@@jongswa You wrote: "the church doesnt "determine what Scripture says"." Wow, can you do me a favor? I need your contact info, because the next time I have some poorly-taught Catholic tell me (as they always say) that I am _incapable_ of interpreting the Bible with the indwelling Holy Spirit's help and that _I need the _*_infallible Catholic Church_*_ to tell me _*_what Scripture really_*_ says,_ I need to send them your way so you can set them straight! Will you do that for me? 😂🤣 I'll give you an example. In John 6, Jesus chides the skeptics for following him around looking for another free meal, and He tells them that they need to believe in Him (v. 28-29). The doubters still pester Him to produce more food, so Jesus employs a food metaphor and likens Himself to the manna from heaven. He says three times that He is bread; we know that He's speaking figuratively, because He doesn't turn into a loaf of baked bread. Instead we see in v. 35-40 that Jesus is still telling them to _come to Him_ and to _believe in Him_ (as Messiah), because He will satisfy them spiritually for eternity. He says in v. 47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me has eternal life." It is _in this context_ that he is "the bread of life," or _spiritual nourishment._ He continues by saying (v. 51) that those who partake of this nourishment "will live forever"... but _obviously_ every Christian who has ever lived has also passed away, so _obviously_ Jesus is still speaking spiritually (non-literally) because _we all die, literally._ The pattern of Jesus' speech is clear: He's speaking figuratively and spiritually. The Greek manuscripts convey the _present active participle_ in both v. 35 and v. 54, which indicates that Jesus is calling for immediate action. The skeptics could have (and should have) believed in Him right then & there. But there was no way they could _literally_ gnaw Jesus' flesh or drink His blood right then & there, short of taking a bite out if His arm and slitting open His vein for a drink! This discussion took place _a full year prior to the Last Supper!_ Therefore we see quite plainly that Jesus must still be speaking _figuratively_ in verses 53-58. Indeed, Jesus explains Himself in v. 63 when He tells them that eating flesh "counts for nothing" and that His words were meant to be taken in a spiritual sense. The great church theologian, St. Augustine, wrote that Jesus' words were figurative: *_On Christian Doctrine_** (Book 3)* *"Chap. 16.-Rule for interpreting commands and prohibitions* "24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; *it is therefore a figure,* enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." Augustine clearly stated that Jesus' words in John 6:53 were meant to be taken _figuratively,_ not carnally (literally). He recognized that a literal reading of John 6:53-54 would turn Christians into cannibals and would directly contradict God's commands. Jesus would never tell us to do something as sinful as drink blood or eat human flesh. It was a figure of speech; a metaphor for trusting in Jesus Christ (at which the believer receives the Holy Spirit indwelling him... a truly spiritual "ingestion"!) Despite all of this evidence, *the church of Rome insists that John 6 was a teaching about the Eucharist,* and it bizarrely utilizes the chapter as its primary support for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They weirdly claim that the substances of bread and wine, when conscrated, cease to exist; this despite the clear fact that the Apostle Paul plainly called the consecrated element which we ingest "BREAD". Not once. Not twice. FOUR TIMES, in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, he says we partake of the BREAD. Now, do you still want to _pretend_ that the church of Rome _does not determine what Scripture says?_ The RCC goes a step further and teaches its laity to _worship the Eucharist._ (It's in your CCC.) Your church violates the First Commandment by pretending it does not apply. Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." Is the _image_ of bread a 'graven' (man-made) image? Yes, it is. May you render worship toward graven images? No, it is forbidden. Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God." Is the host in the monstrance a 'standing image' set up for you to kneel and worship toward it as your god? Yes, it is. The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold. The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, raise them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest them. See the similarity? The Real Presence in the Eucharist is not the issue, it's beside the point; the point is that _you render worship toward _*_a man-made image,_*_ the image of bread._ The "accident" of the bread's image and appearance do not go away at the consecration. *The essence of idolatry is: **_making an object which one intends will represent God, then declaring it to be God and directing worship toward the visible image of the object._* Every idolater truly believes that the image he uses in worship really is his God, otherwise why would he do it? You are no different if you adore the Eucharist, because (assuming the 'change in substance' to be true) one component of the Eucharist is the "accidents" of taste, smell, texture, image, etc. God is essentially Spirit and He doesn't want any worship directed to any constructed object, even if you believe the object has become _Him._ Plenty of protestant/reformed Christians believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (although not a corporal presence, it's Spiritual and Sacramental), and they do not adore the Eucharist because they know it would be idolatrous. But the RCC interprets Scripture for its laity and tells them what to believe, even when it is dead wrong!
Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture doesn't interpret itself. This has to be the dumbest statement Protestants make. The Bible clearly doesn't interpret itself, hence all the division amongst Protestants
Sola Scriptural is not a bad concept as Patrick says in 7:00 that its not SOLO scriptural but it still simply cannot be applied to the Church because as the bible is infallible in the sense that it does not contradict and is consistent the Church MUST be consistent because the Church brings fourth scripture. So simply HOW do you know you have the correct cannon of Scripture if the Scripture is the standard where do we see the list of scripture in Scripture besides the outside authority, the Church. As for the icons the Church fathers in a consensus do not condemn icons let alone an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL we literally have the 7th council refuting iconoclasm. Iconoclasm is heresy.
@@orthodoxapologetics I address your accusations in other videos and yes, the consensus of the fathers was against icons. Also, both of the "ecumenical councils" at that time were highly political and rigged.
![PURPEECH - นี่ฉันเองคนที่... (It's me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuhHd0hOOg8/mqdefault.jpg)
In Roman Catholicism, the church determines what Scripture says.
In true Christianity, what Scripture says determines the church.
@@rexlion4510 Amen and Amen!
the church doesnt "determine what Scripture says". In RC, its a wholistic view of magisterium, scripture, tradition, liturgy, and the lives of saints.
@@jongswa You wrote: "the church doesnt "determine what Scripture says"." Wow, can you do me a favor? I need your contact info, because the next time I have some poorly-taught Catholic tell me (as they always say) that I am _incapable_ of interpreting the Bible with the indwelling Holy Spirit's help and that _I need the _*_infallible Catholic Church_*_ to tell me _*_what Scripture really_*_ says,_ I need to send them your way so you can set them straight! Will you do that for me? 😂🤣
I'll give you an example. In John 6, Jesus chides the skeptics for following him around looking for another free meal, and He tells them that they need to believe in Him (v. 28-29). The doubters still pester Him to produce more food, so Jesus employs a food metaphor and likens Himself to the manna from heaven. He says three times that He is bread; we know that He's speaking figuratively, because He doesn't turn into a loaf of baked bread. Instead we see in v. 35-40 that Jesus is still telling them to _come to Him_ and to _believe in Him_ (as Messiah), because He will satisfy them spiritually for eternity. He says in v. 47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me has eternal life."
It is _in this context_ that he is "the bread of life," or _spiritual nourishment._ He continues by saying (v. 51) that those who partake of this nourishment "will live forever"... but _obviously_ every Christian who has ever lived has also passed away, so _obviously_ Jesus is still speaking spiritually (non-literally) because _we all die, literally._ The pattern of Jesus' speech is clear: He's speaking figuratively and spiritually.
The Greek manuscripts convey the _present active participle_ in both v. 35 and v. 54, which indicates that Jesus is calling for immediate action. The skeptics could have (and should have) believed in Him right then & there. But there was no way they could _literally_ gnaw Jesus' flesh or drink His blood right then & there, short of taking a bite out if His arm and slitting open His vein for a drink! This discussion took place _a full year prior to the Last Supper!_ Therefore we see quite plainly that Jesus must still be speaking _figuratively_ in verses 53-58. Indeed, Jesus explains Himself in v. 63 when He tells them that eating flesh "counts for nothing" and that His words were meant to be taken in a spiritual sense.
The great church theologian, St. Augustine, wrote that Jesus' words were figurative:
*_On Christian Doctrine_** (Book 3)*
*"Chap. 16.-Rule for interpreting commands and prohibitions*
"24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of
prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to
forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or
a vice; *it is therefore a figure,* enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,
and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded
and crucified for us."
Augustine clearly stated that Jesus' words in John 6:53 were meant to be taken _figuratively,_ not carnally (literally). He recognized that a literal reading of John 6:53-54 would turn Christians into cannibals and would directly contradict God's commands. Jesus would never tell us to do something as sinful as drink blood or eat human flesh. It was a figure of speech; a metaphor for trusting in Jesus Christ (at which the believer receives the Holy Spirit indwelling him... a truly spiritual "ingestion"!)
Despite all of this evidence, *the church of Rome insists that John 6 was a teaching about the Eucharist,* and it bizarrely utilizes the chapter as its primary support for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They weirdly claim that the substances of bread and wine, when conscrated, cease to exist; this despite the clear fact that the Apostle Paul plainly called the consecrated element which we ingest "BREAD". Not once. Not twice. FOUR TIMES, in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, he says we partake of the BREAD.
Now, do you still want to _pretend_ that the church of Rome _does not determine what Scripture says?_
The RCC goes a step further and teaches its laity to _worship the Eucharist._ (It's in your CCC.) Your church violates the First Commandment by pretending it does not apply.
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Is the _image_ of bread a 'graven' (man-made) image? Yes, it is. May you render worship toward graven images? No, it is forbidden.
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
Is the host in the monstrance a 'standing image' set up for you to kneel and worship toward it as your god? Yes, it is.
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, raise them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest them.
See the similarity?
The Real Presence in the Eucharist is not the issue, it's beside the point; the point is that _you render worship toward _*_a man-made image,_*_ the image of bread._ The "accident" of the bread's image and appearance do not go away at the consecration. *The essence of idolatry is: **_making an object which one intends will represent God, then declaring it to be God and directing worship toward the visible image of the object._* Every idolater truly believes that the image he uses in worship really is his God, otherwise why would he do it? You are no different if you adore the Eucharist, because (assuming the 'change in substance' to be true) one component of the Eucharist is the "accidents" of taste, smell, texture, image, etc. God is essentially Spirit and He doesn't want any worship directed to any constructed object, even if you believe the object has become _Him._
Plenty of protestant/reformed Christians believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (although not a corporal presence, it's Spiritual and Sacramental), and they do not adore the Eucharist because they know it would be idolatrous. But the RCC interprets Scripture for its laity and tells them what to believe, even when it is dead wrong!
That’s begging the question. Assuming it’s clear lol
Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture doesn't interpret itself. This has to be the dumbest statement Protestants make. The Bible clearly doesn't interpret itself, hence all the division amongst Protestants
Fantastic debate boys!
Good discussion
Protestant with the figure of Calvin next to his lamp when the topic of icons came up: 😳
He doesnt smoke incese to it bic calm down
Sola Scriptural is not a bad concept as Patrick says in 7:00 that its not SOLO scriptural but it still simply cannot be applied to the Church because as the bible is infallible in the sense that it does not contradict and is consistent the Church MUST be consistent because the Church brings fourth scripture. So simply HOW do you know you have the correct cannon of Scripture if the Scripture is the standard where do we see the list of scripture in Scripture besides the outside authority, the Church. As for the icons the Church fathers in a consensus do not condemn icons let alone an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL we literally have the 7th council refuting iconoclasm. Iconoclasm is heresy.
@@orthodoxapologetics I address your accusations in other videos and yes, the consensus of the fathers was against icons. Also, both of the "ecumenical councils" at that time were highly political and rigged.
The church does not bring forth Scripture: God does.
@@isaiahwlongthat's not even true. That's a straight up lie. Why are you lying about the church fathers?