question is answered. Now you answer mine.
exodusx599 2 years ago
@exodusx
poor answer, so, the second person of the Holy Trinity didn`t intend to do out of this man, simon, a visible rock for His Church, nothing special, not important to give it attention.. that`s all this "John Gill" (Not you) said.
You really have to fight against Jesus words to Peter in SINGULAR "Feed my sheeep" "give YOU the Keys" "whatever YOU bind/lose" "I´ve prayed for YOU"
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
@exodusx
One time Jesus said "Satan has demanded the right to test each one of you" Each ONE, test ALL disciples, Included John, James "sons of thunder" "Boanerges" and Jesus continue "But Simon, I have prayed that your faith fail not." It is Obvious Jesus intended to make something out of Peter ALONE, the Logic here will be "I have prayed for EACH of YOU" but Jesus prayed for PETER ALONE.. I can`t believe you guys can`t see the SINGULAR way that the second person of God aproach Peter
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
@exodusx
You know why i believe in / to Jesus stablishing a "role" out of this man?, because Jesus prayed for UNITY in His Church "I want all of them to be one....just as I am one with you and you are one with me. ...Then the people of this world WILL BELIEVE that you sent me."
How can the world believe if we are not ONE/UNITED ? The papacy is the Simbol of UNITY/ONE in the Church for the world to believe in Jesus,, JESUS KNEW IT,,, HE IS GOD
no pope=NO UNITY=world will no believe..sad
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
@exodusx599 in the bible named denotes the nature of the thing all names every one has a nature jesus = deliverer christ means anointed put it together he is the anointed deliverer
beingther 1 year ago
@exodusx599 if you take jacob trixster lire desiver = adams human sinfull nature nature but the name of isreal = son of god
so when god said he is the god of jacob . he is realy saying he is the god of jacob but he has a differant relationship then when he called him isreal. same as peter when when peter was not spiritual jesus calld him simmon but when peter was spiritual mature he called him peter as he was acting so was his name
beingther 1 year ago
Mr. Pacwa has guts. I don't see why he involves himself in these debates cuz' he gets owned everytime.
Sledge070685 2 years ago
Were you watching these debates ? Father Paqua never losses one . does this on a regular basis .During the week at least two hours a week he talks on the radio .Its an open line . Many people challenge the faith .He always wins.He knows more then any preacher
onclave6 2 years ago
Are you kiddin' me ? Did YOU watch this ? He stutters and awful lot, he makes no sense whatsoever he clearly contradicts himself with popes from the past (who are suppose to be infallible btw)
Sledge070685 2 years ago
this guy ILIKELINCOLNLOGS is comparing the mormons with catholics.mormons cult was founded in 1830.what do they know.180 years ago.
SuperMounstro 2 years ago
Catholics and Mormons tend to do this: take one little section from the Bible and totally blow it out of proportion without ever looking at any other scripture to check if what they were interpreting was valid.
ILikeLincolnLogs 2 years ago
Why is it these two keep saying that the keys are given to the othere Apostles when there is no such text? The power to bind and loose? Yes. The keys? Nope.
TheKnightPablo 2 years ago
your opinion is poor first of all Catholics have apostolic succession while Mormons do not.Catholics are Christian while Mormons are far from it . Catholics do not pick and choose what scripture to follow we accept it all as Gods inspired word.
onclave6 2 years ago
Try telling a Mormon he/she is not Christian. They will say they are the true Christians and that we, as in, you and me, are receiving half truths. And if you just accept it all, how come you guys discarded the book of Eve? How come you discarded some of the same prophets we did? The truth is, Catholics did choose and pick what their Hierarchy wanted, which resulted in some sketchy scripture leaking their way into the Bible, which resulted in the Catholic Bible.
ILikeLincolnLogs 2 years ago
A mormon is most certainly false as well as Jahova witness God says in Pauls teachings as well as others that even if an angel shall come and preach another Gospel it is false. that would prove Muslim faith wrong as well. What Faith are you? (it does not seem you read King James )
onclave6 2 years ago
Walter isnt even paying attention to what father pacwa is saying,hes so into his notes that he repeats what father pacwa just said in 5:37. As you can see he(walter) isnt trying to learn anything hes trying to prove something.All that he prove is that hes wrong
SuperMounstro 2 years ago
This is a DEBATE. The point of a debate is to PROVE one side true, and/or another side false. And you are saying Martin is wrong because he's trying to prove something? That makes no sense at all.
exodusx599 2 years ago
Walter too a spanking here yes I have heard him win debates against atheists (which all protestants should be doing rather then arguing against the church) but here he was just out of his league. I understand Martin past a while back.
So I dont want to bash him.But he was wrong
onclave6 2 years ago
He's not arguing against the church, he's arguing against Catholics; Catholics like Father Pacwa, who is probably a very loving and awesome person if I ever met him, who have been led astray from the true Gospel of Jesus.
ILikeLincolnLogs 2 years ago
The Church consists of over 1billion Catholics so if he is arguing against Catholics he is arguing against the church. he is right where he needs to Be .The man he is debating I here past away some time ago.I only hope that GOd let him into the kingdom of Heaven
onclave6 2 years ago
i would like to know where the popes hat and costume came from? i am guessing the peter didnt wear it so it must all come from pagan tradtions which the RCC borrowed from....
where else would the staff hat and rings come from.... its amazing that the RCC would say that they were all christian ...
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa has caught out John Ankerberg so many times, and all John Ankerberg can do is talk over Mitchell Pacwa. Walter Martin has no idea , so agrees with John Ankerberg & stops Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa from answering the question [typical fundies]]
AUGHALOUGH 2 years ago
hi,
where did pacwa catch out ankerberg?
does the church transfer deity to peter to make him god on earth ....
peters faith has been replaced.. what makes peter god on earth...
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
Keep up the good work Mitchell Pacwa [Walter Martin and John Ankerberg just talk in circles] That Ankerberg has no respect, keeps interrupting you everytime you speak.
AUGHALOUGH 2 years ago