Thanks for publishing! I’m only about halfway through but already getting a lot out of it. I liked Suan’s mention of a priori arguments. That’s where it’s at :)
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes It just seems like a lot of theology utilizes a priori arguments. Like all of Aquinas' 5 ways utilize a priori arguments about our senses being accurate. Do you think those are invalid?
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Oh, I see. I just misunderstood you, then. This still seems like an extreme position to me, but I can see a bit better now why you might think that.
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Hm...well I don't mean to get into an argument, but if you're asking me how I see it, I can give you an example. I believe the Bible says very little specifically about infant baptism. Especially as a Protestant, which I am not but I understand that you are, I think an a priori argument about the nature of baptism and infants is helpful to make a conclusion. Of course as a Catholic, I can appeal to the Tradition, but it makes sense to me that the a priori argument counts as a datum, even if a relatively weak one. Does that make sense?
With regards to scriptural interpretation, I never hear people bringing up Jesus's interaction with the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, where "... beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." Jesus himself had to teach them correct interpretation, which then presumably informs the development of doctrine and interpretation. Wouldn't we place a high value on that?
I make this comment as a Catholic (reverted in 2020). The teaching office of the church furthers the interpretive power given to the early church in such places as the road to Emmaus.
@YAJUN YUAN "The interpretations of Jesus have been recorded in the gospels, He specifically gives them all in one go on the Road to Emmaus" - can you show any evidence that this is the case?
@YAJUN YUAN To claim that all that was contained in the conversation on the road to Emmaus is contained in written form in the New Testament is conjecture and relies on some level of extra-biblical support. Can you site that support? If not, the best we have to go off of is early church understanding of scripture and their interpretations of scripture, which were informed by the Apostles and their written AND oral teachings.
I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” AMEN and AMEN..
@YAJUN YUAN Perhaps the fact that out of all women that ever would exist. God chose her. Also do you read anywhere where she failed to do God's will? What happened to sola scriptura?
@@mynameis......23 We agree Sagar. She was blessed for her YES to Christ; the FIRST yes, the YES that undid the NO of Eve. The YES that brought salvation into the world… She declared herself handmaid of the Lord! All nations will call her Blessed!! So YES, you didn’t realize it at the time when you posted, but you proved our point for honoring Mary!
@YAJUN YUAN By obeying God, Mary was instrumental in YOUR salvation. God's plan was for Jesus to be born a Man. Jesus wasn't descending straight from heaven. Mary by saying Yes, cooperated in God's plan for your salvation . She gave Jesus His human DNA. Jesus was to be born a human to represent the Human Race in an unbroken New Covenant between God and Man. Was this obedience a very great act ? Only 1 case ? Has your obedience been of such magnitude and scale ? She wasn't done just giving birth to Jesus. She raised him, loved Him. This is a continuous act of obedience from Day 1.
I am praying for Protestants to listen to these two great thinkers, and see with clear vision, the one true Church that Jesus established for all. Everyone likes to root for their team to win...Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc... What we need to root for is team Jesus!!! ❤
@@tony1685 Catholicism, as i understand it, is merely a term used to denote unity in Christ. There are several catholic churches and indeed, if you stretch the definition, any church can call themselves catholic. Rome (as it claims) is the 'prime' church, but still one of many (Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Catholic, Coptic, etc.).
@@tony1685 You completely avoided the point I made previously, that the bible of which you speak is a collection of books written about the events that happened during Jesus' actual lifespan here on Earth, by several different authors. How did these books from completely seperate places (remember, the apostles wrote their gospels decades after the death of Jesus) end up in one place, for us all to read? The Catholic church (the very church you claim comes from Satan) held what is referred to as the council of Nicaea, wherein "the bible" was assembled. If you claim Catholicism is inherently wrong and of the devil, you must then admit that the new testament, which you read and worship, was not divinely inspired, but was in fact from Satan himself. (EDIT: I noticed that you deleted the comment wherein you claimed the Catholic church was "from Demons and from Satan")
This is amazing! Having a debate with my Methodist Grandmother and need all the help I can get! I believe in my heart and by faith, but don’t have the background to explain. Thank you for all your references I can use! Hopefully we get our lost sheep back into the Church ❤️
@@teth-adam Stay R.C. and you too will soon know this for a fact! Did you eat your Wafer today? Do you know the history of your wafer god? I'm ex R.C. btw.., (Praise the LORD!) 🥳🙂 You have been sold a fake gospel by these ministers of evil. As cunning plans go.., the Roman Catholic, unholy religious organisation, and it's practice of perverting God's Word for it's own twisted purposes, whilst attempting to insert demonic doctrines and beliefs into the pure and only true Church of Jesus Christ,... .., has to be the Devil's most cunningest! All roads in Rome (via her Pagan religion) lead to HELL! REPENT (change your mind,) believe the Bible, and trust in the LORD JESUS, (no lady!) Then come out of her... (the "Mother" Whore church) of Romanism while it is still the day of Salvation!
Listen to the talk on TH-cam, by Dr. Brant Pitre called the Jewish Roots of the Papacy. Also, Steve Ray talk called Peter, the Rock, the Keys and the Chair.
Great Catholic Faith apologists with their vast knowledge about the scriptures. God bless you both Brothers Trent and Suan. May you not get tired defending the Catholic dogmas against the woke protestants trying to destroy our beliefs and faith!
@@tony1685 tony bologna. What are you babbling about. I asked you to share an example of Trent avoiding a question. Where is the video of him being asked and then avoiding.
@@tony1685 ok let's play Tony. Simple answer, yes the Catholic Church does know God(only one's who know Him actually)the Church loves the LORD Jesus and walks in faith. Any other questions?
@@tony1685 man I'm getting tired of this. You're joking right? Jesus is LORD of the sabbath and our rest is in Him. This had been explained in nausea but you guys keep bringing this up like you don't get it. What are you some SDA "christian".
The big question that comes up from this is why then did the church (if it did have a central authority) not have one at the time of the schism between the Orthodox and the Catholics? As I understand it, the reason for the break was that the Catholics wanted that central authority restored while the Orthodox argued things should stay decentralized as it had been for many years.
This is a potted summary and overly simplified...but it is not about faith really but power, especially temporal: Constantine developed Constantinople to be politically closer to where the administrative need was (see the history of Byzantium Podcast), on the frontier near the neo-Persians ie Parthians, after amalgamating the East and West empires which had 4 emporers between (2 senior and 2 deputies). Constantine originally sat in Britan and as Head of the West this was more stable than the East in his perspective and thus he could leave it to the West. In no small part because of the value placed on the Pope. He legalised Christianity probably for political reasons as it was probably insane to not by then especially if he needed to cement political support. But he actually appears to have sided with the Arians. Thus Constantinople is the new capital building on the village/township of Byzantium. As a capital it needed a Patriach, thus the new Constantinople was created. This swiftly became the no.2 Patriach after Rome (which all attest to). But power begets power. So not content with being no.2 and yet chummy with the emporer, they sought to be top dog. That's when things come out. The emporer could influence and lead the Patriach of Constantinople but not Rome, whom was almost his defacto legate in Rome. In the meantime the other patriachs are either swallowed up or are in defence against the onrushing of the saracens etc. Or soon will be. This is all backstory... Eventually there's a council that seeks to usurp the Pope, this wasn't liked. He sends an ambassador that the Patriach of Constantinople seeks to snub. They both pass each other off and mutually excommunication each other. The Pope meanwhile dies. So the Ambassadors actions are defacto agreed while a successor is chosen. Effectively what you end up with is less Pope v Patriach but Papal primacy or State Primacy (proxied by the Patriach who defers to the Emporer). So current Orthodox traditions follow the Defacti Regional Ruler, such as Russian or Byzantine/Turkish (Constantinople) etc. Whereas the West has nominally had states follow the Papal authority (hence 3 crowned tiara- 1 more than an emporer). Though the temporal power has waxed and waned - this is why the rulers at times appeal to the Pope. It is mashed up into lots of other things, just as all other political issues are. But it is about personal power over others. Should also point out this is history not really modern, but these were really the events that caused it.
Controversial here obviously, but there were Multiple reasons for the break, but to answer your question because the Roman authority is not present in church history, just an honor given to Rome (because Peter and Paul died there). The Councils clearly defined jurisdictions of all bishoprics including Rome's, call Constantinople the new Rome, Pope's dethroned by conciliar Council's of other bishops (which can't happen if it Roman claims were true), no mention of this 19th century Vatican 1 reinterpretation in the councils. Just quote mines
@@mickyfrazer786 Interesting. So the idea that things were decentralized is their explanation for the fact that the Patriarch in Constantinople was created by the Emperor, not by the church, and was supposed to be subservient to the Pope in Rome, but pushed to be on equal or higher status instead. Correct?
Jesus founded an Authoritative Church ( Matt 18:17), and it was a visible Church ( Matt 5:14) and it is an organic Church ( Matt 13:32). Though it was looking like a mustard seed then, now it is a growing tree.
@@tony1685 Oh.. interesting. So a “simple and clear reading” of the Bible have lead you to SDA which is founded in the year 1863 by Ellen G White & team. But the truth is that “simple and clear reading” has already started by Martin Luther in 1517 and as a result, about 40,000+ churches are already there, all of them say SDA is a cult group ( except the Catholic Church who respectfully considers SDA as “separated brethren”). So there is no such thing as “plain and simple reading”. It was Martin Luther’s teaching that scriptures are perspicuous but he himself proved his theory wrong. This is the reality. I hope you will not fall in to ostrich effect. If you are truly concerned about Truth, you have to consider Catholic Church- the Church founded by Jesus Christ in AD33. It am a Catholic by choice, I can help you. As long as the discussion goes respectfull, I can continue.
@@AthanaSus The city of Rome became another major destination for pilgrims. Easier of access for European pilgrims than the Holy Land, Rome had also been the home of many saintly martyrs, including the apostles Peter and Paul, and the places where they were buried attracted pious travelers from a very early date. www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pilg/hd_pilg.htm#:~:text=The%20city%20of%20Rome%20became,from%20a%20very%20early%20date.
If you're going to have authority in the Church, you have to be obedient to those with authority in the Church who ordain you. Anyone being able to simply be a part of the Church authority or go off and lead their own church at will while there also being a heirarchy where the leaders are to be obeyed and will be held to account in their role does not make sense. The treatment of authority in the Bible isn't consistent with the protestant view on authority
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12 St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters. Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian. There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome. The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s. These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid. Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: "I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today." Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: "We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent." th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
One reason I never took to protestantism was it seemed they might as well not have many verses of the Bible like Mt 16 19 or 1 Cor 11 27 (guilty of the body and blood of the Lord) or the various verses speaking of the importance of Baptism
Matthew10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Romans15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: James1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only rom 16 :25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations Galatians1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,???? gal 2 :7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
It seems like protestants undervalue how the new testament and new covenant is the fulfillment of the old. I noticed this as a child where they loved to talk about these old testament figures and remembered all their names and what they did, but as sort of entertaining tales rather than as figures in salvation history
Yeah, that seems true. I went to an Anglican primary school (so ages 4 to 10), and it was like this. Focus on Jesus and worship/some sacraments, but nothing really about the Apostles after, and also nothing about how Jesus fulfilled the scripture. Tbf with children that age, I don't really expect in depth info on that, as that's something to build up, however at least something would have been good. Otherwise, you just get Jesus was a great moral teacher and vague ideas of how to worship/the religious calendar but without anything deeper. This is why people fall away. I didn't go to a Christian secondary school (high school) though, so had no follow through. Only learned at uni as I did history so learned a lot of the history of Christianity
Not all Protestants are created equal. I truly believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Catholic idea that Jesus didn’t finish his work on the cross is where most of us differ from the Church in Rome.
I want Suan to do a line by line exegesis of Matthew 16:13-20 (in particular 17-19, with reference to 18:15-20 to finally put to bed the idea that the Papacy isn't taught in the Bible. (haven't seen the full video yet).
@YAJUN YUAN why does the infallible papacy have to be explicitly defendable by Sola Scriptura? The whole sola scriptura concept is a man made invention from the 17th century, the early Christians and Apostolic Church never held to Scripture alone so the "where in the Bible" framework is wrong to start with when you exclude Sacred Tradition.
@YAJUN YUAN IRENAEUS “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). “The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).
@YAJUN YUAN It doesn't say what you think it does anywhere. You'd have to seriously mangle the text in order to come up with that interpretation. Read the second example. "Harmony with scriptures". Not opposed to. Not with scripture only. But the teaching of the Apostles in harmony with (that means along with) scripture.
Despite himself believing in an immanent eschatology, St. Paul nonetheless made provision for church leadership into the future. Thus, 1) St. Paul commissions 2) Sts. Timothy and Titus to lead worship and oversee the assemblies on Paul's own authority. Later, 3) those "approved men" appointed by St. Timothy or St. Titus will in season "lay hands" on 4) their successors as elders/presbyters/bishops. That's four generations of church leadership attested to in the NT. The burden is on those who deny apostolic succession to show us from "sola scriptura" what's the date of expiration for this clear pattern of appointing approved men over the church.
Consult your Strong's. In the Bible, the laying on of hands was done to either heal or to confer honor or the passing on of authority from one generation to the next. Thus, the patriarchs laid hands on their sons and Moses laid hands on Joshua to pass on his authority over the Jews. This pattern of passing on of authority from one generation to the next was continued in the apostolic and early church. See, e.g., Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, 1 Tim. 4:14 for the laying on of hands for the appointment of a man to a position of ecclesiastical authority. In 1 Tim. 5:22 (cf., 2 Tim. 1:6), Paul even warns Timothy to not be too hasty in the laying on of hands to appoint church leaders. Are you suggesting that despite Paul appointing Timothy and Titus to oversee churches in Asia Minor and Crete, respectively, on his own authority, that he wouldn't have laid hands on them in spite of the clear and overwhelming biblical evidence that that's how the conferral of church authority was done? To this day, many different Christian traditions use the laying on of hands as part of their rite of ordination. If yours doesn't, the question is why not, given what the Bible alone says on the matter?! The burden of proof is on anyone who argues that this biblical pattern of ordination had a date of expiration. Do you have references for the laying on of hands having ended?
@YAJUN YUAN Show me book, chapter, and verse where it says that the laying on of hands ended and the authority it represented wasn't passed on from generation to generation. I don't want personal "observation". I want to see where the Bible alone gives me exactly what generation of the church ceased to have apostolic authority!
@YAJUN YUAN So, let's look at the pericope of Acts 13:1-12. Where is speaking in tongues explicitly mentioned? The passage is clearly referring to the commissioning of disciples, by the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands by church leaders like Barnabas, to evangelize the Jews in Crete and other Hellenic islands. The laying on of hands was the way the early church leaders commissioned other approved men to be elders and missionaries. BTW: that's why your own church and so many others lay on hands to ordain, since it's what the Bible says to do!
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12 St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters. Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian. There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome. The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s. These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid. Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: "I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today." Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: "We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent." th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
@YAJUN YUAN I believe only God performs miracles. When did He stop being God? What is the expiration date on miracles and other charismatic gifts? I don't want an argument that begins with the word "observationally." I need book, chapter, and verse that tells me exactly when God took His gifts away from His people!
Protestant Objection: Neither one of the apostles or in fact any disciple ever indicated they should be considered for position of pope; neither one was aware that the church was to be set up that way. Jesus certainly didn't tell them this is what he expected them to do for him. So then, where does this idea of setting up a hierarchy for a church come from if not from Christ? From man. Catholic Response: The Jews already had a hierarchical religion. Jesus didn't need to make it, He only modified (restored and elevated) it. The Jews didn't need to hear about it because they were already living it. The Jews had the Temple Priests and Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. They also had local synagogues with local Sanhedrins. The Jews already had the offices of Ruler of the Synagogue and Servant of the Synagogue. Both Isaiah 22:20-24 (a.k.a. the Eliakim argument) and Matt. 23:2 ("Moses' seat") clearly demonstrate the hierarchical institutional leadership (i.e. theocratic society) with a sole monarchical authoritative figure very well. The New and Old Testaments are full of crucial prophecies and statements that God will set up His literal "kingdom" on earth (Mk 4.30-32 / Lk 17:20-21 / Dan 2:35, 2:44, 7:14 / Matt 5:14-15.) . Biblical commentators recognise that in 1 Sam. 8:7, the Israelites rejected the theocracy of God originally set up in the Exodus with the institution of the priests and Moses as leader of them but God as King overall, and this is what Christ restored and elevated. The primary error of most critics of both papal supremacy and a visible, institutional, hierarchal, monarchical Church, is they simply fail to interpret the Bible (which is a HISTORICAL account of God's actions and the life of His people) in the context of the times which the people were themselves living. For instance in modern times, people living just 30 years prior to us today had some stark differences in the way they lived (they were far less dependant on the internet for day-to-day living), therefore how much more different was human society structured 2000 or more years ago. We take this for granted. In fact, many simple passages in the Bible are misinterpreted today simply because many fail to account for the life of the times which they read about in Scripture. This is why when Our Lord gave authority to the apostles (Matt. 18:17-19), especially to Peter in Matt 16:18-19 with the symbol of the keys and other such, they were acutely aware of what was expected of them because that was how society was ordinarily structured at the time, not just in Israel but elsewhere too (e.g. pagan Egypt which was governed by priestly caste under pharaoh). So, Peter would've been well aware of his role as the sole earthly key-bearer (prime minister) and his obligation, by divine mandate, to lead God's restored and elevated earthly kingdom (i.e. Church on earth) on behalf of King Jesus Who ascended into heaven. This issue really doesn't need to be such a stumbling block for non-Catholics, however the problem is most critics of the Catholic Church are so blinded by their false notions of it (as I was, too) that consciously or subconsciously they cannot control themselves from trying to circumvent these plain facts.
what is your answer to the 6th canon of nicea, which makes it sound like the bishop of rome, though having a special honor, did not have universal jurisdiction, and had similar honor to the pope of alexandria
It should be emphasized again and again and again that petrine succession is precisely the kind of thing we would expect to NOT be in the Bible. It simply was not a relevant question yet.
@YAJUN YUAN ah yes. Go re read the literature. In his writings- “Against Heresies”- 2:22:1 (2:22:1-6). In this: Irenaeus was arguing against the claim that Jesus was 30 when He died (He died after the age of 30). He was arguing this, because certain Gnostic groups believed/taught that Jesus died at the age of 30, a few years before the correct date. 3- (2:23:3)- Irenaeus showed the Gnostics there was evidence concerning the age of Jesus in Scripture. 4- (2:22:5)- What Irenaeus meant: A- Youth is over at 30. B- 30-40 is getting close to old age. C- After 40= old age. 5- The point of his argument: To show the Gnostics that Jesus did not die at 30. 6- (2:26:5)- “BETWEEN the 30th and 50th year.” 7- Irenaeus main point: That Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died. (That Jesus lived past the “first stage” of life- 0 to 30). 8- Another important point: 30 ended “youth.” This made Jesus qualified to be a teacher, since a Jewish rabbi had to be an “elder” (over 30). 9- Irenaeus was explaining that Jesus reached the age of being a “master teacher.” 10- He was staying that the first stage of life lasted until 30. The “Second stage of life”= after 30. So looks like you're the cherry picker in not fully understanding the argument he was making
Interesting to hear Suan mention the beginnings of Islam. I'm not a Muslim but I actually believe the Shia have the better claim within Islam. Muhammad clearly appointed Ali as his successor, because he did indeed know he needed one! Guess what, too? Many Shia scholars actually point to the relationship of not only Aaron to Moses but Peter to Jesus typologically/as precedent for their own justification for following the successors of Ali in the office of the "Imamate", which is construed very similarly to how the Papacy itself is. Shia are kind of like "Catholic Muslims"
Hello Trent Horn, I’ve been watching your entire debates, and I’ve noticed that while you debate very strongly in philosophical points, your opponents often times, in poor nature, attack the Catholic Church by making generic arguments against the Church, such as pedo priests, violent 30 years war, etc. You don’t often respond, and say the debate isn’t to defend the Church, but to defend God. I was wondering if you could polish up and be more on the offensive, showing how atheism and relativism caused the Communist Revolution and the largest number if killing in human history in such a short term. I was wondering also if you find anyone receptive to very offensive arguments, or if it hardens them and turns them defensive. Finally, I want to know your opinion on Living Waters, whose argumentation strategy is not even bother to address every single argument they bring up, but to give them the direct unfiltered Bible and commandments. Thanks Trent for your great work!
I might be intolerant but I find it absurd that the Catholic Faith operated with the pope and the hierarchy from the early Church and that this lasted 1,500 years and then some people tell us that their religion, which, at the most, can only be 500 years old, and is more likely to be less than 200 years old, tell us that WE are wrong! The ‘Sola scriptura’ argument and the (constant) aggression is a pretext. The Bible wasn’t even put together in the time of the Apostles.
There are plenty of non-Protestant Churches that say you are wrong. Some are more ancient than the Roman Papacy. Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, ‘Nikonite’ Russian Patriarchate, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, ‘New Calendar’ Church of Greece, Oriental Orthodox Church, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East.
@@Mygoalwogel I’m referring to the sola scriptura rebuttal referred to be Trent. Yes a lot of religions say that Catholisim is wrong (basically every religion except Catholicism!) but I am talking about when we are told that we basically have our own religion wrong.
@@kateguilfoyle5155 I see. Some protestants base their claim to be the actual Catholic Church on the idea that later Papal Councils contradict the Apostles. When they say Sola Scriptura they mean that, regardless of when Rome determined its Canon, the true Catholic Church cannot contradict the Apostles.
@@kateguilfoyle5155 Do you consider the following to be contradictions? Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land." Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and *to the best of their ability to exterminate* (pro viribus exterminare studebunt) in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. _Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know.
Heading to Catholicism finally after 25 years, I'm beginning to see that Christ left a living organism, his body the church, with authority... he didn't leave pocket new testaments and tell the apostles to pass this little book out and tell the people to read it. So i can see that the church would exist and preach and teach and convert people and heal souls with the sacraments all without a single written word!
For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews. - Galatians 2:8 And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I’m not exaggerating-just telling the truth. - 1 Timothy 2:7
I'm not sure how protestants can square the authority the apostles are clearly given with Sola scriptura the same with the fact that there were churches before the new testament was written. How Jesus demonstrates and discusses his authority and how the apostles do with theirs clearly doesn't comport with Sola scriptura.
I think they would say that Sola scripture is a post apostolic claim . Sola scripture cannot operate during times of ongoing public divine revelation( the teaching ministry of the apostles )After the apostolic age the only preserved infalliable teaching of the apostles for the church is to be found only in the scriptures.
@@TheThreatenedSwan it doesn't work because people think that sola scriptura is a doctrine that the apostles taught was valid during the time of their teaching ministries .No Protestant would say that as it would be like saying that what the apostles taught orally is inferior to what they taught by letter. Protestants believe that the apostles teaching ministry whether oral or by letter is infalliable . However after the age of the apostles this teaching ministry of the apostles is infaliably preserved for the church only in scripture So Sola scriptura is applicable only in the post apostolic age and not for the time of the apostles or during the times of the prophets of the old testament . In the post apostolic age when divine public revelation has ceased the only thing that has the charism of infalliability for the church is the scriptures . No bishop or church council have this charism of infalliability even if they have a legitimate authority and have proclaimed many truths . All their pronouncements are to accepted only as far as they accord with scriptures. That in a nutshell is the claim of Sola scriptura
@@aajaifenn It's just a rhetorical device to support man made traditions. The scriptures can't interpret themselves, and people will always have authorities be that their parents, community, particular theologians, etc. One of the essential parts of the usual arguments is that some ancient Christians somewhere were like them even though that has never been born out by any evidence. Like if you're correct, surely the oldest Christians would hold your view, but the apostolic fathers don't support them. And the situation with the Ethiopian eunuch is pretty damning. Trent has also featured many evangelical/reformed type protestants who appeal to the proof of Sola scriptura being that Jesus and the apostles are always appealing to "what is written," but that is actually false. And none of their positive claims are found in the Bible. Like how what they think it means to be born again is nowhere in the text
Off the subject here, Trent, but I hope you can help. Do you have a referral for a Catholic graphic artist? Just reverted back and trying to start a Patron account. Hopefully "Mary's Ark" will happen.
Many of such evidence in connection with the Church Tradition (the big 'T') were not previously included explicitly in scriptures because the Church was (and still is) meant to remain always as ONE (there was no paranoia for such separation or split to the extent that the Church authority at that time deemed it necessary to record this to preempt the happening in the future). The knowledge is meant to be passed down from generations to generations in the ONE Christian community. Because there came about the Protestant Reformation in the 15th century and some parts of the Christian community got 'permanently' detached for 500+ years, and thus these important history and Traditions were lost in their own knowledge, it thus became problematic and questionable (from the perspective of our separate brethren).
How did the popes, who originally operated in Italy's Rome, CONNECT themselves to Apostle Peter of Middlle East's Jerusalem ; Peter, who never operated in Rome???
If a Protestant accepts that Peter had authority given by Jesus (not as a dictator but a servant to all for the sake of doctrine and proper teaching), and the church seemed to proceed with this authority- even if the rules and administration developed after that based on that authority- then one should recognize that before the reformation began - the vast majority of all Christians and Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and John Calvin a member of the Catholic Church. My point is that they were not members of some other parallel church who had since the time of Jesus taught the reformation ideas. They stood on the shoulders of the Catholic Church which had brought them every Christian doctrine from the apostles. And from that point in time they just decided the church - based on Peter’s authority- had no authority. You cannot have it both ways. Here are the options as I see it. 1. You trust that Jesus gave Peter authority, an office (they keys to the kingdom which did infer an office to be passed down), and a church upon which the gates of hell would not prevail and that He would send the Holy Spirit to protect and guide the church. From false teaching AND that this authority allowed the Church to proceed in developing its administration and protection of the Truth because it has the authority from Jesus. You could argue they didn’t take that responsibility seriously, but I feel confident in saying history doesn’t back that up. 2. Jesus didn’t give the Peter nor the Church that authority and it was just a fluke of History (or maybe because they were inadvertently practicing Sola Scriptura?) that for 1500 years up to the reformation this organization called the church just got lucky in defining the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday, even having a weekly worship service and so many other Church Tradition that most Christians adhere to. And somehow this organization was able to stay united and keep a church together for 1500 years and now another 500 years. 3. You accept that Jesus gave that authority to Peter and His Church but then the Church lost its right to be that authority due to corruption or some other reason. But then you would still have to admit there is a need and a command for a church to be in authority. Where is it? The reformation and the 5 principles of Protestantism are based on the authority of one priest - Martin Luther, one lay lawyer John Calvin, and one self appointed Pastor Ulrich Zwingli. As for me and my house we will trust Jesus in establishing His Church through His authority and 2000 years of careful and thoughtful and prayerful and deliberate teaching and protection of God’s Truth. Trust in another authority at your own peril for how will you know if what they teach is wrong? And the proof is now in the pudding. So many (progressive) “churches” teaching “truth” from their own selfish and twisted desires, but using Sola Scriptura as a license to justify anything because “all we need is love”. This is the logical conclusion of a church without authority.
@@johnyang1420 Amen. And it just so happens that the Church Jesus started has the most complete, consistent, comprehensive world view so that we can live meaningful lives! We have to go back a few centuries and figure how to teach our kids to the total of Truth that comes from God.
Including St. Peter, 31 of the first 32 Popes were martyred as leaders of all the Christians. They certainly would not have bothered if they were not the head of the Church. That is all the proof I need.
By common-sense alone Sola Scriptura really doesn't make sense.. If someone were trying to learn about Abraham Lincoln, would reading a biography about him be the ONLY way to learn about him? Is it even possible that the biography CONTAINS everything to know about him? Would it make sense to reject anything else people close to Abraham Lincoln say (e.g. family, or family of friends) if it is not written on the biography? This is very silly..
Love your show. One question I struggle with is this. To what extent is the current authority system of the Catholic Church the result of apostolic succession versus the result of political necessities that arouse at the time of, and due to, the collapse of the Roman Empire?
@Tim Richardson Tim, A political authority has no say in the appointment of Bishops. They all have Apostolic origin. For later bishops in the patristic era, it was common for the clergy of a diocese to elect their bishop.
@@joecastillo8798 Thanks for the reply. I understand that political authorities didn't and don't elect bishops or otherwise establish church authority. My question is about how organic the structure of the church is. I wonder which aspects are original to Christianity and which aspects developed over time out of necessity or prudence. I suppose one can say that even if aspects of the Church authority structure developed over time out of necessity and prudence, that doesn't make the structure any less inspired by God. I see that my question has a hidden assumption that anything added to the Church and/or any later developments are less likely to be of God. To put it more simply, my question assumed that originality equals authenticity as opposed to later developments. But I see how this isn't necessarily the case.
@@timrichardson4018 Tim, Thanks for your inquiry. The short answer is the Church built by Jesus in Peter has great latitude to bind and loose according to the full authority given by Jesus, first to Peter and second to the other eleven Apostles. ▪︎MATTHEW 16:19 19. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Everyone must listen to the Magisterium of the Church or face consequences. MATTHEW 18:17 17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen EVEN TO THE CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Peter is The Vicar of Christ on earth, because Jesus gives him the power to bind and loose in the Church built on him. Such power would also continue with his successors, maintaining the same unity (Jn 17, 21-23) and order throughout the centuries until the end of times. Thus, Jesus prays specifically for his chosen Vicar and his future successors. LUKE 22:31-32 31. And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. 32. But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.” As mentioned, such brothers needing confirmation not only existed in the first century, they will exist until the end of times. Therefore, Peter's successors, the Popes future leaders of His one true Church, will also be attacked by Satan, but Jesus will pray for them as well just as He did for Peter, so the gates of hell will never prevail against His one and only true Church, whose mission is until the end of times, together with His constant pressence in His Church. The mission to go everywhere is a continuous effort dedicated to all the nations of the world. MATTHEW, 28:19-20 19. Go therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE AGE.” QUESTION: Did Jesus mentioned any exceptions to the words: "To the end of the age"? Not a single one! Therefore: The ONE CHURCH founded by Jesus is forever guaranteed with the truth, just as in apostolic times: JOHN 16:13-15 13. When the Spirit of truth comes, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. May God bless your discernment.
I think when it comes the Pope, we should not ignore that fact that the Apostle Paul returned to Peter to make sure he had not add or taken away. Of course Peter is the Rock of the Church of Christ and as such it was the Apostle Paul who returned to Peter to speak about the Law and how it would apply or could apply to the Gentiles. Jesus placed the Rock, the top and there should be no doubt that there must be a Rock = Pope whom figures out things with the the Holy Spirit and protects Christ Flock and solves problem just like when Apostle Paul returned to Peter.
I don’t understand why you’d put Ignatius’ saying a church is the three fold office (Deacon, Priest, bishop) above Pauls five fold office (Prophet, Apostle, evangelist, Preacher, Teacher)?
He wasnt, he was saying that if someone says the church of the 1st century didnt have a clear hierarchy and structure, it defintively did by the 2nd, and uses St Ignatius as evidence. Plus, Paul talks directly of the office and authority of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops as well, so Paul and ignatius are not in competition.
@@joshuaadams-leavitt4603 where does Paul speak of priests and bishops? I can find where he speaks of deacons (diakonous) and overseers (episkopes). But if Paul doesn’t speak of priests and bishops as Ignatius does don’t you think there at odds with each other?
Paul is clearly talking about giving Episkopoi (Overseers/Bishop) authority to govern their church, by the very name of Overseer. In 1 Timothy 3:1 he describes The Episcopate as an Office. An office carries its own authority which is appointed by someone rather than inherited. Diakonoi means servant, someone serving directly in the church, in official functions. The names that Paul chooses is enough to distinguish a hierarchy between these positions. Also, No to the second question. For example, when Rome was being founded Romulus gave a legislative authority to the old men of the local tribes, in Latin; the Senatus. They were to be a sort of tribunal that made judgments on the people of Rome and its Consuls/Kings. That this becomes an official titled position with its own defined set of limitations and regulations does not in anyway contradict the original meaning or intention. This is an exact analogy for what happened in the 1st Century Church going on to the 2nd Century Church. Paul is writing, and ultimately dies while many of the Apostles are still alive. But the Apostles are also setting up successors to their authority all over the Empire. Of course the structure of the Church is going to become more definite with clearer rules, regulations, and limitations as time goes on, because that's what all organizations and institutions do. But we can see that the regimentation described by Ignatius had already begun by the end of the 1st Century, as we read in Clement of Rome, who speaks with authority even while The Apostle John is still alive. If we're going to treat Jesus as historical, then the Church he founded is historical too. It wouldnt just stay in stasis at the end of Acts.
@@joshuaadams-leavitt4603 regardless that you didn’t mention where this idea of a sacerdotal priesthood came from, can we really justify the idea that the apostles didn’t leave written instructions for the way the church should be run and just left it to the people who came after them? Why would Paul write what the qualifications of a deacon and elder (or bishop according to Rome) was but not mention the priesthood? Should we really expect the apostles to not lay out a clear church structure? Think of how clear Moses was when he laid out the old covenant. He left details for everything. I challenge you to step back from your tradition and see if you could even come close to reestablishing the Roman Catholic Church from scripture and the first two centuries of Christian writers.
Jesus in the order of Melchizedek, that is outside of Aaronic/Levetical priesthood, was asked where his authority came from, and did not a claim from inheritance. Bypassed the current priest cast when appointing apostles.
Sorry, but that's a terrible argument. The Papal office is parallel to the royal steward/prime minister of the Davidic monarchy, not a replacement of Christ and His priesthood. Look up Isaiah 22:20-24. That's what Jesus was doing when He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16 etc.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government). Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.
It would make more sense if St. Paul had been commissioned as the Church’s primary bishop. He was an amazing evangelist, a very competent theologian, and the most prolific of church planters. I’ll continue to wrestle with the notion of a papacy but it’s an uphill slog.
It makes me sad Trent interjects so often in the middle of sentences. Saun is very soft spoken but its nice to let the man finish what he wants to say without being interrupted. Trent doesnt even add anything to the conversation a lot of times
I honestly dont think hes doing it on purpose, its a little bothersome but Trent is still giving Suan a platform and he doesnt seem particularly annoyed by it. I see what you are saying though.
The "Bible" is nowhere mentioned as "The Pillar and foundation of truth". In fact, in 1TIMOTHY 3:15, St. Paul says "The Church" is! Why feel compelled to prove something from Scripture? Let's not dance to their tune; we are the source of truth until the end of times, just like Jesus ordained, according to the New Testament, in: JOHN 16:13-15 13. When the Spirit of truth comes, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare TO YOU the things that are to come. 14. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it TO YOU. 15. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it TO YOU. . And in: ▪︎JOHN 17:17-19 17. Sanctify them in TRUTH. Your word is TRUTH. 18. Just as you have sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19. And it is for them that I sanctify myself, so that THEY, too, may be sanctified in TRUTH. That is, again, why St. Paul says: ▪︎1TIMOTHY 3:15 15. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH. God bless.
Another question. How did it come about that the college of cardinals elects the Pope? If we're talking about succession, shouldn't the protocol be that the Pope elects his own successor via the laying of hands?
@@frederickanderson1860 Like the man made invention of Sola Scriptura that is self refuted by not even being instructed in the Bible? Whilst you're there, what Church decided which books were divinely inspired and how many there books there were? Our Bible is a result of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Apostolic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
@@SteveC-Aus you parroting the same roman mentality. A parrot can repeat human words,is that amazing,but it does not say it understands what the words mean. You told by your pope's and priests what novenas to say,what the magisterium decides. God communicated to simple people,like fishermen and shepherds,he rebuked the popes and magisterium of his day.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government). Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.
Yes, the early church had popes. The Catholic church adopted the apostles. Then they made them Catholic. The here is the best part. The church waved it's magic wand and made Peter pope.
@@georgepierson4920 not to scripture like most Catholics are. You don't read scripture cause you are told what to read, how to interpret it. See your church thinks you're too stupid to read and understand it. Personally I think it's because you just might be smart enough to read scripture and compare it to what the church teaches and find the church's version contradicts scripture. I doubt it through, you sound like you have been deeply brainwashed and safe and sound in satan's arms. But that's true of most Catholics. The RCC is satan's church on earth.
@@geoffjs yeah, read that . I don't see where that says, Roman Catholic church or pope. Unless you read INTO like you and every catholic does. In doesn't say anything about any religion or denomination.
"Mohammed didn't have a plan of succession at all" What?! Are we just gonna ignore the numerous sources that indicate Mohammed named 'Ali as his successor?! Did you learn Islamic history from Sunnis alone? Yes the Sunnis try to interpret them differently when they appear in their own sources but it is still there.
See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ. •Colossians 2:8• It's so sad to see so many deceived people seek the counsel of Trent instead of the whole counsel of God. Deceived people don't find sufficiency in Christ and His Word alone; they have itching ears. 👉 Do not add to His words or He will rebuke you, and you will be proved a liar. •Proverbs 30:6•
I'm a Protestant who listens to Catholic material all the time, and you guys have to see how unconvincing this is to someone who doesn't already believe it. Typology, comparisons to Judaism, ect. I mean, it would have been so easy for a biblical author or early church father to talk about the fact that there is/will be a single bishop in rome with universal jurisdiction and at times infallibility. Like, I feel like someone would have mentioned that a little more directly. 🤷♂️
Trent asked why the burden of proof should be on Roman Catholics. Possibly a fair statement, if you don’t actually wish to convince and convert people. I’m also disappointed by the arguments about a papacy making sense and resolving issues. We could, with our own logic, come up with things that would possibly better resolve these issues. An atheist could then point out that the RCC doesn’t have them, and say that it can’t therefore be true. But this doesn’t follow at all, because often God has different plans than what we think are the best things. And very often, the reasons are hidden from us. And the question about where the canon is listed in the Bible really is a bad argument that needs to be stopped. There’s likewise no infallible list of infallible teachings of the RCC. Scholars disagree.
Matthew10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Romans15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: James1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only rom 16 :25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations Galatians1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,???? gal 2 :7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
I watched while I was working so I only had time to scribble "apostles" and and up arrow. You said something about apostles that was accurate. I think you said Peter's successor should be an apostle or you correctly identified the apostles as leaders of the church Jesus Christ founded. Some Protestants, evangalicals, and non-denominational churches ignore that.
Trent, I have a good challenge for you. The Wesleyans/Methodists would say they use a “quadrilateral” to form their theology rather than Sola Scriptura. It’s the shape of a trapezoid where the longest side is Scripture, the second longest side is Tradition, and the 2 small sides are Reason and Experience. This way, they can say they support the early councils, but Scripture is above Tradition in authority so that’s how they can defend the protest. Would love to hear how you respond. (For me, it was a paradigm shift when I realized Sacred Scripture is a *part* of our Tradition!)
You could simply ask them why they trust those early councils when they define the NT canon, but they do not trust the same councils when they include the deuterocanonical books in the OT canon.
New Testament has more evidence than this video lets on. If Judas and Matthias had an office/succession as Acts tells us, why wouldn't Peter have an office? If Paul handed on authoritative offices to Timothy and Titus, why not for Peter's office?
New Testament has more evidence than this video lets on. If Judas and Matthias had an office/succession as Acts tells us, why wouldn't Peter have an office? If Paul handed on authoritative offices to Timothy and Titus, why not for Peter's office?
@@Hamann9631 I didn't say Paul made Timothy an apostle. I said he appointed him to an "authoritative office." And that's EXACTLY what we see in the New Testament when Paul talks in his letters about the full teaching/doctrinal authority he gave to Timothy and Titus and about the laying on of hands. Shall I cite the verses for you?
@@tonyl3762 You seemed to be arguing for The Roman Catholic Church having the keys Jesus Christ gave Peter because of how you ended your first comment. Proving the same calling and office was passed on would involve showing examples of the same office and calling being passed on. Paul gave Timothy teaching authority as you said. Paul ordained Timothy to be an local leader. Paul didn't ordain Timothy to lead the whole church. I think you gave some accurate information in your posts on this thread but are coming to wrong conclusions.
@@Hamann9631 Forget Peter and the pope for a sec: can your church leaders trace their teaching authority back to the apostles through the laying on of hands?? If not, shouldn't you see that as a problem based on the New Testament practice with Paul and Timothy & Titus? The papal office passed down in succession can be found in the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings. Are you familiar with Clement of Rome and Irenaeus of Lyon? If not, study up. Do not make arbitrary specific demands of the New Testament writers who did not think it necessary to write down the evidence you would like to see. The NT does not record Peter's death (or Paul's) or the events surrounding it, but we do have reliable ancient witnesses to what the early Church believed happened and the office he passed on.
@@tonyl3762 My church leaders can trace their priesthood back to Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah, and Elias. In spring in 1829 in northern Pennsylvania John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John laid hands upon the heads of Joseph Smith Junior and Oliver Cowdery. Moses, Elijah, and Elias came with Jesus Christ to the temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, USA. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery passed that priesthood on. It is now held by Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, Hendry B. Eyring, M. Russell Ballard, Jeffery R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quientin L. Cook, Garrit Gong, Ulisis Soares, Relund, Ronald Rasband, Dieter F. Utchdorf, and the 4 whose names I'm not remembering. My problem.. No, I don't have a problem. I have a different understanding from Roman Catholicism (and you as you seem to be a believer in that religion). The New Testament never records Paul giving Timothy Apostleship. There were replacement apostles called. But that ended at some point. One evidence of that ending is the oldest christian denominations (Roman Catholicism and the various Orthodoxisms) don't claim to have apostles and haven't since before 100 AD. "Succession" implies a new person taking over the same old job. Roman Catholicism doesn't really claim succession because it doesn't claim to have current living apostles. Clement was the driving force behing The Great Apostacy or one who jumped into the empty spot left by The Great Apostacy, so his words aren't persuasive to me. Irenaeus wasn't an apostle so I don't find his words persuasive. I don't have a lot of time as I'm studying many other things. Please give me a quote which you think shows why I should follow an apostleless church. I'm not making arbritary demands, when I want to hear who you claim were the new apostles. I'm comparing the church as it operated in the New Testament times and other churches.
Paul never bowed and kissed Peter's ring finger. Christ spoke against Lordship. Paul had just as much authority. If the Pope did receive Peter's mantle we would see the same spiritual power passed down.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Show me where Peter was Lording over Paul's congregations. You won't find it. Not even the direct successors said Peter was greater than Paul. They spoke of both highly.
To secure worldly gains and honors, the church was led to seek the favor and support of the great men of earth; and having thus rejected Christ, she was induced to yield allegiance to the representative of Satan-the bishop of Rome.
It is obvious God designed Peter's office to be filled. Protestants who limit God by not wanting a succesor to Peter are wrong. That doesn't mean an apostacy event prevented God from calling a succesor.
God knows the weakness of men. wihtout leadership any human organization will turn into anarchy. God's last instruction, 'feed my lamb' to peter, for me suggests a future avctivity involving leadership that will go down to the present.
no talk about "the slap"? im surprised Brian Holdsworth is the only catholic on YT who has talked about this. Fr. Mike Schmitz technically did but was so vague about it, I don't even count it. i think there is a lot to be said about how amazingly chris rock handled that, how will smith exploded, his relationship with his wife, jada, the poor way the academy handled it during the night, will smith's gaslighting during his speech and what he said about what denzel told him during the commercial break, and what this says about society that he got a standing ovation 40 mins later when winning the oscar and how society has been divided 50/50 on topic, not even through political lines either. i've watched some protestants talk about it, but they are cringe about it like everything else they talk about, saying chris rock wasn't "nice".
Romanists have persisted in bringing against Protestants the charge of heresy and willful separation from the true church. But these accusations apply rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Trent, you disproved Roman Catholicism's claim to apostolic succession by using the phrase "post-apostolic." A successor to a thing would have the same name/title. It would sound crazy if a person said the US Constitution had authority from The Articles of Confederation. The name change is a strong evidence that one didn't receive authority from the other. It would sound crazy to say the German government of 1946 was a successor to the government from 1944. I find it equally hard to believe non-apostle founders of Roman Catholicism are successors and have authority from apostles.
Joe Heschmeyer makes the point that Irenaeus is the earliest Christian witness to so many things Christians accept, including the 4 gospels. To doubt Irenaeus' credibility is to cast doubt on a lot of commonly held Christian doctrine and tradition.
Matthew10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Romans15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: James1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only rom 16 :25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations Galatians1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,???? gal 2 :7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church. 3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 4- ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar. 5- Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
Are those from Mike Winger? I'm pretty sure I heard him present the same idea ( sorry if Im wrong). Trent has his response videos to those of you're interested. God bless!
@@abelj5145 No response video can change those facts. Catholic apologists just offer speculations but never any facts that proves Peter was the chief shepherd nor that any bishop of Rome claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church in the 1st century.
I have the best answer: if the papacy was a proper office in truth, not having a pope will not condemn Protestants. They still have Jesus. If there was no pope early on and the Protestants were right, Catholics will not be condemned because they have Jesus. It's faith in Jesus that matters the most.
I agree that it makes sense that Jesus would see the need to have one person in authority. But I don't think it's constructive to use Islam as an example of not having succession in place can be divisive. Christianity fell apart at least twice and is still divided now. First the Great Schism in 1054 and then the reformation in 1517.
@nanagaga2001 Nana, The Schism, though not desirable, did not affect basic Catholic doctrine. The difference between the two Catholic branches, East and West, are of no consequence. The Protestant Reformation, on the other hand, involved heresy and is not in agreement with the Will of God. Since its inception it has created numerous and constant divisions and heresies to misguide the faithful. May God bless your discernment.
Galatians 2:9 James, Peter and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. Peter agreed to limit his ministry to the circumcision (Jews). He was never a pope in Rome therefore. Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), and his 13 letters are the doctrine during the dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3:2). Hebrews to Revelation is for the last generation of Israel in the end times, after Paul's ministry is completed and the Body of Christ meets the Lord in the air.
Trent and Suan, thank you for convincing me I don't want to be Roman Catholic. Your frequent use of the word Bishop proves to me, Roman Catholicism isn't a successor to the apostles. Paul compared prophets and apostles to the foundation of the church, not bishops and deacons.
@@ChrisEAdlay Thanks for the reply. I started watching it at 11:00. I ended at 20:00 because I'm getting ready to go to work. They definitely refuted false ideas among protestantism and evangelicalism. They explained why a leader is needed. That is common ground between Roman Catholicism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We differ on who and how. I stand by my first statement. They never explained why apostles aren't needed or that a position which was a local leader could become a leader of the whole church. Peter's successors were other apostles, until there were none. When there were none The Great Apostacy had begun.
@@Hamann9631 have you heard of the patristic fathers? Early church fathers? If you read them you'll see that there was no great apostasy and that it's the same church today as it was back then.
@@ChrisEAdlay Thank you for sharing. I've heard of them. I could even name a few. I even wrote a funny moment in a novel based upon a name. I haven't read a whole book from them; though, I've certainly heard some quotes. I will get around to reading them sometime. "it's the same church today as it was back then." By back then do you mean, those when The Apostles were on the earth? I believe The Great Apostacy was happening or completed around 100 AD. No changes in the church since 130 or 200 wouldn't disprove my belief because I believe that was after The Great Apostacy.
Matthew10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Romans15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: James1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only rom 16 :25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations Galatians1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,???? gal 2 :7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
I don't really see the relevance. Most of the patriarchs have successors. Rome had one as well. Goodie. "Peter was the undisputed leader of the early church." First, no he was not. Second, even if we grant some kind of leadership, what is critical is what that means. RC apologists consistently and with increasing desperation read contemporary (i.e., Vatican I) RC positions back into early historical documents, but when we look at those early documents in context, the contemporary position evaporates. I like Suan, but he just keeps repeating the same unfounded claims, never addressing the critiques thereof. It is really becoming rather sad. I suppose that, in a way, I am embarrassed for myself and my own equally uncritical adoption of the same positions when I entered Roman Catholicism almost 30 years ago. Perhaps it is just a phase that some of us have to move through. I hope that Suan's position matures before he unintentionally deceives more people. I'm not suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church is evil or that people shouldn't be Roman Catholic. It is an outstanding faith and has been instrumental in the salvation of countless people (as well as material good in the world). However, we don't need to engage in bad, unfounded arguments to promote it. Doing so is actually harmful to Roman Catholicism and to those who choose it.
Thank you for your comments, Tony. They give us much to think about! According to Scripture and Church history, the antichrist is he (or an institution) that denies Christ. Roman Catholicism doesn't deny Christ, so the assertion simply has no traction. All of us fail Christ in various ways. I don't think that we need to assert that anyone who might fail to follow Christ perfectly is "antichrist." Regarding following the 10 Commandments, the Roman Catholics and Orthodox are quite adamant about doing so (and so much more that they are practically Pharisaical in their own rights), so that assertion also seems to have no merit. Your specification that they deny or fail to follow the Sabbath is correct in the sense that they do not observe a Saturday Sabbath rest. However, Jesus did not require it either, was quite specific that the Sabbath was intended as a good for man -- not the other way around -- and clearly allowed for flexibility there. History (and Scripture) demonstrate that the early Christian Church interpreted this such that they were allowed to move the Sabbath observance to Sunday in honor of Christ, and they have generally moved forward in that tradition.
@YAJUN YUAN: 1) Jesus clearly states in the Gospels that people DO violate the strict letter of the law regarding the Sabbath and that it is fine for them to do so. Later writings in the NT further reinforce the position that strict observance of the Jewish Sabbath is not required -- at least not for Gentiles. I'm sure you know the respective relevant verses and don't need me to list them. 2) "You mistake Jesus giving this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation with teaching others to fail to respect the holiness of this day." No, rather, I think you are making the mistake of trying represent other people's statements in their worst possible light. 3) "Every Catholic source that is from a century ago or older says that there is no scriptural basis for moving the Sabbath observance." It is probably best to avoid making claims that you cannot justify or demonstrate, or that lack clear relevance. For example, we could just as easily assert "there is no scriptural basis for the claim that 2 + 2 = 4," yet it is the case that two plus two does, in fact, equal four. I suppose you are right in a sense. Christians didn't really "move" the Sabbath as much as simply recognize Christ's teaching that its strict observance is not required. The belief that the Christian Church has authority to determine which Jewish laws must be observed is evident in the Council of Jerusalem, as well as several other places. Rather, the Christian Tradition is to observe "The Lord's Day" (Sunday).
@@tony1685, I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever supporting your claims, and I'm aware of substantial evidence to the contrary. However, perhaps I am in error. Feel free to post information demonstrating your claim that "The Lord's Day" was, according to the early Christians, Saturday and not Sunday.
@@EpoRose1, according to Scripture and history. There is no passage that reads, "Peter was the undisputed leader of the early Church." There is further no evidence from history to support such a claim.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for publishing! I’m only about halfway through but already getting a lot out of it. I liked Suan’s mention of a priori arguments. That’s where it’s at :)
@Capturing Christianity Cameron you should definitely invite Suan to your channel! (If you did already my apologies)
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I must be missing something. What do you mean? No place whatsoever? You must be exaggerating, right?
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes It just seems like a lot of theology utilizes a priori arguments. Like all of Aquinas' 5 ways utilize a priori arguments about our senses being accurate. Do you think those are invalid?
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Oh, I see. I just misunderstood you, then. This still seems like an extreme position to me, but I can see a bit better now why you might think that.
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Hm...well I don't mean to get into an argument, but if you're asking me how I see it, I can give you an example.
I believe the Bible says very little specifically about infant baptism. Especially as a Protestant, which I am not but I understand that you are, I think an a priori argument about the nature of baptism and infants is helpful to make a conclusion. Of course as a Catholic, I can appeal to the Tradition, but it makes sense to me that the a priori argument counts as a datum, even if a relatively weak one. Does that make sense?
With regards to scriptural interpretation, I never hear people bringing up Jesus's interaction with the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, where "... beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." Jesus himself had to teach them correct interpretation, which then presumably informs the development of doctrine and interpretation. Wouldn't we place a high value on that?
I think that's a good question Micheal.
Please refer a book by Scott Hahn goes by the name" road to Emmaus".
I make this comment as a Catholic (reverted in 2020). The teaching office of the church furthers the interpretive power given to the early church in such places as the road to Emmaus.
@YAJUN YUAN "The interpretations of Jesus have been recorded in the gospels, He specifically gives them all in one go on the Road to Emmaus" - can you show any evidence that this is the case?
@YAJUN YUAN To claim that all that was contained in the conversation on the road to Emmaus is contained in written form in the New Testament is conjecture and relies on some level of extra-biblical support. Can you site that support? If not, the best we have to go off of is early church understanding of scripture and their interpretations of scripture, which were informed by the Apostles and their written AND oral teachings.
@@tony1685 When you say "this church" are you referring to the Catholic Church?
Hopefully Dr Gavin Ortlund will finally have the open heart to accept this.
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
AMEN and AMEN..
@@mynameis......23 You obey God better than the Blessed Virgin Mary? You must be quite a humble person
@YAJUN YUAN Perhaps the fact that out of all women that ever would exist. God chose her. Also do you read anywhere where she failed to do God's will? What happened to sola scriptura?
@@mynameis......23 We agree Sagar. She was blessed for her YES to Christ; the FIRST yes, the YES that undid the NO of Eve. The YES that brought salvation into the world… She declared herself handmaid of the Lord! All nations will call her Blessed!!
So YES, you didn’t realize it at the time when you posted, but you proved our point for honoring Mary!
@YAJUN YUAN By obeying God, Mary was instrumental in YOUR salvation. God's plan was for Jesus to be born a Man. Jesus wasn't descending straight from heaven. Mary by saying Yes, cooperated in God's plan for your salvation . She gave Jesus His human DNA. Jesus was to be born a human to represent the Human Race in an unbroken New Covenant between God and Man.
Was this obedience a very great act ? Only 1 case ? Has your obedience been of such magnitude and scale ?
She wasn't done just giving birth to Jesus. She raised him, loved Him. This is a continuous act of obedience from Day 1.
A very impressive case you've put forward Suan. Really appreciate hearing from you!
I am praying for Protestants to listen to these two great thinkers, and see with clear vision, the one true Church that Jesus established for all.
Everyone likes to root for their team to win...Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc...
What we need to root for is team Jesus!!! ❤
@@tony1685 you reject catholicism just because they hold mass on saturday? who is to say the week starts with monday?
@@tony1685 so do you reject rome, or the concept of catholicism in general?
@@tony1685 Catholicism, as i understand it, is merely a term used to denote unity in Christ. There are several catholic churches and indeed, if you stretch the definition, any church can call themselves catholic. Rome (as it claims) is the 'prime' church, but still one of many (Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Catholic, Coptic, etc.).
@@tony1685 You completely avoided the point I made previously, that the bible of which you speak is a collection of books written about the events that happened during Jesus' actual lifespan here on Earth, by several different authors. How did these books from completely seperate places (remember, the apostles wrote their gospels decades after the death of Jesus) end up in one place, for us all to read? The Catholic church (the very church you claim comes from Satan) held what is referred to as the council of Nicaea, wherein "the bible" was assembled. If you claim Catholicism is inherently wrong and of the devil, you must then admit that the new testament, which you read and worship, was not divinely inspired, but was in fact from Satan himself. (EDIT: I noticed that you deleted the comment wherein you claimed the Catholic church was "from Demons and from Satan")
@@tony1685
So Tony, you have made your choice...
You are rooting for Eleanor White
My prayers are with you!
This is amazing! Having a debate with my Methodist Grandmother and need all the help I can get! I believe in my heart and by faith, but don’t have the background to explain. Thank you for all your references I can use! Hopefully we get our lost sheep back into the Church ❤️
Man Suan + Trent talking about papacy... is like Vivaldi to my ears
Good comparison!
Vivaldi is in Hell too, so I get the connection!👍
😇
@@parrisroy Cheap sarcasm is not a sign of wits, brother, it is really pathetic to be honest.
@@parrisroyyou know this for a fact huh? Have you been talking to him?
@@teth-adam
Stay R.C. and you too will soon know this for a fact!
Did you eat your Wafer today?
Do you know the history of your wafer god?
I'm ex R.C. btw.., (Praise the LORD!) 🥳🙂
You have been sold a fake gospel by these ministers of evil.
As cunning plans go..,
the Roman Catholic, unholy religious organisation, and it's practice of perverting God's Word for it's own twisted purposes, whilst attempting to insert demonic doctrines and beliefs into the pure and only true Church of Jesus Christ,...
.., has to be the Devil's most cunningest!
All roads in Rome (via her Pagan religion) lead to HELL!
REPENT (change your mind,)
believe the Bible,
and trust in the LORD JESUS, (no lady!)
Then come out of her...
(the "Mother" Whore church) of Romanism
while it is still the day of Salvation!
Listen to the talk on TH-cam, by Dr. Brant Pitre called the Jewish Roots of the Papacy. Also, Steve Ray talk called Peter, the Rock, the Keys and the Chair.
Excellent. Very well done.
Hello Mr Ybarra
God bless you our lady keep you
Great Catholic Faith apologists with their vast knowledge about the scriptures. God bless you both Brothers Trent and Suan.
May you not get tired defending the Catholic dogmas against the woke protestants trying to destroy our beliefs and faith!
Of all Catholic apologists Trent is the best of a lot of greats.
Can you show me an example of what you are referring to
@@tony1685 tony bologna. What are you babbling about. I asked you to share an example of Trent avoiding a question. Where is the video of him being asked and then avoiding.
@@tony1685 ok let's play Tony. Simple answer, yes the Catholic Church does know God(only one's who know Him actually)the Church loves the LORD Jesus and walks in faith. Any other questions?
@@tony1685 man I'm getting tired of this. You're joking right? Jesus is LORD of the sabbath and our rest is in Him. This had been explained in nausea but you guys keep bringing this up like you don't get it. What are you some SDA "christian".
@@tony1685 that's called fulfilling the law. Not abolishing anything
Harmonization is the key word to study church history. Thank you brothers.
Thank you for the inspired testimony.
The big question that comes up from this is why then did the church (if it did have a central authority) not have one at the time of the schism between the Orthodox and the Catholics? As I understand it, the reason for the break was that the Catholics wanted that central authority restored while the Orthodox argued things should stay decentralized as it had been for many years.
That wasn't the reason for the break. There was, before, and was at the time a Pope.
@@dave_ecclectic my perspective came from an Orthodox priest, so there may be bias.
This is a potted summary and overly simplified...but it is not about faith really but power, especially temporal:
Constantine developed Constantinople to be politically closer to where the administrative need was (see the history of Byzantium Podcast), on the frontier near the neo-Persians ie Parthians, after amalgamating the East and West empires which had 4 emporers between (2 senior and 2 deputies). Constantine originally sat in Britan and as Head of the West this was more stable than the East in his perspective and thus he could leave it to the West. In no small part because of the value placed on the Pope.
He legalised Christianity probably for political reasons as it was probably insane to not by then especially if he needed to cement political support. But he actually appears to have sided with the Arians.
Thus Constantinople is the new capital building on the village/township of Byzantium.
As a capital it needed a Patriach, thus the new Constantinople was created.
This swiftly became the no.2 Patriach after Rome (which all attest to).
But power begets power. So not content with being no.2 and yet chummy with the emporer, they sought to be top dog. That's when things come out. The emporer could influence and lead the Patriach of Constantinople but not Rome, whom was almost his defacto legate in Rome.
In the meantime the other patriachs are either swallowed up or are in defence against the onrushing of the saracens etc. Or soon will be.
This is all backstory...
Eventually there's a council that seeks to usurp the Pope, this wasn't liked. He sends an ambassador that the Patriach of Constantinople seeks to snub. They both pass each other off and mutually excommunication each other. The Pope meanwhile dies. So the Ambassadors actions are defacto agreed while a successor is chosen.
Effectively what you end up with is less Pope v Patriach but Papal primacy or State Primacy (proxied by the Patriach who defers to the Emporer).
So current Orthodox traditions follow the Defacti Regional Ruler, such as Russian or Byzantine/Turkish (Constantinople) etc.
Whereas the West has nominally had states follow the Papal authority (hence 3 crowned tiara- 1 more than an emporer). Though the temporal power has waxed and waned - this is why the rulers at times appeal to the Pope.
It is mashed up into lots of other things, just as all other political issues are. But it is about personal power over others.
Should also point out this is history not really modern, but these were really the events that caused it.
Controversial here obviously, but there were Multiple reasons for the break, but to answer your question because the Roman authority is not present in church history, just an honor given to Rome (because Peter and Paul died there). The Councils clearly defined jurisdictions of all bishoprics including Rome's, call Constantinople the new Rome, Pope's dethroned by conciliar Council's of other bishops (which can't happen if it Roman claims were true), no mention of this 19th century Vatican 1 reinterpretation in the councils. Just quote mines
@@mickyfrazer786 Interesting. So the idea that things were decentralized is their explanation for the fact that the Patriarch in Constantinople was created by the Emperor, not by the church, and was supposed to be subservient to the Pope in Rome, but pushed to be on equal or higher status instead. Correct?
Jesus founded an Authoritative Church ( Matt 18:17), and it was a visible Church ( Matt 5:14) and it is an organic Church ( Matt 13:32). Though it was looking like a mustard seed then, now it is a growing tree.
@@tony1685 Do you agree with the biblical arguments I made? If not, no point in answering your question. If yes, you know the answer already.
@@tony1685 What was Ellen G Whites view on justification?. “Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing” suggests infusion rather than a forensic one?
@@tony1685 Oh.. interesting. So a “simple and clear reading” of the Bible have lead you to SDA which is founded in the year 1863 by Ellen G White & team. But the truth is that “simple and clear reading” has already started by Martin Luther in 1517 and as a result, about 40,000+ churches are already there, all of them say SDA is a cult group ( except the Catholic Church who respectfully considers SDA as “separated brethren”). So there is no such thing as “plain and simple reading”. It was Martin Luther’s teaching that scriptures are perspicuous but he himself proved his theory wrong. This is the reality. I hope you will not fall in to ostrich effect. If you are truly concerned about Truth, you have to consider Catholic Church- the Church founded by Jesus Christ in AD33. It am a Catholic by choice, I can help you. As long as the discussion goes respectfull, I can continue.
Jesus started Catholic church. Tony is against it.
@@tony1685 > catholicism can't be christianity
lol
Rome became the hub of pilgrimage after Peter’s and Paul’s death, it was called the “Holy Land”. Many of Church Fathers went there on pilgrimage.
source?
@@AthanaSus The city of Rome became another major destination for pilgrims. Easier of access for European pilgrims than the Holy Land, Rome had also been the home of many saintly martyrs, including the apostles Peter and Paul, and the places where they were buried attracted pious travelers from a very early date.
www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pilg/hd_pilg.htm#:~:text=The%20city%20of%20Rome%20became,from%20a%20very%20early%20date.
@@AthanaSus www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm
If you're going to have authority in the Church, you have to be obedient to those with authority in the Church who ordain you. Anyone being able to simply be a part of the Church authority or go off and lead their own church at will while there also being a heirarchy where the leaders are to be obeyed and will be held to account in their role does not make sense. The treatment of authority in the Bible isn't consistent with the protestant view on authority
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
One reason I never took to protestantism was it seemed they might as well not have many verses of the Bible like Mt 16 19 or 1 Cor 11 27 (guilty of the body and blood of the Lord) or the various verses speaking of the importance of Baptism
Lutherans and church of Christ hold baptism as very important.
To respond to arguments from silence, we can remind that: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But it must be supported, not theorized.
Matthew10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Romans15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
James1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only
rom 16 :25-26
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations
Galatians1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,????
gal 2 :7-9
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
It seems like protestants undervalue how the new testament and new covenant is the fulfillment of the old. I noticed this as a child where they loved to talk about these old testament figures and remembered all their names and what they did, but as sort of entertaining tales rather than as figures in salvation history
Yeah, that seems true. I went to an Anglican primary school (so ages 4 to 10), and it was like this. Focus on Jesus and worship/some sacraments, but nothing really about the Apostles after, and also nothing about how Jesus fulfilled the scripture. Tbf with children that age, I don't really expect in depth info on that, as that's something to build up, however at least something would have been good. Otherwise, you just get Jesus was a great moral teacher and vague ideas of how to worship/the religious calendar but without anything deeper. This is why people fall away. I didn't go to a Christian secondary school (high school) though, so had no follow through. Only learned at uni as I did history so learned a lot of the history of Christianity
Not all Protestants are created equal. I truly believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
The Catholic idea that Jesus didn’t finish his work on the cross is where most of us differ from the Church in Rome.
@@CountCulture27 lol
I want Suan to do a line by line exegesis of Matthew 16:13-20 (in particular 17-19, with reference to 18:15-20 to finally put to bed the idea that the Papacy isn't taught in the Bible. (haven't seen the full video yet).
@YAJUN YUAN why does the infallible papacy have to be explicitly defendable by Sola Scriptura? The whole sola scriptura concept is a man made invention from the 17th century, the early Christians and Apostolic Church never held to Scripture alone so the "where in the Bible" framework is wrong to start with when you exclude Sacred Tradition.
@YAJUN YUAN Sola Scriptura can not defend Sola Scriptura.
@YAJUN YUAN Double standards are too common.
@YAJUN YUAN IRENAEUS
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).
@YAJUN YUAN It doesn't say what you think it does anywhere. You'd have to seriously mangle the text in order to come up with that interpretation. Read the second example. "Harmony with scriptures". Not opposed to. Not with scripture only. But the teaching of the Apostles in harmony with (that means along with) scripture.
Suan explains the papacy the best to other Christians. His reflections on its Jewish roots is spot on.
Despite himself believing in an immanent eschatology, St. Paul nonetheless made provision for church leadership into the future. Thus, 1) St. Paul commissions 2) Sts. Timothy and Titus to lead worship and oversee the assemblies on Paul's own authority. Later, 3) those "approved men" appointed by St. Timothy or St. Titus will in season "lay hands" on 4) their successors as elders/presbyters/bishops. That's four generations of church leadership attested to in the NT. The burden is on those who deny apostolic succession to show us from "sola scriptura" what's the date of expiration for this clear pattern of appointing approved men over the church.
Consult your Strong's. In the Bible, the laying on of hands was done to either heal or to confer honor or the passing on of authority from one generation to the next. Thus, the patriarchs laid hands on their sons and Moses laid hands on Joshua to pass on his authority over the Jews. This pattern of passing on of authority from one generation to the next was continued in the apostolic and early church. See, e.g., Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, 1 Tim. 4:14 for the laying on of hands for the appointment of a man to a position of ecclesiastical authority. In 1 Tim. 5:22 (cf., 2 Tim. 1:6), Paul even warns Timothy to not be too hasty in the laying on of hands to appoint church leaders. Are you suggesting that despite Paul appointing Timothy and Titus to oversee churches in Asia Minor and Crete, respectively, on his own authority, that he wouldn't have laid hands on them in spite of the clear and overwhelming biblical evidence that that's how the conferral of church authority was done? To this day, many different Christian traditions use the laying on of hands as part of their rite of ordination. If yours doesn't, the question is why not, given what the Bible alone says on the matter?! The burden of proof is on anyone who argues that this biblical pattern of ordination had a date of expiration. Do you have references for the laying on of hands having ended?
@YAJUN YUAN Show me book, chapter, and verse where it says that the laying on of hands ended and the authority it represented wasn't passed on from generation to generation. I don't want personal "observation". I want to see where the Bible alone gives me exactly what generation of the church ceased to have apostolic authority!
@YAJUN YUAN So, let's look at the pericope of Acts 13:1-12. Where is speaking in tongues explicitly mentioned? The passage is clearly referring to the commissioning of disciples, by the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands by church leaders like Barnabas, to evangelize the Jews in Crete and other Hellenic islands. The laying on of hands was the way the early church leaders commissioned other approved men to be elders and missionaries. BTW: that's why your own church and so many others lay on hands to ordain, since it's what the Bible says to do!
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
@YAJUN YUAN I believe only God performs miracles. When did He stop being God? What is the expiration date on miracles and other charismatic gifts? I don't want an argument that begins with the word "observationally." I need book, chapter, and verse that tells me exactly when God took His gifts away from His people!
Whoa two of my favourite catholic channels colliding. How did I miss it? Thank you
Did the heresy explosion occur?
I was just reading 2 Peter, and Peter seems to be using "we" as in the royal we.
Protestant Objection:
Neither one of the apostles or in fact any disciple ever indicated they should be considered for position of pope; neither one was aware that the church was to be set up that way. Jesus certainly didn't tell them this is what he expected them to do for him.
So then, where does this idea of setting up a hierarchy for a church come from if not from Christ? From man.
Catholic Response:
The Jews already had a hierarchical religion. Jesus didn't need to make it, He only modified (restored and elevated) it. The Jews didn't need to hear about it because they were already living it. The Jews had the Temple Priests and Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. They also had local synagogues with local Sanhedrins. The Jews already had the offices of Ruler of the Synagogue and Servant of the Synagogue. Both Isaiah 22:20-24 (a.k.a. the Eliakim argument) and Matt. 23:2 ("Moses' seat") clearly demonstrate the hierarchical institutional leadership (i.e. theocratic society) with a sole monarchical authoritative figure very well. The New and Old Testaments are full of crucial prophecies and statements that God will set up His literal "kingdom" on earth (Mk 4.30-32 / Lk 17:20-21 / Dan 2:35, 2:44, 7:14 / Matt 5:14-15.) . Biblical commentators recognise that in 1 Sam. 8:7, the Israelites rejected the theocracy of God originally set up in the Exodus with the institution of the priests and Moses as leader of them but God as King overall, and this is what Christ restored and elevated.
The primary error of most critics of both papal supremacy and a visible, institutional, hierarchal, monarchical Church, is they simply fail to interpret the Bible (which is a HISTORICAL account of God's actions and the life of His people) in the context of the times which the people were themselves living. For instance in modern times, people living just 30 years prior to us today had some stark differences in the way they lived (they were far less dependant on the internet for day-to-day living), therefore how much more different was human society structured 2000 or more years ago. We take this for granted. In fact, many simple passages in the Bible are misinterpreted today simply because many fail to account for the life of the times which they read about in Scripture. This is why when Our Lord gave authority to the apostles (Matt. 18:17-19), especially to Peter in Matt 16:18-19 with the symbol of the keys and other such, they were acutely aware of what was expected of them because that was how society was ordinarily structured at the time, not just in Israel but elsewhere too (e.g. pagan Egypt which was governed by priestly caste under pharaoh). So, Peter would've been well aware of his role as the sole earthly key-bearer (prime minister) and his obligation, by divine mandate, to lead God's restored and elevated earthly kingdom (i.e. Church on earth) on behalf of King Jesus Who ascended into heaven.
This issue really doesn't need to be such a stumbling block for non-Catholics, however the problem is most critics of the Catholic Church are so blinded by their false notions of it (as I was, too) that consciously or subconsciously they cannot control themselves from trying to circumvent these plain facts.
sir can u do a video on eastern churches, assyrian churches and how their beliefs diff from us?
what is your answer to the 6th canon of nicea, which makes it sound like the bishop of rome, though having a special honor, did not have universal jurisdiction, and had similar honor to the pope of alexandria
Always an excellent point.
It should be emphasized again and again and again that petrine succession is precisely the kind of thing we would expect to NOT be in the Bible. It simply was not a relevant question yet.
@YAJUN YUAN michael lofton had a response to this but i cant rmbr the video
@YAJUN YUAN ah yes. Go re read the literature.
In his writings- “Against Heresies”- 2:22:1 (2:22:1-6).
In this:
Irenaeus was arguing against the claim that Jesus was 30 when He died (He died after the age of 30). He was arguing this, because certain Gnostic groups believed/taught that Jesus died at the age of 30, a few years before the correct date.
3- (2:23:3)- Irenaeus showed the Gnostics there was evidence concerning the age of Jesus in Scripture.
4- (2:22:5)- What Irenaeus meant:
A- Youth is over at 30.
B- 30-40 is getting close to old age.
C- After 40= old age.
5- The point of his argument:
To show the Gnostics that Jesus did not die at 30.
6- (2:26:5)- “BETWEEN the 30th and 50th year.”
7- Irenaeus main point:
That Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died.
(That Jesus lived past the “first stage” of life- 0 to 30).
8- Another important point:
30 ended “youth.”
This made Jesus qualified to be a teacher, since a Jewish rabbi had to be an “elder” (over 30).
9- Irenaeus was explaining that Jesus reached the age of being a “master teacher.”
10- He was staying that the first stage of life lasted until 30.
The “Second stage of life”= after 30.
So looks like you're the cherry picker in not fully understanding the argument he was making
@@kadeshswanson3991 thank you - that is very interesting.
Interesting to hear Suan mention the beginnings of Islam. I'm not a Muslim but I actually believe the Shia have the better claim within Islam. Muhammad clearly appointed Ali as his successor, because he did indeed know he needed one! Guess what, too? Many Shia scholars actually point to the relationship of not only Aaron to Moses but Peter to Jesus typologically/as precedent for their own justification for following the successors of Ali in the office of the "Imamate", which is construed very similarly to how the Papacy itself is. Shia are kind of like "Catholic Muslims"
Hello Trent Horn,
I’ve been watching your entire debates, and I’ve noticed that while you debate very strongly in philosophical points, your opponents often times, in poor nature, attack the Catholic Church by making generic arguments against the Church, such as pedo priests, violent 30 years war, etc. You don’t often respond, and say the debate isn’t to defend the Church, but to defend God.
I was wondering if you could polish up and be more on the offensive, showing how atheism and relativism caused the Communist Revolution and the largest number if killing in human history in such a short term. I was wondering also if you find anyone receptive to very offensive arguments, or if it hardens them and turns them defensive. Finally, I want to know your opinion on Living Waters, whose argumentation strategy is not even bother to address every single argument they bring up, but to give them the direct unfiltered Bible and commandments.
Thanks Trent for your great work!
They are two points of the RCC's 38 heresies.
I might be intolerant but I find it absurd that the Catholic Faith operated with the pope and the hierarchy from the early Church and that this lasted 1,500 years and then some people tell us that their religion, which, at the most, can only be 500 years old, and is more likely to be less than 200 years old, tell us that WE are wrong! The ‘Sola scriptura’ argument and the (constant) aggression is a pretext. The Bible wasn’t even put together in the time of the Apostles.
There are plenty of non-Protestant Churches that say you are wrong. Some are more ancient than the Roman Papacy. Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, ‘Nikonite’ Russian Patriarchate, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, ‘New Calendar’ Church of Greece, Oriental Orthodox Church, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East.
@@Mygoalwogel I’m referring to the sola scriptura rebuttal referred to be Trent. Yes a lot of religions say that Catholisim is wrong (basically every religion except Catholicism!) but I am talking about when we are told that we basically have our own religion wrong.
@@kateguilfoyle5155 I see. Some protestants base their claim to be the actual Catholic Church on the idea that later Papal Councils contradict the Apostles. When they say Sola Scriptura they mean that, regardless of when Rome determined its Canon, the true Catholic Church cannot contradict the Apostles.
@@Mygoalwogel if the Church contradicted the apostles that would certainly be wrong. I cannot imagine that it could be right.
@@kateguilfoyle5155
Do you consider the following to be contradictions?
Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage.
Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.*
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage*
1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance.
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant
as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land."
Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and *to the best of their ability to exterminate* (pro viribus exterminare studebunt) in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.
_Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know.
Heading to Catholicism finally after 25 years, I'm beginning to see that Christ left a living organism, his body the church, with authority... he didn't leave pocket new testaments and tell the apostles to pass this little book out and tell the people to read it. So i can see that the church would exist and preach and teach and convert people and heal souls with the sacraments all without a single written word!
I saw Peter in Joshua as well.
For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews.
- Galatians 2:8
And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I’m not exaggerating-just telling the truth.
- 1 Timothy 2:7
What happened to Peter as a new Joshua? Did I miss it, or you just weren't able to get to it?
@YAJUN YUAN ?
@YAJUN YUAN I don't get your point. I don't know anything about a "Caleb" typology.
I'm not sure how protestants can square the authority the apostles are clearly given with Sola scriptura the same with the fact that there were churches before the new testament was written. How Jesus demonstrates and discusses his authority and how the apostles do with theirs clearly doesn't comport with Sola scriptura.
I think they would say that Sola scripture is a post apostolic claim . Sola scripture cannot operate during times of ongoing public divine revelation( the teaching ministry of the apostles )After the apostolic age the only preserved infalliable teaching of the apostles for the church is to be found only in the scriptures.
@@aajaifenn The problem is all their verses supposedly supporting it within the Bible then wouldn't work.
@@TheThreatenedSwan it doesn't work because people think that sola scriptura is a doctrine that the apostles taught was valid during the time of their teaching ministries .No Protestant would say that as it would be like saying that what the apostles taught orally is inferior to what they taught by letter. Protestants believe that the apostles teaching ministry whether oral or by letter is infalliable . However after the age of the apostles this teaching ministry of the apostles is infaliably preserved for the church only in scripture So Sola scriptura is applicable only in the post apostolic age and not for the time of the apostles or during the times of the prophets of the old testament . In the post apostolic age when divine public revelation has ceased the only thing that has the charism of infalliability for the church is the scriptures . No bishop or church council have this charism of infalliability even if they have a legitimate authority and have proclaimed many truths . All their pronouncements are to accepted only as far as they accord with scriptures. That in a nutshell is the claim of Sola scriptura
@@aajaifenn It's just a rhetorical device to support man made traditions. The scriptures can't interpret themselves, and people will always have authorities be that their parents, community, particular theologians, etc.
One of the essential parts of the usual arguments is that some ancient Christians somewhere were like them even though that has never been born out by any evidence. Like if you're correct, surely the oldest Christians would hold your view, but the apostolic fathers don't support them.
And the situation with the Ethiopian eunuch is pretty damning. Trent has also featured many evangelical/reformed type protestants who appeal to the proof of Sola scriptura being that Jesus and the apostles are always appealing to "what is written," but that is actually false. And none of their positive claims are found in the Bible. Like how what they think it means to be born again is nowhere in the text
@@aajaifenn They use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as a proof text for Sola scriptura
Off the subject here, Trent, but I hope you can help.
Do you have a referral for a Catholic graphic artist? Just reverted back and trying to start a Patron account. Hopefully "Mary's Ark" will happen.
Many of such evidence in connection with the Church Tradition (the big 'T') were not previously included explicitly in scriptures because the Church was (and still is) meant to remain always as ONE (there was no paranoia for such separation or split to the extent that the Church authority at that time deemed it necessary to record this to preempt the happening in the future).
The knowledge is meant to be passed down from generations to generations in the ONE Christian community. Because there came about the Protestant Reformation in the 15th century and some parts of the Christian community got 'permanently' detached for 500+ years, and thus these important history and Traditions were lost in their own knowledge, it thus became problematic and questionable (from the perspective of our separate brethren).
What do you guys think about the Dimond brothers (Most holy family monestary)?
You didn't replied to me
@@TheMarymicheal Hey bro. No I don't use Facebook.
@@servantofjesuschrist8606 but i have few queries to make with you.
How did the popes, who originally operated in Italy's Rome, CONNECT themselves to Apostle Peter of Middlle East's Jerusalem ; Peter, who never operated in Rome???
Peter's tomb and bones are in Rome.
This is great even tho i confess saying a desparaginh thing about Trent on behalf of Tim Gordon . I love you both
I can't belive Gavin has not converted to Catholicism.
If a Protestant accepts that Peter had authority given by Jesus (not as a dictator but a servant to all for the sake of doctrine and proper teaching), and the church seemed to proceed with this authority- even if the rules and administration developed after that based on that authority- then one should recognize that before the reformation began - the vast majority of all Christians and Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and John Calvin a member of the Catholic Church.
My point is that they were not members of some other parallel church who had since the time of Jesus taught the reformation ideas. They stood on the shoulders of the Catholic Church which had brought them every Christian doctrine from the apostles.
And from that point in time they just decided the church - based on Peter’s authority- had no authority.
You cannot have it both ways.
Here are the options as I see it.
1. You trust that Jesus gave Peter authority, an office (they keys to the kingdom which did infer an office to be passed down), and a church upon which the gates of hell would not prevail and that He would send the Holy Spirit to protect and guide the church. From false teaching AND that this authority allowed the Church to proceed in developing its administration and protection of the Truth because it has the authority from Jesus. You could argue they didn’t take that responsibility seriously, but I feel confident in saying history doesn’t back that up.
2. Jesus didn’t give the Peter nor the Church that authority and it was just a fluke of History (or maybe because they were inadvertently practicing Sola Scriptura?) that for 1500 years up to the reformation this organization called the church just got lucky in defining the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday, even having a weekly worship service and so many other Church Tradition that most Christians adhere to. And somehow this organization was able to stay united and keep a church together for 1500 years and now another 500 years.
3. You accept that Jesus gave that authority to Peter and His Church but then the Church lost its right to be that authority due to corruption or some other reason. But then you would still have to admit there is a need and a command for a church to be in authority. Where is it?
The reformation and the 5 principles of Protestantism are based on the authority of one priest - Martin Luther, one lay lawyer John Calvin, and one self appointed Pastor Ulrich Zwingli.
As for me and my house we will trust Jesus in establishing His Church through His authority and 2000 years of careful and thoughtful and prayerful and deliberate teaching and protection of God’s Truth.
Trust in another authority at your own peril for how will you know if what they teach is wrong?
And the proof is now in the pudding. So many (progressive) “churches” teaching “truth” from their own selfish and twisted desires, but using Sola Scriptura as a license to justify anything because “all we need is love”. This is the logical conclusion of a church without authority.
Great points!!! True!!! God bless you!!! Im a devout Catholic too! Why? Jesus only started one church….Catholic!!!
@@johnyang1420 Amen. And it just so happens that the Church Jesus started has the most complete, consistent, comprehensive world view so that we can live meaningful lives!
We have to go back a few centuries and figure how to teach our kids to the total of Truth that comes from God.
Including St. Peter, 31 of the first 32 Popes were martyred as leaders of all the Christians. They certainly would not have bothered if they were not the head of the Church. That is all the proof I need.
By common-sense alone Sola Scriptura really doesn't make sense.. If someone were trying to learn about Abraham Lincoln, would reading a biography about him be the ONLY way to learn about him? Is it even possible that the biography CONTAINS everything to know about him? Would it make sense to reject anything else people close to Abraham Lincoln say (e.g. family, or family of friends) if it is not written on the biography? This is very silly..
3 Hail Marys for each of you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻🌹🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻
First! Ha. Finally after 5 years. Lol. Im looking forward to this video!
Im second lol
Fourth. How long will this continue?
Fifth!
@@davidnoel31 Not long!
5th :(
What’s so funny, protestants accept the New Testament from Christianity but uses Jewish version of Old Testament, Masoretic Text.
Love your show. One question I struggle with is this. To what extent is the current authority system of the Catholic Church the result of apostolic succession versus the result of political necessities that arouse at the time of, and due to, the collapse of the Roman Empire?
@Tim Richardson
Tim,
A political authority has no say in the appointment of Bishops. They all have Apostolic origin. For later bishops in the patristic era, it was common for the clergy of a diocese to elect their bishop.
@@joecastillo8798 Thanks for the reply. I understand that political authorities didn't and don't elect bishops or otherwise establish church authority. My question is about how organic the structure of the church is. I wonder which aspects are original to Christianity and which aspects developed over time out of necessity or prudence. I suppose one can say that even if aspects of the Church authority structure developed over time out of necessity and prudence, that doesn't make the structure any less inspired by God. I see that my question has a hidden assumption that anything added to the Church and/or any later developments are less likely to be of God. To put it more simply, my question assumed that originality equals authenticity as opposed to later developments. But I see how this isn't necessarily the case.
@@timrichardson4018
Tim,
Thanks for your inquiry.
The short answer is the Church built by Jesus in Peter has great latitude to bind and loose according to the full authority given by Jesus, first to Peter and second to the other eleven Apostles.
▪︎MATTHEW 16:19
19. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Everyone must listen to the Magisterium of the Church or face consequences.
MATTHEW 18:17
17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen EVEN TO THE CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Peter is The Vicar of Christ on earth, because Jesus gives him the power to bind and loose in the Church built on him. Such power would also continue with his successors, maintaining the same unity (Jn 17, 21-23) and order throughout the centuries until the end of times.
Thus, Jesus prays specifically for his chosen Vicar and his future successors.
LUKE 22:31-32
31. And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
32. But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”
As mentioned, such brothers needing confirmation not only existed in the first century, they will exist until the end of times. Therefore, Peter's successors, the Popes future leaders of His one true Church, will also be attacked by Satan, but Jesus will pray for them as well just as He did for Peter, so the gates of hell will never prevail against His one and only true Church, whose mission is until the end of times, together with His constant pressence in His Church.
The mission to go everywhere is a continuous effort dedicated to all the nations of the world.
MATTHEW, 28:19-20
19. Go therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE AGE.”
QUESTION:
Did Jesus mentioned any exceptions to the words: "To the end of the age"?
Not a single one!
Therefore:
The ONE CHURCH founded by Jesus is forever guaranteed with the truth, just as in apostolic times:
JOHN 16:13-15
13. When the Spirit of truth comes, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
May God bless your discernment.
Great thanks
I think when it comes the Pope, we should not ignore that fact that the Apostle Paul returned to Peter to make sure he had not add or taken away. Of course Peter is the Rock of the Church of Christ and as such it was the Apostle Paul who returned to Peter to speak about the Law and how it would apply or could apply to the Gentiles. Jesus placed the Rock, the top and there should be no doubt that there must be a Rock = Pope whom figures out things with the the Holy Spirit and protects Christ Flock and solves problem just like when Apostle Paul returned to Peter.
The 'Royal We' was invented to copy the 'Papal We' - which meant "God and I".
I don’t understand why you’d put Ignatius’ saying a church is the three fold office (Deacon, Priest, bishop) above Pauls five fold office (Prophet, Apostle, evangelist, Preacher, Teacher)?
He wasnt, he was saying that if someone says the church of the 1st century didnt have a clear hierarchy and structure, it defintively did by the 2nd, and uses St Ignatius as evidence. Plus, Paul talks directly of the office and authority of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops as well, so Paul and ignatius are not in competition.
@@joshuaadams-leavitt4603 where does Paul speak of priests and bishops? I can find where he speaks of deacons (diakonous) and overseers (episkopes). But if Paul doesn’t speak of priests and bishops as Ignatius does don’t you think there at odds with each other?
Paul is clearly talking about giving Episkopoi (Overseers/Bishop) authority to govern their church, by the very name of Overseer. In 1 Timothy 3:1 he describes The Episcopate as an Office. An office carries its own authority which is appointed by someone rather than inherited. Diakonoi means servant, someone serving directly in the church, in official functions. The names that Paul chooses is enough to distinguish a hierarchy between these positions.
Also, No to the second question. For example, when Rome was being founded Romulus gave a legislative authority to the old men of the local tribes, in Latin; the Senatus. They were to be a sort of tribunal that made judgments on the people of Rome and its Consuls/Kings. That this becomes an official titled position with its own defined set of limitations and regulations does not in anyway contradict the original meaning or intention.
This is an exact analogy for what happened in the 1st Century Church going on to the 2nd Century Church. Paul is writing, and ultimately dies while many of the Apostles are still alive. But the Apostles are also setting up successors to their authority all over the Empire. Of course the structure of the Church is going to become more definite with clearer rules, regulations, and limitations as time goes on, because that's what all organizations and institutions do. But we can see that the regimentation described by Ignatius had already begun by the end of the 1st Century, as we read in Clement of Rome, who speaks with authority even while The Apostle John is still alive.
If we're going to treat Jesus as historical, then the Church he founded is historical too. It wouldnt just stay in stasis at the end of Acts.
@@joshuaadams-leavitt4603 regardless that you didn’t mention where this idea of a sacerdotal priesthood came from, can we really justify the idea that the apostles didn’t leave written instructions for the way the church should be run and just left it to the people who came after them? Why would Paul write what the qualifications of a deacon and elder (or bishop according to Rome) was but not mention the priesthood?
Should we really expect the apostles to not lay out a clear church structure? Think of how clear Moses was when he laid out the old covenant. He left details for everything. I challenge you to step back from your tradition and see if you could even come close to reestablishing the Roman Catholic Church from scripture and the first two centuries of Christian writers.
I don’t recall them saying that in this video.
Jesus in the order of Melchizedek, that is outside of Aaronic/Levetical priesthood, was asked where his authority came from, and did not a claim from inheritance. Bypassed the current priest cast when appointing apostles.
Sorry, but that's a terrible argument. The Papal office is parallel to the royal steward/prime minister of the Davidic monarchy, not a replacement of Christ and His priesthood. Look up Isaiah 22:20-24. That's what Jesus was doing when He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16 etc.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue.
Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.
The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol.
Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was.
The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.
Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history.
Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government).
Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.
It would make more sense if St. Paul had been commissioned as the Church’s primary bishop. He was an amazing evangelist, a very competent theologian, and the most prolific of church planters. I’ll continue to wrestle with the notion of a papacy but it’s an uphill slog.
Church Fathers called the Papacy "the Chair of Peter".
In order for Peter to have a successor he would first have to be a Pope.
It makes me sad Trent interjects so often in the middle of sentences. Saun is very soft spoken but its nice to let the man finish what he wants to say without being interrupted. Trent doesnt even add anything to the conversation a lot of times
I honestly dont think hes doing it on purpose, its a little bothersome but Trent is still giving Suan a platform and he doesnt seem particularly annoyed by it. I see what you are saying though.
The "Bible" is nowhere mentioned as "The Pillar and foundation of truth". In fact, in 1TIMOTHY 3:15, St. Paul says "The Church" is!
Why feel compelled to prove something from Scripture?
Let's not dance to their tune; we are the source of truth until the end of times, just like Jesus ordained, according to the New Testament, in:
JOHN 16:13-15
13. When the Spirit of truth comes, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare TO YOU the things that are to come.
14. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it TO YOU.
15. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it TO YOU.
.
And in:
▪︎JOHN 17:17-19
17. Sanctify them in TRUTH. Your word is TRUTH.
18. Just as you have sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19. And it is for them that I sanctify myself, so that THEY, too, may be sanctified in TRUTH.
That is, again, why St. Paul says:
▪︎1TIMOTHY 3:15
15. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH.
God bless.
Thank you
Thanks!
Did Paul?
How many times is jesus mentioned in gospels with Peter. Apostle Paul had 13 epistles.peter had 2
the answer is “yes”
This was great 👍🏼
Another question. How did it come about that the college of cardinals elects the Pope? If we're talking about succession, shouldn't the protocol be that the Pope elects his own successor via the laying of hands?
I’m curious about this also
Popes have the authority to decide how their successors are chosen.
They ran out of steam going back to the same theme. Peter was not called holy Father.
Proof?
@@johsiantorres8495 human speculation. Traditions over scriptural revelation.
@@frederickanderson1860 Like the man made invention of Sola Scriptura that is self refuted by not even being instructed in the Bible? Whilst you're there, what Church decided which books were divinely inspired and how many there books there were? Our Bible is a result of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Apostolic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
@@SteveC-Aus you parroting the same roman mentality. A parrot can repeat human words,is that amazing,but it does not say it understands what the words mean. You told by your pope's and priests what novenas to say,what the magisterium decides. God communicated to simple people,like fishermen and shepherds,he rebuked the popes and magisterium of his day.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue.
Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.
The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol.
Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was.
The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.
Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history.
Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government).
Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.
Yes, the early church had popes. The Catholic church adopted the apostles. Then they made them Catholic. The here is the best part. The church waved it's magic wand and made Peter pope.
You must love being so ignorant.
@@georgepierson4920 not to scripture like most Catholics are. You don't read scripture cause you are told what to read, how to interpret it. See your church thinks you're too stupid to read and understand it. Personally I think it's because you just might be smart enough to read scripture and compare it to what the church teaches and find the church's version contradicts scripture. I doubt it through, you sound like you have been deeply brainwashed and safe and sound in satan's arms. But that's true of most Catholics. The RCC is satan's church on earth.
It’s like saying that the US adopted New York and made George Washington the first president.
Mt 16 18-19
@@geoffjs yeah, read that . I don't see where that says, Roman Catholic church or pope. Unless you read INTO like you and every catholic does. In doesn't say anything about any religion or denomination.
Excellent refutation of Sola Scriptora.
May i ask how this protestants got there bible
Peter is not the new Joshua. Peter is actually the new Aaron.
Peter was the brother of Jesus?
@@fantasia55 What does Peter reject? What does Aaron reject? And as a result?
@@BrandonGray So he was the brother of Jesus!
@@fantasia55 Yes, typologically speaking.
@@BrandonGray Joshua is a closer fit.
"Mohammed didn't have a plan of succession at all"
What?!
Are we just gonna ignore the numerous sources that indicate Mohammed named 'Ali as his successor?! Did you learn Islamic history from Sunnis alone? Yes the Sunnis try to interpret them differently when they appear in their own sources but it is still there.
See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ. •Colossians 2:8• It's so sad to see so many deceived people seek the counsel of Trent instead of the whole counsel of God. Deceived people don't find sufficiency in Christ and His Word alone; they have itching ears. 👉
Do not add to His words or He will rebuke you, and you will be proved a liar. •Proverbs 30:6•
I'm a Protestant who listens to Catholic material all the time, and you guys have to see how unconvincing this is to someone who doesn't already believe it. Typology, comparisons to Judaism, ect. I mean, it would have been so easy for a biblical author or early church father to talk about the fact that there is/will be a single bishop in rome with universal jurisdiction and at times infallibility. Like, I feel like someone would have mentioned that a little more directly. 🤷♂️
Trent asked why the burden of proof should be on Roman Catholics. Possibly a fair statement, if you don’t actually wish to convince and convert people. I’m also disappointed by the arguments about a papacy making sense and resolving issues. We could, with our own logic, come up with things that would possibly better resolve these issues. An atheist could then point out that the RCC doesn’t have them, and say that it can’t therefore be true. But this doesn’t follow at all, because often God has different plans than what we think are the best things. And very often, the reasons are hidden from us.
And the question about where the canon is listed in the Bible really is a bad argument that needs to be stopped. There’s likewise no infallible list of infallible teachings of the RCC. Scholars disagree.
Matthew10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Romans15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
James1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only
rom 16 :25-26
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations
Galatians1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,????
gal 2 :7-9
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
I watched while I was working so I only had time to scribble "apostles" and and up arrow. You said something about apostles that was accurate. I think you said Peter's successor should be an apostle or you correctly identified the apostles as leaders of the church Jesus Christ founded.
Some Protestants, evangalicals, and non-denominational churches ignore that.
Why the need for a new religion, apart from Judaism?
Trent, I have a good challenge for you. The Wesleyans/Methodists would say they use a “quadrilateral” to form their theology rather than Sola Scriptura. It’s the shape of a trapezoid where the longest side is Scripture, the second longest side is Tradition, and the 2 small sides are Reason and Experience. This way, they can say they support the early councils, but Scripture is above Tradition in authority so that’s how they can defend the protest. Would love to hear how you respond. (For me, it was a paradigm shift when I realized Sacred Scripture is a *part* of our Tradition!)
You could simply ask them why they trust those early councils when they define the NT canon, but they do not trust the same councils when they include the deuterocanonical books in the OT canon.
Gavin's got me convinced. He does it so well.
New Testament has more evidence than this video lets on. If Judas and Matthias had an office/succession as Acts tells us, why wouldn't Peter have an office? If Paul handed on authoritative offices to Timothy and Titus, why not for Peter's office?
New Testament has more evidence than this video lets on. If Judas and Matthias had an office/succession as Acts tells us, why wouldn't Peter have an office? If Paul handed on authoritative offices to Timothy and Titus, why not for Peter's office?
Pual didn't make Timothy an Apostle.
@@Hamann9631 I didn't say Paul made Timothy an apostle. I said he appointed him to an "authoritative office." And that's EXACTLY what we see in the New Testament when Paul talks in his letters about the full teaching/doctrinal authority he gave to Timothy and Titus and about the laying on of hands. Shall I cite the verses for you?
@@tonyl3762 You seemed to be arguing for The Roman Catholic Church having the keys Jesus Christ gave Peter because of how you ended your first comment. Proving the same calling and office was passed on would involve showing examples of the same office and calling being passed on. Paul gave Timothy teaching authority as you said. Paul ordained Timothy to be an local leader. Paul didn't ordain Timothy to lead the whole church.
I think you gave some accurate information in your posts on this thread but are coming to wrong conclusions.
@@Hamann9631 Forget Peter and the pope for a sec: can your church leaders trace their teaching authority back to the apostles through the laying on of hands?? If not, shouldn't you see that as a problem based on the New Testament practice with Paul and Timothy & Titus?
The papal office passed down in succession can be found in the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings. Are you familiar with Clement of Rome and Irenaeus of Lyon? If not, study up.
Do not make arbitrary specific demands of the New Testament writers who did not think it necessary to write down the evidence you would like to see. The NT does not record Peter's death (or Paul's) or the events surrounding it, but we do have reliable ancient witnesses to what the early Church believed happened and the office he passed on.
@@tonyl3762 My church leaders can trace their priesthood back to Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah, and Elias. In spring in 1829 in northern Pennsylvania John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John laid hands upon the heads of Joseph Smith Junior and Oliver Cowdery. Moses, Elijah, and Elias came with Jesus Christ to the temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, USA. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery passed that priesthood on. It is now held by Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, Hendry B. Eyring, M. Russell Ballard, Jeffery R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quientin L. Cook, Garrit Gong, Ulisis Soares, Relund, Ronald Rasband, Dieter F. Utchdorf, and the 4 whose names I'm not remembering.
My problem.. No, I don't have a problem. I have a different understanding from Roman Catholicism (and you as you seem to be a believer in that religion). The New Testament never records Paul giving Timothy Apostleship. There were replacement apostles called. But that ended at some point. One evidence of that ending is the oldest christian denominations (Roman Catholicism and the various Orthodoxisms) don't claim to have apostles and haven't since before 100 AD.
"Succession" implies a new person taking over the same old job. Roman Catholicism doesn't really claim succession because it doesn't claim to have current living apostles.
Clement was the driving force behing The Great Apostacy or one who jumped into the empty spot left by The Great Apostacy, so his words aren't persuasive to me. Irenaeus wasn't an apostle so I don't find his words persuasive. I don't have a lot of time as I'm studying many other things. Please give me a quote which you think shows why I should follow an apostleless church.
I'm not making arbritary demands, when I want to hear who you claim were the new apostles. I'm comparing the church as it operated in the New Testament times and other churches.
Paul never bowed and kissed Peter's ring finger. Christ spoke against Lordship. Paul had just as much authority. If the Pope did receive Peter's mantle we would see the same spiritual power passed down.
No, Paul didn't have as much authorithy as Peter, that has no basis in scripture, tradition or other sources
@@tafazzi-on-discord Show me where Peter was Lording over Paul's congregations. You won't find it. Not even the direct successors said Peter was greater than Paul. They spoke of both highly.
To secure worldly gains and honors, the church was led to seek the favor and support of the great men of earth; and having thus rejected Christ, she was induced to yield allegiance to the representative of Satan-the bishop of Rome.
It is obvious God designed Peter's office to be filled. Protestants who limit God by not wanting a succesor to Peter are wrong. That doesn't mean an apostacy event prevented God from calling a succesor.
God knows the weakness of men. wihtout leadership any human organization will turn into anarchy. God's last instruction, 'feed my lamb' to peter, for me suggests a future avctivity involving leadership that will go down to the present.
Protestantism with no hierarchy or unifying authority is unsustainable
no talk about "the slap"? im surprised Brian Holdsworth is the only catholic on YT who has talked about this. Fr. Mike Schmitz technically did but was so vague about it, I don't even count it. i think there is a lot to be said about how amazingly chris rock handled that, how will smith exploded, his relationship with his wife, jada, the poor way the academy handled it during the night, will smith's gaslighting during his speech and what he said about what denzel told him during the commercial break, and what this says about society that he got a standing ovation 40 mins later when winning the oscar and how society has been divided 50/50 on topic, not even through political lines either.
i've watched some protestants talk about it, but they are cringe about it like everything else they talk about, saying chris rock wasn't "nice".
Romanists have persisted in bringing against Protestants the charge of heresy and willful separation from the true church. But these accusations apply rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Trent, you disproved Roman Catholicism's claim to apostolic succession by using the phrase "post-apostolic." A successor to a thing would have the same name/title. It would sound crazy if a person said the US Constitution had authority from The Articles of Confederation. The name change is a strong evidence that one didn't receive authority from the other. It would sound crazy to say the German government of 1946 was a successor to the government from 1944. I find it equally hard to believe non-apostle founders of Roman Catholicism are successors and have authority from apostles.
Trent please let your guests have more time to speak without cut them off.
Are you getting offended for him?
@@tony1685 uh, Suan is on the same side
@@tony1685 lol, wtf?
@@tony1685 tony you are not even being normal to realise what you are talking about!
@@tony1685 you lack the sense of conveying. better work on it first
Scripture is not a constitution or a code; it is a subset of Tradition.
Joe Heschmeyer makes the point that Irenaeus is the earliest Christian witness to so many things Christians accept, including the 4 gospels. To doubt Irenaeus' credibility is to cast doubt on a lot of commonly held Christian doctrine and tradition.
Matthew10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Romans15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
James1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only
rom 16 :25-26
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations
Galatians1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,????
gal 2 :7-9
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church.
2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church.
3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
4- ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar.
5- Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
Are those from Mike Winger? I'm pretty sure I heard him present the same idea ( sorry if Im wrong). Trent has his response videos to those of you're interested. God bless!
@@abelj5145 No response video can change those facts. Catholic apologists just offer speculations but never any facts that proves Peter was the chief shepherd nor that any bishop of Rome claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church in the 1st century.
@@Justas399 Damn, that's unfortunate. Wish you all the best then and i pray God blesses you always.
@@abelj5145 The truth is never unfortunate but freeing. The papacy is in large part why the church is divided.
I have the best answer: if the papacy was a proper office in truth, not having a pope will not condemn Protestants. They still have Jesus. If there was no pope early on and the Protestants were right, Catholics will not be condemned because they have Jesus. It's faith in Jesus that matters the most.
I agree that it makes sense that Jesus would see the need to have one person in authority. But I don't think it's constructive to use Islam as an example of not having succession in place can be divisive. Christianity fell apart at least twice and is still divided now. First the Great Schism in 1054 and then the reformation in 1517.
@nanagaga2001
Nana,
The Schism, though not desirable, did not affect basic Catholic doctrine. The difference between the two Catholic branches, East and West, are of no consequence.
The Protestant Reformation, on the other hand, involved heresy and is not in agreement with the Will of God. Since its inception it has created numerous and constant divisions and heresies to misguide the faithful.
May God bless your discernment.
Please I beg you, Stop calling apostles bishops. They’re apostles. The bishops are successors of the apostles
The apostles were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.
They were literally the first Bishops. First "pastors" aka shepherds.
Acts 1 is succession of Judas and the Greek word for office is bishopric
What is the point of authority if it doesn't get the job done?
The case for Joseph Smith is not very convincing
Galatians 2:9
James, Peter and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
Peter agreed to limit his ministry to the circumcision (Jews). He was never a pope in Rome therefore. Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), and his 13 letters are the doctrine during the dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3:2). Hebrews to Revelation is for the last generation of Israel in the end times, after Paul's ministry is completed and the Body of Christ meets the Lord in the air.
Trent and Suan, thank you for convincing me I don't want to be Roman Catholic. Your frequent use of the word Bishop proves to me, Roman Catholicism isn't a successor to the apostles. Paul compared prophets and apostles to the foundation of the church, not bishops and deacons.
He explained it around the 12 min mark
@@ChrisEAdlay Thanks for the reply. I started watching it at 11:00. I ended at 20:00 because I'm getting ready to go to work.
They definitely refuted false ideas among protestantism and evangelicalism. They explained why a leader is needed. That is common ground between Roman Catholicism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We differ on who and how.
I stand by my first statement. They never explained why apostles aren't needed or that a position which was a local leader could become a leader of the whole church. Peter's successors were other apostles, until there were none. When there were none The Great Apostacy had begun.
@@Hamann9631 have you heard of the patristic fathers? Early church fathers? If you read them you'll see that there was no great apostasy and that it's the same church today as it was back then.
@@ChrisEAdlay Thank you for sharing. I've heard of them. I could even name a few. I even wrote a funny moment in a novel based upon a name.
I haven't read a whole book from them; though, I've certainly heard some quotes.
I will get around to reading them sometime.
"it's the same church today as it was back then." By back then do you mean, those when The Apostles were on the earth? I believe The Great Apostacy was happening or completed around 100 AD. No changes in the church since 130 or 200 wouldn't disprove my belief because I believe that was after The Great Apostacy.
Matthew10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Romans15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
James1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
the body of Christ mystery message given to paul only
rom 16 :25-26
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations
Galatians1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
so from the time of ascension of christ in early acts to 3 years after Sauls conversion in acts 9 , in this time what message was peter James and the others preaching if the mystery message hadn't been revealed to them yet,????
gal 2 :7-9
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
I don't really see the relevance. Most of the patriarchs have successors. Rome had one as well. Goodie.
"Peter was the undisputed leader of the early church." First, no he was not. Second, even if we grant some kind of leadership, what is critical is what that means. RC apologists consistently and with increasing desperation read contemporary (i.e., Vatican I) RC positions back into early historical documents, but when we look at those early documents in context, the contemporary position evaporates.
I like Suan, but he just keeps repeating the same unfounded claims, never addressing the critiques thereof. It is really becoming rather sad. I suppose that, in a way, I am embarrassed for myself and my own equally uncritical adoption of the same positions when I entered Roman Catholicism almost 30 years ago. Perhaps it is just a phase that some of us have to move through. I hope that Suan's position matures before he unintentionally deceives more people.
I'm not suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church is evil or that people shouldn't be Roman Catholic. It is an outstanding faith and has been instrumental in the salvation of countless people (as well as material good in the world). However, we don't need to engage in bad, unfounded arguments to promote it. Doing so is actually harmful to Roman Catholicism and to those who choose it.
Thank you for your comments, Tony. They give us much to think about!
According to Scripture and Church history, the antichrist is he (or an institution) that denies Christ. Roman Catholicism doesn't deny Christ, so the assertion simply has no traction. All of us fail Christ in various ways. I don't think that we need to assert that anyone who might fail to follow Christ perfectly is "antichrist."
Regarding following the 10 Commandments, the Roman Catholics and Orthodox are quite adamant about doing so (and so much more that they are practically Pharisaical in their own rights), so that assertion also seems to have no merit. Your specification that they deny or fail to follow the Sabbath is correct in the sense that they do not observe a Saturday Sabbath rest. However, Jesus did not require it either, was quite specific that the Sabbath was intended as a good for man -- not the other way around -- and clearly allowed for flexibility there. History (and Scripture) demonstrate that the early Christian Church interpreted this such that they were allowed to move the Sabbath observance to Sunday in honor of Christ, and they have generally moved forward in that tradition.
@YAJUN YUAN:
1) Jesus clearly states in the Gospels that people DO violate the strict letter of the law regarding the Sabbath and that it is fine for them to do so. Later writings in the NT further reinforce the position that strict observance of the Jewish Sabbath is not required -- at least not for Gentiles. I'm sure you know the respective relevant verses and don't need me to list them.
2) "You mistake Jesus giving this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation with teaching others to fail to respect the holiness of this day."
No, rather, I think you are making the mistake of trying represent other people's statements in their worst possible light.
3) "Every Catholic source that is from a century ago or older says that there is no scriptural basis for moving the Sabbath observance."
It is probably best to avoid making claims that you cannot justify or demonstrate, or that lack clear relevance. For example, we could just as easily assert "there is no scriptural basis for the claim that 2 + 2 = 4," yet it is the case that two plus two does, in fact, equal four.
I suppose you are right in a sense. Christians didn't really "move" the Sabbath as much as simply recognize Christ's teaching that its strict observance is not required. The belief that the Christian Church has authority to determine which Jewish laws must be observed is evident in the Council of Jerusalem, as well as several other places.
Rather, the Christian Tradition is to observe "The Lord's Day" (Sunday).
"Peter was the undisputed leader of the early church." First, no he was not.
According to…..?
@@tony1685, I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever supporting your claims, and I'm aware of substantial evidence to the contrary. However, perhaps I am in error. Feel free to post information demonstrating your claim that "The Lord's Day" was, according to the early Christians, Saturday and not Sunday.
@@EpoRose1, according to Scripture and history.
There is no passage that reads, "Peter was the undisputed leader of the early Church." There is further no evidence from history to support such a claim.