Well it depends on which one calls out to my soul and what the Holy Spirit wants me to know and understand but the Gospel of Luke since my birthday is on the Feast day of the Annunciation.
I had goosebumps right when you were reading Revelations. In one verse, the Ark of the Convenant is seen. And right on the very next verse is the woman clothed with the sun. That is unmistakably Mary.
No it's not. The mystery religion (Catholicism) would have you believe that but, if you read the text, no, it's not there. You're not allowed to read into ANY contract (let alone the Covenants of God) provisions that are not there. What you've done in your comment (your OP) is called "eisegesis". It reads into the contract a provision that is not expressed. That kind of manipulation is expressly prohibited by the New Testament. Gal. 3:15 - Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Adding to or taking from the Contract is expressly verboten.
I am almost finished studying the Bible in a Year on the Ascension AP with Fr. Mike Schmitz. Because of studying the Bible and Listening to this podcast, I understand what you’re saying about the connection between the Old and the New Testaments, Adam and Jesus, Eve and Mary, very interesting. I also want to tell you how much I love listening to your explanations of Catholic teachings. I’ve learned a lot and gained a better understanding of Scripture from you. I like how you speak of Protestants and how off base they are about our Catholic Faith. Thank you for your teaching.
Astounding observation... i've always wondered how to share the typology with some evangelicals... this video is bingo !! thanks so much Cameron for such light!! Saint Augustin couldn't be more effective when saying the new testament is forsee in the old and the old is revealed in the new. It's just amazing how the separated brethren would dismises the wisdom of the church which gather all these books under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Protestants were Catholics and are aware of the typology. The Protestant Reformers spoke positively of Mary’s role: 1. Martin Luther: "Mary is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough." (Sermon, 1521) However, Luther insisted that such honor must not detract from Christ’s exclusive mediatory role. 2. John Calvin: "It cannot be denied that God, in choosing and destining Mary to be the mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor." Calvin rejected excessive Marian devotion, emphasizing that honor for Mary must not compromise God’s glory. 3. Ulrich Zwingli: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and remained in this condition." But they were protesting the excesses of Marian doctrine, as they witnessed its effects firsthand in the practices of their time. Marian devotion had developed into what many reformers saw as theological overreach, with actions and beliefs that went beyond Scripture and the teachings of the early Church. The Reformers were particularly concerned about the veneration of Mary being elevated to levels that seemed to rival or even replace the worship (latria) due to God alone. These perceived excesses were among the key reasons for their calls for reform, as they sought to restore the Church to a more biblical and early apostolic foundation.
I love my Roman Catholic Church. Yes indeed The Church is ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC and CATHOLIC. I would share here Psalm 25 :”To You, O LORD, I lift up my soul; in You, my God, I trust. Do not let me be put to shame; do not let my enemies exult over me. Surely none who wait for You will be put to shame; but those who are faithless without cause will be disgraced. Show me Your ways, O LORD; teach me Your paths. Guide me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; all day long I wait for You. Remember, O LORD, Your compassion and loving devotion, for they are from age to age. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my rebellious acts; remember me according to Your loving devotion, because of Your goodness, O LORD. Good and upright is the LORD; therefore He shows sinners the way. He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them His way.”
Just started the video but I'm excited to see the Bible say "Deny these people the Eucharist" I'm not all the way through the New Testament but so far Jesus hasn't denied anyone. This should be interesting to see.
Mary was the "ark" (container). I failed to hear where we are supposed to pray to the ark. My understanding is that we are only to pray to The Father. Again, I haven't finished the New Testament, so it might be in there somewhere. I'm just a Christian, meaning I'm non-denominational? I haven't seen "Do not pray to statues (graven images) except these ones or this one. I don't know though, why does everyone make this so confusing for others? In the end, I'm going to trust what I've read in the Word so far.
not sure how far you have gotten yet, but you fill find it in the epistles. Keep reading. At one point you will also read about someone else reading scripture but has problems understanding. Take the advice giving there.
@@ModernLady So I'm not understanding Matthew 6 when it says pray to the Father and told to pray "Our Father, who is in Heaven". I'm so blind that it is really telling me "Pray to Mary." Or in 1 Timothy 2 where it declares there is one God and ONE MEDIATOR" God The Father and the mediator being Jesus Christ. My understanding is that it's telling me that when I pray, pray to The Father and that it can only be through Jesus Christ because all things to the Father are through Him. I get that Mary and others maybe in prayer with Jesus but I don't see where it says to pray to Mary or the saints. The things you say are confusing but my God is not the God of confusion. If I am wrong, and I have been many times, I trust and have faith that He will point me in the right direction. I also understand that the enemy is aware of my seeking of understanding and will try to use twisted truth (bend over backwards) to convince me otherwise. Right or wrong, is it still bad to only pray to The Father through Jesus Christ and not pray to Mary and the saints?
@SealabCaptMurphy I have a protestant friend who cheekily asked me almost the exact same question about the Eucharist and scripture this year. All I can say to that, is that St. Paul in his epistles warns against receiving the Lord's supper unworthily, lest one profane the body and blood of the Lord, and call sickness and judgment down upon oneself (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). Now, it is true that nowhere does the Bible state that protestants are to be denied communion, however you have to remember that in the time the Bible was written, there were no protestants - only Catholics - and when the New Testament writers refer to the baptized or to the Church, it is Catholics and the Catholic church, respectively, that they are referring to. There were heretical Christians at the time, who eventually became sects, like the Gnostics, who denied and rejected certain apostolic teachings and traditions, and when St. Paul and other New Testament writers warn the Church in various places not to follow their divisive teachings and behaviors and even to not associate with them, it is highly likely that these are who they were referring to, as the Gnostics and the Judaizers were the principle heretical sects, or what would become heretical sects, that were around in the time the New Testament was written. These would be those who would deny Christ, or His divinity or Godhead, including, like the Gnostics, His real presence in the Eucharist - which is a belief that these 1st century heretics and most protestants actually share in common, although for different reasons. These heretical beliefs and other sinful behaviors would fall into the category of receiving the Lord's supper unworthily, which St. Paul warned against in scripture - it is also to be noted, that St. Paul refers to the Lord's supper as the body and blood of the Lord, and that IT is profaned in unworthy or sacriligious communions, which is mentioned before the mention of the profanation of him who receives it unworthily, which as he also says, can even cause death. To believe in that time and in every time meant to believe rightly, and not to deny dogmas of the faith, which would become formally established and unanimously declared at later church councils, (like the divinity of Christ), and those who denied the teachings of the Church and the dogmas of the faith, and professed unrepentant heresy, could not be properly called "in communion" with the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, and therefore denied the sacraments, including the Eucharist, which are the expressions of that communion, until they repented and were reconciled to God and His body again. The church fathers exhaustively articulated and defined this point, but it is in the New Testament as well, and was Apostolic tradition and was being practiced by the Apostles and the bishops before the New Testament was written.
@@readyplayer1900 it seems to me, and I may be misreading it, that tje "confession" is confessing that Jesus is Christ and our Lord and savior. I've been told, again I could be wrong because Im not Catholic, that the Eucharist is denied to those who did not confess their sins that week. Also at this very moment, my verse for today is Romans chapter 8. I'm on verse 28 and verse 27 is what sent me back to this comment. It feels like this is the verse Catholics use as the reason to pray to saints. I do not read it that way. My Bible says He intercedes for the saints. "He" being capitalized, because in context, it's talking about the Holy Spirit. Meaning The Holy Spirit is interceding for the saints, not that we should ask the saints to intercede for us. So far I feels like the saints have The Holy Spirit interceding for others, while Jesus intercedes for us personally. Example, praying for others we pray to The Holy Spirit to intercede and when we pray personally, we pray through Jesus' name. Still on my journey, but these things seem clearly brought to my heart. I would also like to make it clear that I don't judge any Christian religion (or try not to judge anything at all), for as long as we are doing this for Him, genuinely through our hearts, it's good. For He will judge us by our hearts. (1Samuel 16:7) What I speak is in observation or in what I feel was given to me in understanding, not in judgement. Im guessing I sound Protestant in my observation, since you said "Protestants aren't to be denied". I still however consider myself "non-denominational" because all I care about is The Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit, above any label. I do appreciate your timing in conversing these things. I never really return to comment threads (I do not have notifications on), so I actually have to dig videos back up and search the threads manually. I can't promise I will return to this thread but I may, it feels like a tug to return sometimes.
Man I love this! When I read Matthew 13:44: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid”. Of course as you read on it is about the gospel truth being a treasure worth more than anything this world has to offer but what I also see it that it’s hidden, and you need to find it. There is so much I don’t know and learning the truth of the Catholic Church enriches my life daily. Thank you Jesus, thank you Mary! Praise God!
I'll be honest, as a RC trying to justify what I'm told to believe, I struggled with your analogies, especially about Mary. Such a momentous happening as her assumption ought to be documented by the apostles, or someone. And why did she have to be immaculately conceived to bear The Lord? And where do you get her omniscience from so we can pray to her, different people, all around the world, 24/7? She was a wonderful woman though, no doubt about it.
Exactly right. If that was the most convincing argument for the RCC heresies about Mary, Catholics have even less reason to believe it than I imagined.
@@michaelnoble2432 she was 100% faithful and obedient to God, having never committed a sin. We don’t worship her, but she is the best example we have of God’s creatures. He put her in that position to raise Jesus and to stay by his side every step of the way. And at the same time, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, she is the bride of God
Where in the bible is the rosary commanded since you say elsewhere that the rosary is required for Catholics? Oh yes, Jesus said don't use many words when you pray!
@@Johuma27 Cameron Riecker. He said if don't pray the rosary Mary will punish us! He said it is only a "theory" that we can attain salvation without praying the rosary!
The Rosary is scripture - it's the Gospel on beads. The original Hail Mary, as it was given to Saint Dominic, is just quotations from the Gospel of Luke - from the angel to Mary, and from Elizabeth to Mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee...blessed art Thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb." The Our Father, obviously, is quoted from the Gospels as well, as the Lord's Prayer. The Glory Be is simply giving glory unto the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all Christians who acknowledge the trinity should have no problem with that. The Fatima prayer is an exhortation to Jesus to forgive the world its sins, save mankind from hell, and to lead all souls to heaven - nothing problematic there. The mysteries that Catholics meditate upon in all four sets of mysteries, (joyful, sorrowful, glorious, and luminous), are just scenes or events from the Gospels, with the exception of the last two glorious mysteries: the assumption of Mary and her coronation as the queen of heaven and earth, although these are inferred from scripture, and are traditions going back to the 1st century, taught by the early church fathers. If you really wanted to stay true to protestant solas, the rosary is actually 90+% fine and orthodox for protestants of any stripe to pray - as long as you believe in the bible and scripture, you could pray 18 of the 20 mysteries, use the original Hail Mary, omit 2 lines from the Nicene creed, and forego the salve regina, and boom - you have a protestant-orthodox rosary. Now, I would highly recommend just praying the entire thing, as it is richer and deeper, however if it really bothers you, there is the "90%" rosary that no protestant ought to have any issue praying, and in fact, many will find fruitful, deep, and beneficial. Give it a try at least once - you may just find a new favorite prayer.
Thank You Cameron and God bless You and Your family. I would share this with You : "Meeting Jesus in the Scriptures leads us to the Eucharist, where the written word attains its greatest efficacy, for there the living Word is truly present. In the Eucharist, the one true God receives the greatest worship the world can give him, for it is Christ himself who is offered. When we receive him in Holy Communion, we renew our covenant with him and allow him to carry out ever more fully his work of transforming our lives." (Pope Francis, Gaudete et Exultate, 157)
Read at Mass then teached by the consacrated ministers of God to the faithful .. then came Luther with re(de)formation and the rest is story. what a mess !!
In those days, scrolls were so expensive that only very rich people could afford them, but they weren't only read in synagogue / church (eg see the Ethiopian reading Isiah in Acts 8). Now we are blessed to be able to carry the Bible in our phone for free, so we don't need to wait until Sunday to be told what it says - we can read it for ourselves.
Cain (who murdered his own brother, Abel) must signify Lucifer, who fell from heaven by murdering the Catholic Church (signified by Abel) through temptation to sin. Thank you for this explicit explanation!!
PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ABOUT THE FOUNDATION IN SCRIPTURE ABOUT OUR DOCTRINE OF TREASURY OF MERITS. As a catholic, I find it hard to believe in this doctrine because it lacks references in the bible and I would appreciate if you would make a video regarding it. thank you in advance.
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Members of the Church should not feel jealousy, but should rejoice if someone from outside the community does good in the name of Christ...” The pope quoted St. Augustine, 4-5th century saint: ‘Just as one can find that which is not Catholic in the Catholic Church, one can also find something that may be Catholic outside of the Catholic Church.’ This, the Pope said, is what Jesus wishes to explain to his disciples, that “good and even miraculous things” can happen outside their circle when others “cooperate with the Kingdom of God” even in small gestures such as “offering a simple glass of water to a missionary. The tendency toward jealousy can exist within the Church when Catholics resent holiness and goodness being attained by non-Catholics. Instead we should all be able to always appreciate and respect each other, praising the Lord when he acts in the Church and in the world.”
Just listened to your opening sentence and am wondering where you find that the church should transfer the solemnity of the seventh-day Sabbath to the "eighth day." Thanks.
@@Brendan9903 And? I agree that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, but where is that promoted in the Bible as a reason to transfer the holiness of the Sabbath?
@@kevinmorgan_truth “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” 1 Corinthians 16:2
@@Brendan9903 Sure, he met with them on Saturday night after the Sabbath. Then he walked on Sunday to meet the rest of his party. So where does that say to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath? The second verse says to "save it up," or, literally, "lay by him in store." That means each person puts it aside weekly. So where does that say to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath?
@ it’s the same reason we don’t need to be circumcised because we don’t have to hold to Israel’s commandment, thus we celebrate God’s sabbath instead of Israel’s sabbath
Couldn’t help but laugh when you said “Pastor Bob”. Every time I converse with a Protestant I always refer to their Pastor as Pastor Bob. I find it outrageous that anyone, pastor or regular folk, think that they know scripture better than any Early Church Father, who not only knew, but lived, and died for it.
The thing about calling Mary the Ark of the Covenant is not necessary. None of the earliest Fathers say it. It isn't needed to establish Mary as the Second Eve, having never sinned. Being sinless, the Second Eve, etc., is a fact regardless of what in the New Covenant is the Ark of the Covenant.
typology revealed by paul and peter. not man made typology, but revealed by the spirit. ephesians 3---made known to the church by the apostles thru the spirit. the typology of adam vs christ are in stark contrast to one another. i.e. "the free gift is not like the offense". peter/noah/baptism--peter did not say "study the flood" to understand baptism. in all cases where God used water to save people, it was their faith that saved them. in the new testament scriptures paul teaches the meaning of baptism, romans 6, colossians 2, etc. does that mean that we can formulate our own types from the old testament and teach them as if it is the revelation given by the spirit, as if it is the word of God? that is what the catholic doctrine has done with mary, and the saints in heaven, tho it is not revealed anywhere by the apostles. that is why it is dangerous to "go beyond what is written", which puffs people up against each other, and causes division, when we don't see eye to eye on such things. in the old testament, the ark was kept in a man made temple, in a room that only the high priest could enter the presence of God. in the new testament, believers/the church are the temple of God's presence, whereby all may approach the throne of God, by the blood of jesus, thru faith in his name. by the resurrection of Christ, since pentecost, we are the temple of God, as well as was mary who believed. her womb was a temporary dwelling place, but then the full revelation of the permanent dwelling of God was revealed to all. the church then would actually be the ark of the new covenant, it you want to talk about pictures, or types. christ is revealed as the "last" adam, not the new adam. paul in romans 5, shows the stark contrast between the two, one represents death, the other eternal life. what the church fathers, st iranaeus says, is not scripture. by your reasoning, if mary is the new eve, and jesus is the new adam, then mary would be jesus' wife. how silly is that🙃no, no, no, death came thru adam, not mary. it was adam who sinned, mary was deceived. and based on iranaeus' writing on this, he became deceived, going way beyond what is written, no matter who he knew, and paul warned us of such things. jesus saw this ideology developing in the minds of the people and refuted it boldly two times. and, anyone who blindly trusts their so called protestant pastor is not wise either. what makes you think that all pastors only have 4 years of bible college? that is weak. tho i vouch for none of them, without knowledge. what makes you think that many of us non catholics haven't study the bible for our whole lives? and how old are you? "who's OPINION has more weight?" well, what would jesus say to that? yadda, yadda, yadda, the doctrines of men. "to the law and the testimony, if what they speak is not according to this word, there is no light in them". there is only one biblical queen of heaven. go figure. rome loves their idols.
It is true because the authorians say it is. Ignore the contradictions of Paul. Ignore the passages and even books that were added later so Paul could be overridden. Ignore being in-filled with the Holy Spirit and given the Gifts. Listen to those who put themselves between the worshiper and the Third Member of the Trinity. There are no Christian priests in the New Testament. Judge bishops and deacons by how well they raised their children. Etc. Catholics simply miss it! How the Bible was meant to be read: There were no punctuation marks or word spacing, slowing down the reader as he had to insert his own idea of where one word ended and another began. On scrolls. Books as we know them, codexes, were just on the brink of being invented and used. Making it very difficult to return to a passage without having a good memory. There were no chapters and verses. If God had intended chapters and verses He would have had them in place in biblical times. Everything was put in place to make it MORE difficult to read and interpret the Bible
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). Jesus is the Image / Icon of God. Iconoclasm is unbiblical. I recommend Jonathan Pageau's discussion with Alex O'Connor on the difference between icons and idols.
@@Golfinthefamily by definition He is THE icon of God. "icon = An image; a representation." He is the means by which the fullness of God's revelation can be represented to man. To do this, He became man, that is to be made in the image of God. BTW He is not a separate person because that would mean we worship three gods. Instead, He is a distinct person united with the other two persons within the Trinity. When I use distinction , I mean that we can ascertain who we are talking about by their relationships with each other within the ONE Godhead (Deuteronomy 6:4).
@@johnyang1420 It's not the icons themselves but what they represent. When you look at a cross, you think of Jesus and his sacrifice. In the same manner, icons are representations of saints who are alive in heaven. So, icons can be utilized like windows to the saints because of the association to them.
Sacrementum(Latin) had a definition before being chosen as the word to translate Mysterion(Mystery), Baptisma(Baptism), Euchristia(ThanksGiving), and others. It had the original military definition of Oath or Vow which has tainted the intent the Greek was trying to convey, making Sacraments similar to a ritual(magic). The christ Yeshua(Jesus) brings a sword and divides the sheep from the goats to assume this authority had been given to creation is well... be careful not to call upon yourself standards you must also apply.
The problem with the Catholic use of typology, is that they take something which is true, and use it to justify something false. Take Mary as the Ark - yes, while the Lord was in her womb, she did serve as the ark of the covenant. But what is the ark? On it's own, it just a gilded box - it became Holy only because the presence of God dwelt between the cherubim. When the Temple was built, the ark was placed inside the Holy of Holies. When the Temple was destoryed, the ark was destroyed with it. So, where is the Temple of the New Covenant? "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" 1 Cor 6:19 - if Christ now dwells in us, are we not also Arks? That makes perfect sense, for whenever Jesus speaks of his mother in the Bible, he makes her equivalent to all those who believe in Him: "“Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:49-50, "But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” - Luke 11:28 Is the ark of the covenant itself a co-mediator and co-redemtrix alongside God? Does the ark draw people to God? Does anyone ever pray to ark? The answer is, no. It would be blasphemy to mistake the wooden box for the presences of God that sat upon it.
The Ark wasn't destroyed. That is a popular Protestant belief because they removed the book from their Bible that actually says what happened to it. Prior to the Temple being destroyed it was hidden. This is important. "Jeremiah came and found a cave-dwelling, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense; then he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy" (2 Mac. 2:5-7) When the Jewish Christians heard that the Ark was in Heaven, they would have known what it really meant. If the Ark had been destroyed, it wouldn't have meant the same thing as being hidden and now revealed. Next, like most Protestants, you make this into a "Catholic thing". The understanding of these typologies have been held in ALL of Christianity until after the Protestant Movement. We actually see this typology in place very early on by the early Church Fathers (even prior to the word "Trinity" in Christianity). You are also correct in the connection between us and the Holy Spirit and the Temple. This is why Mary is the Queen in Heaven, and also the mother of Christians and Israel (as representing God's people) in Revelation 12. This is another thing that Protestants miss. Mary is our hope and proof of what we will also become. The Bible tells us that we will become Sons of God and share in His reign and will be given crowns. But, they deny that about Mary.
@@hirakisk1973 Whether or not the ark was destroyed or hidden is a moot point: either way, the presence of God no longer dwells there, but within those who believe. It played an important, but ultimately temporary role. God appears to have gathered his people back to Israel, and at least so far the ark has not be found... this calls into question the veracity of Maccebees' as prophetic scripture, at least for now. As I said, I don't deny the typology, but rather the way it has been used. The Marian dogmas cannot be found in any writing prior to the 3rd century (it might even be as late as the 4th century, though my memory fails me on this point). Again, where is the ark itself ever prayed to or called co-mediator with God? The only "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible is a pagan idol, mostly likely Asherah (although Jeremiah doesn't mention her by name). We know from archaeology that the Israelites used to worship her alongside God, as his "wife" prior to the exile (inscription have been found dedicated "to Yahwah and his Asherah") - multiple Kings, both the good and the bad, are criticised by scripture for failing to take down the Asherah poles and high places associated with her worship. It's quite astonishing to me that Rome would pick up on the subtle references to Mary as the ark, but miss the blatant references to worshiping the "queen of heaven" as the terrible idolatrous sin that it is. And do to so while elevating a human being to the status of divine-in-all-but-name... Mary, as a fellow believer, is elevated to the same status as the rest of us, as a fellow Son of God - which is why the scriptures makes an equivalence between her and the rest of Christ' disciples, as I have already said.
@@hirakisk1973 Whether or not the ark was destroyed or hidden is a moot point: either way, the presence of God no longer dwells there, but within those who believe. It played an important, but ultimately temporary role. God appears to have gathered his people back to Israel, and at least so far the ark has not be found... this calls into question the veracity of Maccebees' as prophetic scripture, at least for now. As I said, I don't deny the typology, but rather the way it has been used. The Marian dogmas cannot be found in any writing prior to the 3rd century (it might even be as late as the 4th century, though my memory fails me on this point). Again, where is the ark itself ever prayed to or called co-mediator with God? The only "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible is a pagan idol, mostly likely Asherah (although Jeremiah doesn't mention her by name). We know from archaeology that the Israelites used to worship her alongside God, as his "wife" prior to the exile (inscription have been found dedicated "to Yahwah and his Asherah") - multiple Kings, both the good and the bad, are criticised by scripture for failing to take down the Asherah poles and high places associated with her worship. It's quite astonishing to me that Rome would pick up on the subtle references to Mary as the ark, but miss the blatant references to worshiping the "queen of heaven" as the sin that it is. And do to so while elevating a human being to the status of divine-in-all-but-name... Mary, as a fellow believer, is elevated to the same status as the rest of us, as a fellow Son of God - which is why the scriptures makes an equivalence between her and the rest of Christ' disciples, as I have already said.
@@hirakisk1973 Whether or not the ark was destroyed or hidden is a moot point: either way, the presence of God no longer dwells there, but within those who believe. It played an important, but ultimately temporary role. God appears to have gathered his people, and at least so far the ark has not be found... this calls into question the veracity of Maccebees' as prophetic scripture, at least for now. As I said, I don't deny the typology, but rather the way it has been used. The Marian dogmas cannot be found in any writing prior to the 3rd century (it might even be as late as the 4th century, though my memory fails me on this point). Again, where is the ark itself ever prayed to or called co-mediator with God? The only "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible is a pagan idol, mostly likely Asherah (although Jeremiah doesn't mention her by name). We know from archaeology that the Israelites used to worship her alongside God, as his "wife" prior to the exile (inscription have been found dedicated "to Yahwah and his Asherah") - multiple Kings, both the good and the bad, are criticised by scripture for failing to take down the Asherah poles and high places associated with her worship. It's quite astonishing to me that Rome would pick up on the subtle references to Mary as the ark, but miss the blatant references to worshiping the "queen of heaven". And do to so while elevating a human being to the status of divine-in-all-but-name... Mary, as a fellow believer, is elevated to the same status as the rest of us, as a fellow Son of God - which is why the scriptures makes an equivalence between her and the rest of Christ' disciples, as I have already said.
I was hoping you might address some of the RCC heresies I have the most trouble with, but no such luck. Here's just a few: 1. Purgatory (no Scriptural basis, and undermines the doctrine that Jesus paid the FULL PRICE for our sins) 2. The perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had siblings, and the Bible even NAMES SOME OF THEM) and the attributing to her the power of being a co-redeemer (which you briefly touched on, but not at all convincingly). 3. The ascending of Mary (she died like all people and will be raised at the resurrection of the dead). 4. Praying to Mary (we have ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, and it isn't Mary). 5. The idea that the communion becomes the actual body of Christ making his once and for all sacrifice for sin to be a continuous sacrifice administered by priests. Jesus was clear that he was speaking of SPIRITUAL things when he described consuming his body and blood. 6. Making sainthood something other than just the sanctification of the believer through belief in Christ. Catholic sainthood attributes the miracle to the person and not the Holy Spirit and glorifies a person instead of God. 7. The forbidding of priests and nuns from marrying.
@davidww5792 You do not understand it because no one has explained it to you. The same way you don't know the word "dang" came from an expression that takes the Lord's name in vain.
@@timiscorner4601 Luther added the word “alone”. You don’t find that anywhere else in any other Bible. Cursed are those who add or take away to Sacred Scripture.
I like the idea of the age of the Old Testament was the age of the Father and the last 2000 years was the age of the son and i believe the post covid time was the start of the next age of the Holy Spirit. In our isolation many souls are seeking old knowledge and the holy spirit is filling people and this internet world will spread the Holy Spirits knowledge in this age.
Many who are truly in Christ understand the role of Mary in God's salvation plan, and are aware that God chose her to be the vessel from which Jesus would be born. Many honor and respect Mary for saying, "Yes" to God, and they thank her. There is an acknowledgement of the many typologies of Mary in the Old Testament, but what exactly is the point that you are making? Is your point to exalt Mary above all of the patriarchs of the Old and New Testaments who were also chosen vessels of God? In Scripture, we see how the Apostle Paul suffered greatly to spread the Gospel to remote areas, birthing many fledgling churches and writing/dictating practically half the entire New Testament. Yet, the great adulation that Paul receives in the Roman Catholic Church is much less in comparison to Mary. Mary, upon her understanding of Jesus' words, would resoundingly agree with what Jesus said to His followers, "So you also, when you have done all that you are commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants, we have only done what was our duty." There are those who will read this and say, "Well, Mary is in heaven now. It is a lot different than when she was here." Well, the patriarchs of God are in heaven now also.
No Cameron, your understanding of the scriptures is based on presuppositions and missing the authors intent. Let’s compare hermeneutics and you will see clearly what I am saying.
Your arguments about Mary were mostly from NON BIBLICAL writings (eg Irenaeus). Saying "the old is better" is absurd, as even the Apostles were battling heresies in their day. It all must be tested against Scripture.
Let's test that theory: 1. Papal Infallibility. Exactly against the testimony of scripture. If Peter was the first pope, then papal infallibility is false because Paul rebuked Peter, and Peter admitted he had been teaching incorrect things, making Christ's sacrifice null. 2. Immaculate Conception. Nowhere to be found because such heretical doctrine would necessitate all women being born without sin going all the way back to Eve. 3. Degrees of sin. The scripture says to trangress one small part of the law is to trangress all of it. Therefore, there are no mortal and venial sins. Since Romans chapter 5 says that sin brings death, all sins are mortal. I can keep going. Saying everything the Roman Catholic (fake) Church teaches is in the scriptures is like saying gay marriage and abortion are in the scriptures: they are only in that the scriptures stand opposed to them.
You are lying again to promote the Church of Rome. This is really disappointing. I pray that no one is seriously damaged by your misrepresentations. Your videos are spiritually irresponsible.
@@michaelnoble2432 **Scriptures Suggesting Post-Death Purgatory** 1. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Paul describes a scenario where the works of a person are tested by fire after death. The individual is saved, but through a process of suffering: > "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." This is interpreted as a purification of the soul for entry into heaven. 2. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 Judas Maccabeus collects a sin offering for fallen soldiers who had committed idolatry, praying that their sins might be forgiven. This assumes the dead can benefit from prayers, implying a state where purification is possible (not heaven or hell). > "Thus he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." 3. Revelation 21:27 (????) > "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]." For those who die in God's grace but are not fully purified, this necessitates a state of post-death purification, as most people are neither perfectly pure nor condemned. --- **Typological Support** 1. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) The servant is handed over to the jailers "until he pays all his debt." This aligns with the Catholic view of temporal punishment for sins being purged post-death, before heaven. --- **Early Church Tradition Supporting Purgatory After Death** Prayers for the Dead The practice of praying for the deceased in early Christianity (e.g., inscriptions on tombs, writings of Church Fathers like Augustine) assumes the dead can benefit from intercession, which would be meaningless if they were only in heaven or hell. Augustine of Hippo Augustine explicitly supports the concept, teaching that some souls undergo purification after death and can benefit from the Eucharist, alms, and prayers offered by the living.
@@michaelnoble2432 **Scriptures Suggesting Post-Death Purgatory** 1. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Paul describes a scenario where the works of a person are tested by fire after death. The individual is saved, but through a process of suffering: > "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." This is interpreted as a purification of the soul for entry into heaven. 2. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 Judas Maccabeus collects a sin offering for fallen soldiers who had committed idolatry, praying that their sins might be forgiven. This assumes the dead can benefit from prayers, implying a state where purification is possible (not heaven or hell). > "Thus he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." 3. Revelation 21:27 (???) > "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]." For those who die in God's grace but are not fully purified, this necessitates a state of post-death purification, as most people are neither perfectly pure nor condemned. --- **Typological Support** 1. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) The servant is handed over to the jailers "until he pays all his debt." This aligns with the Catholic view of temporal punishment for sins being purged post-death, before heaven. --- **Early Church Tradition Supporting Purgatory After Death** Prayers for the Dead The practice of praying for the deceased in early Christianity (e.g., inscriptions on tombs, writings of Church Fathers like Augustine) assumes the dead can benefit from intercession, which would be meaningless if they were only in heaven or hell. Augustine of Hippo Augustine explicitly supports the concept, teaching that some souls undergo purification after death and can benefit from the Eucharist, alms, and prayers offered by the living.
@@michaelnoble2432 **Scriptures Suggesting Post-Death Purgatory** 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 Revelation 21:27 (???) --- **Typological Support** 1. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) --- **Early Church Tradition Supporting Purgatory After Death** Prayers for the Dead The practice of praying for the deceased in early Christianity (e.g., inscriptions on tombs, writings of Church Fathers like Augustine) assumes the dead can benefit from intercession, which would be meaningless if they were only in heaven or hell. Augustine of Hippo Augustine explicitly supports the concept, teaching that some souls undergo purification after death and can benefit from the Eucharist, alms, and prayers offered by the living.
U can believe Irenaeus I will believe the Bible... 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 KJV [21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. There u have the one who save us from s atan's b ondage and restore our personal relationship with our Father, don't see Mary mentioned.
In Luke 1::42, Elizabeth cried out (ἀναφωνέω ). The Greek word ἀναφωνέω Is only used in the presence of the ark in the Greek Old Testament of the Septuagint (LXX). The Septuagint is what the authors of the New Testament we're using as a reference. When Luke utilized this word, he was referring to the New Ark as Mary. ἀναφωνέω is used one time in the New Testament. In this passage. Protestants don't even know where the old ark was placed. They don't have 2nd Maccabees in their Bible. Jesus is the new Manna, the new high Priest, and the Eternal Word (10 Commandments). And Jesus was in the New Ark of the Covenant.
What is your favorite book of the Bible? :) Leave a comment letting me know! Mine is John!
My favorite book is Luke. People say Luke got his accounts from no less that the Blessed Mother.
Acts
Hebrews
John is my favorite book too.
Well it depends on which one calls out to my soul and what the Holy Spirit wants me to know and understand but the Gospel of Luke since my birthday is on the Feast day of the Annunciation.
I had goosebumps right when you were reading Revelations. In one verse, the Ark of the Convenant is seen. And right on the very next verse is the woman clothed with the sun. That is unmistakably Mary.
No it's not. The mystery religion (Catholicism) would have you believe that but, if you read the text, no, it's not there. You're not allowed to read into ANY contract (let alone the Covenants of God) provisions that are not there.
What you've done in your comment (your OP) is called "eisegesis". It reads into the contract a provision that is not expressed. That kind of manipulation is expressly prohibited by the New Testament.
Gal. 3:15 - Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Adding to or taking from the Contract is expressly verboten.
This is an excellent explanation of how to read the Bible properly. Thank you!
I am almost finished studying the Bible in a Year on the Ascension AP with Fr. Mike Schmitz. Because of studying the Bible and Listening to this podcast, I understand what you’re saying about the connection between the Old and the New Testaments, Adam and Jesus, Eve and Mary, very interesting. I also want to tell you how much I love listening to your explanations of Catholic teachings. I’ve learned a lot and gained a better understanding of Scripture from you. I like how you speak of Protestants and how off base they are about our Catholic Faith. Thank you for your teaching.
Astounding observation... i've always wondered how to share the typology with some evangelicals... this video is bingo !! thanks so much Cameron for such light!!
Saint Augustin couldn't be more effective when saying the new testament is forsee in the old and the old is revealed in the new. It's just amazing how the separated brethren would dismises the wisdom of the church which gather all these books under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Protestants were Catholics and are aware of the typology.
The Protestant Reformers spoke positively of Mary’s role:
1. Martin Luther:
"Mary is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough." (Sermon, 1521)
However, Luther insisted that such honor must not detract from Christ’s exclusive mediatory role.
2. John Calvin:
"It cannot be denied that God, in choosing and destining Mary to be the mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor."
Calvin rejected excessive Marian devotion, emphasizing that honor for Mary must not compromise God’s glory.
3. Ulrich Zwingli:
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and remained in this condition."
But they were protesting the excesses of Marian doctrine, as they witnessed its effects firsthand in the practices of their time. Marian devotion had developed into what many reformers saw as theological overreach, with actions and beliefs that went beyond Scripture and the teachings of the early Church. The Reformers were particularly concerned about the veneration of Mary being elevated to levels that seemed to rival or even replace the worship (latria) due to God alone.
These perceived excesses were among the key reasons for their calls for reform, as they sought to restore the Church to a more biblical and early apostolic foundation.
I love my Roman Catholic Church. Yes indeed The Church is ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC and CATHOLIC. I would share here Psalm 25 :”To You, O LORD, I lift up my soul; in You, my God, I trust. Do not let me be put to shame; do not let my enemies exult over me. Surely none who wait for You will be put to shame; but those who are faithless without cause will be disgraced. Show me Your ways, O LORD; teach me Your paths. Guide me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; all day long I wait for You. Remember, O LORD, Your compassion and loving devotion, for they are from age to age. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my rebellious acts; remember me according to Your loving devotion, because of Your goodness, O LORD. Good and upright is the LORD; therefore He shows sinners the way. He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them His way.”
Catholic means universal, not RC which is a denomination. It's no superior to any other church that worships Our Lord.
Just started the video but I'm excited to see the Bible say "Deny these people the Eucharist" I'm not all the way through the New Testament but so far Jesus hasn't denied anyone. This should be interesting to see.
Mary was the "ark" (container). I failed to hear where we are supposed to pray to the ark. My understanding is that we are only to pray to The Father. Again, I haven't finished the New Testament, so it might be in there somewhere. I'm just a Christian, meaning I'm non-denominational? I haven't seen "Do not pray to statues (graven images) except these ones or this one. I don't know though, why does everyone make this so confusing for others?
In the end, I'm going to trust what I've read in the Word so far.
not sure how far you have gotten yet, but you fill find it in the epistles. Keep reading.
At one point you will also read about someone else reading scripture but has problems understanding. Take the advice giving there.
@@ModernLady So I'm not understanding Matthew 6 when it says pray to the Father and told to pray "Our Father, who is in Heaven". I'm so blind that it is really telling me "Pray to Mary." Or in 1 Timothy 2 where it declares there is one God and ONE MEDIATOR" God The Father and the mediator being Jesus Christ.
My understanding is that it's telling me that when I pray, pray to The Father and that it can only be through Jesus Christ because all things to the Father are through Him. I get that Mary and others maybe in prayer with Jesus but I don't see where it says to pray to Mary or the saints. The things you say are confusing but my God is not the God of confusion. If I am wrong, and I have been many times, I trust and have faith that He will point me in the right direction. I also understand that the enemy is aware of my seeking of understanding and will try to use twisted truth (bend over backwards) to convince me otherwise. Right or wrong, is it still bad to only pray to The Father through Jesus Christ and not pray to Mary and the saints?
@SealabCaptMurphy
I have a protestant friend who cheekily asked me almost the exact same question about the Eucharist and scripture this year. All I can say to that, is that St. Paul in his epistles warns against receiving the Lord's supper unworthily, lest one profane the body and blood of the Lord, and call sickness and judgment down upon oneself (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). Now, it is true that nowhere does the Bible state that protestants are to be denied communion, however you have to remember that in the time the Bible was written, there were no protestants - only Catholics - and when the New Testament writers refer to the baptized or to the Church, it is Catholics and the Catholic church, respectively, that they are referring to. There were heretical Christians at the time, who eventually became sects, like the Gnostics, who denied and rejected certain apostolic teachings and traditions, and when St. Paul and other New Testament writers warn the Church in various places not to follow their divisive teachings and behaviors and even to not associate with them, it is highly likely that these are who they were referring to, as the Gnostics and the Judaizers were the principle heretical sects, or what would become heretical sects, that were around in the time the New Testament was written. These would be those who would deny Christ, or His divinity or Godhead, including, like the Gnostics, His real presence in the Eucharist - which is a belief that these 1st century heretics and most protestants actually share in common, although for different reasons. These heretical beliefs and other sinful behaviors would fall into the category of receiving the Lord's supper unworthily, which St. Paul warned against in scripture - it is also to be noted, that St. Paul refers to the Lord's supper as the body and blood of the Lord, and that IT is profaned in unworthy or sacriligious communions, which is mentioned before the mention of the profanation of him who receives it unworthily, which as he also says, can even cause death. To believe in that time and in every time meant to believe rightly, and not to deny dogmas of the faith, which would become formally established and unanimously declared at later church councils, (like the divinity of Christ), and those who denied the teachings of the Church and the dogmas of the faith, and professed unrepentant heresy, could not be properly called "in communion" with the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, and therefore denied the sacraments, including the Eucharist, which are the expressions of that communion, until they repented and were reconciled to God and His body again.
The church fathers exhaustively articulated and defined this point, but it is in the New Testament as well, and was Apostolic tradition and was being practiced by the Apostles and the bishops before the New Testament was written.
@@readyplayer1900 it seems to me, and I may be misreading it, that tje "confession" is confessing that Jesus is Christ and our Lord and savior. I've been told, again I could be wrong because Im not Catholic, that the Eucharist is denied to those who did not confess their sins that week.
Also at this very moment, my verse for today is Romans chapter 8. I'm on verse 28 and verse 27 is what sent me back to this comment. It feels like this is the verse Catholics use as the reason to pray to saints. I do not read it that way. My Bible says He intercedes for the saints. "He" being capitalized, because in context, it's talking about the Holy Spirit. Meaning The Holy Spirit is interceding for the saints, not that we should ask the saints to intercede for us. So far I feels like the saints have The Holy Spirit interceding for others, while Jesus intercedes for us personally. Example, praying for others we pray to The Holy Spirit to intercede and when we pray personally, we pray through Jesus' name.
Still on my journey, but these things seem clearly brought to my heart. I would also like to make it clear that I don't judge any Christian religion (or try not to judge anything at all), for as long as we are doing this for Him, genuinely through our hearts, it's good. For He will judge us by our hearts.
(1Samuel 16:7)
What I speak is in observation or in what I feel was given to me in understanding, not in judgement. Im guessing I sound Protestant in my observation, since you said "Protestants aren't to be denied". I still however consider myself "non-denominational" because all I care about is The Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit, above any label.
I do appreciate your timing in conversing these things. I never really return to comment threads (I do not have notifications on), so I actually have to dig videos back up and search the threads manually. I can't promise I will return to this thread but I may, it feels like a tug to return sometimes.
Man I love this! When I read Matthew 13:44: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid”. Of course as you read on it is about the gospel truth being a treasure worth more than anything this world has to offer but what I also see it that it’s hidden, and you need to find it. There is so much I don’t know and learning the truth of the Catholic Church enriches my life daily. Thank you Jesus, thank you Mary! Praise God!
I'll be honest, as a RC trying to justify what I'm told to believe, I struggled with your analogies, especially about Mary. Such a momentous happening as her assumption ought to be documented by the apostles, or someone. And why did she have to be immaculately conceived to bear The Lord? And where do you get her omniscience from so we can pray to her, different people, all around the world, 24/7? She was a wonderful woman though, no doubt about it.
Exactly right. If that was the most convincing argument for the RCC heresies about Mary, Catholics have even less reason to believe it than I imagined.
@@michaelnoble2432archangel Gabriel said she was full of grace, but your modern King James Bible says “thou art highly favored”
@@Brendan9903 some translations use "full of grace", but "highly favored" is more common. What exactly is the point you're trying to make here?
@@Brendan9903 Stephen in Acts 6 :8 full of grace !
again no reason for Mary to be without sin and every reason she had to be born with a sin nature.
@@michaelnoble2432 she was 100% faithful and obedient to God, having never committed a sin. We don’t worship her, but she is the best example we have of God’s creatures. He put her in that position to raise Jesus and to stay by his side every step of the way. And at the same time, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, she is the bride of God
You made it! Hope you had a great flight.
Where in the bible is the rosary commanded since you say elsewhere that the rosary is required for Catholics? Oh yes, Jesus said don't use many words when you pray!
The rosary is not required for catholics
Who said that rosary is required?
@@Johuma27 Cameron Riecker. He said if don't pray the rosary Mary will punish us! He said it is only a "theory" that we can attain salvation without praying the rosary!
No catholic has ever had to pray the rosary...😂
We pray it meditatively, it's great spiritual help.
The Rosary is scripture - it's the Gospel on beads.
The original Hail Mary, as it was given to Saint Dominic, is just quotations from the Gospel of Luke - from the angel to Mary, and from Elizabeth to Mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee...blessed art Thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb."
The Our Father, obviously, is quoted from the Gospels as well, as the Lord's Prayer.
The Glory Be is simply giving glory unto the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all Christians who acknowledge the trinity should have no problem with that.
The Fatima prayer is an exhortation to Jesus to forgive the world its sins, save mankind from hell, and to lead all souls to heaven - nothing problematic there.
The mysteries that Catholics meditate upon in all four sets of mysteries, (joyful, sorrowful, glorious, and luminous), are just scenes or events from the Gospels, with the exception of the last two glorious mysteries: the assumption of Mary and her coronation as the queen of heaven and earth, although these are inferred from scripture, and are traditions going back to the 1st century, taught by the early church fathers.
If you really wanted to stay true to protestant solas, the rosary is actually 90+% fine and orthodox for protestants of any stripe to pray - as long as you believe in the bible and scripture, you could pray 18 of the 20 mysteries, use the original Hail Mary, omit 2 lines from the Nicene creed, and forego the salve regina, and boom - you have a protestant-orthodox rosary.
Now, I would highly recommend just praying the entire thing, as it is richer and deeper, however if it really bothers you, there is the "90%" rosary that no protestant ought to have any issue praying, and in fact, many will find fruitful, deep, and beneficial.
Give it a try at least once - you may just find a new favorite prayer.
Thank You Cameron and God bless You and Your family. I would share this with You : "Meeting Jesus in the Scriptures leads us to the Eucharist, where the written word attains its greatest efficacy, for there the living Word is truly present. In the Eucharist, the one true God receives the greatest worship the world can give him, for it is Christ himself who is offered. When we receive him in Holy Communion, we renew our covenant with him and allow him to carry out ever more fully his work of transforming our lives." (Pope Francis, Gaudete et Exultate, 157)
Scriptures were made to be read at mass! That's exactly why the bible was made. Jesus read the scriptures in the synagogue.
Yes!!!
Read at Mass then teached by the consacrated ministers of God to the faithful .. then came Luther with re(de)formation and the rest is story. what a mess !!
@ well said!
In those days, scrolls were so expensive that only very rich people could afford them, but they weren't only read in synagogue / church (eg see the Ethiopian reading Isiah in Acts 8).
Now we are blessed to be able to carry the Bible in our phone for free, so we don't need to wait until Sunday to be told what it says - we can read it for ourselves.
@ True! And not to forget the interpretation of scripture given to us the the church that also gave us the cannon.
Our faith is complete Amen brother.!
Cain (who murdered his own brother, Abel) must signify Lucifer, who fell from heaven by murdering the Catholic Church (signified by Abel) through temptation to sin. Thank you for this explicit explanation!!
I love how people compare the incomparable. And lucifer didn't destroy the catholic church. It's still going.
PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ABOUT THE FOUNDATION IN SCRIPTURE ABOUT OUR DOCTRINE OF TREASURY OF MERITS. As a catholic, I find it hard to believe in this doctrine because it lacks references in the bible and I would appreciate if you would make a video regarding it. thank you in advance.
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Members of the Church should not feel jealousy, but should rejoice if someone from outside the community does good in the name of Christ...”
The pope quoted St. Augustine, 4-5th century saint: ‘Just as one can find that which is not Catholic in the Catholic Church, one can also find something that may be Catholic outside of the Catholic Church.’
This, the Pope said, is what Jesus wishes to explain to his disciples, that “good and even miraculous things” can happen outside their circle when others “cooperate with the Kingdom of God” even in small gestures such as “offering a simple glass of water to a missionary.
The tendency toward jealousy can exist within the Church when Catholics resent holiness and goodness being attained by non-Catholics. Instead we should all be able to always appreciate and respect each other, praising the Lord when he acts in the Church and in the world.”
Just listened to your opening sentence and am wondering where you find that the church should transfer the solemnity of the seventh-day Sabbath to the "eighth day." Thanks.
Jesus resurrected on Sunday
@@Brendan9903 And? I agree that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, but where is that promoted in the Bible as a reason to transfer the holiness of the Sabbath?
@@kevinmorgan_truth “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:7
“On the first day of the week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” 1 Corinthians 16:2
@@Brendan9903 Sure, he met with them on Saturday night after the Sabbath. Then he walked on Sunday to meet the rest of his party. So where does that say to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath?
The second verse says to "save it up," or, literally, "lay by him in store." That means each person puts it aside weekly. So where does that say to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath?
@ it’s the same reason we don’t need to be circumcised because we don’t have to hold to Israel’s commandment, thus we celebrate God’s sabbath instead of Israel’s sabbath
Couldn’t help but laugh when you said “Pastor Bob”. Every time I converse with a Protestant I always refer to their Pastor as Pastor Bob. I find it outrageous that anyone, pastor or regular folk, think that they know scripture better than any Early Church Father, who not only knew, but lived, and died for it.
They don't. They go by evidence of the early church fathers too.
@ really, which ones and provide examples?
@@squizza28 i wish to know which one
Considering his arguments were from NON BIBLICAL sources (Irenaeus), I'll believe what the SCRIPTURE says, thanks very much.
@@michaelnoble2432Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was a student of John, I’ll believe what he has to say over some pastor
PS. As of right now, I think I like the book of Matthew the best! I’ve only been to Bible studies for 1 1/2 years so I’m still green at this. 😂
The thing about calling Mary the Ark of the Covenant is not necessary. None of the earliest Fathers say it. It isn't needed to establish Mary as the Second Eve, having never sinned. Being sinless, the Second Eve, etc., is a fact regardless of what in the New Covenant is the Ark of the Covenant.
Not necessary? Sure. But is it true? Most definitely. The parallels between 2nd Samuel and Luke alone convinced me but there's even more than that
Many don't know the meaning of Doctrine the word Doctrine!
typology revealed by paul and peter. not man made typology, but revealed by the spirit.
ephesians 3---made known to the church by the apostles thru the spirit. the typology of adam vs christ are in stark contrast to one another. i.e. "the free gift is not like the offense".
peter/noah/baptism--peter did not say "study the flood" to understand baptism. in all cases where God used water to save people, it was their faith that saved them. in the new testament scriptures paul teaches the meaning of baptism, romans 6, colossians 2, etc.
does that mean that we can formulate our own types from the old testament and teach them as if it is the revelation given by the spirit, as if it is the word of God? that is what the catholic doctrine has done with mary, and the saints in heaven, tho it is not revealed anywhere by the apostles. that is why it is dangerous to "go beyond what is written", which puffs people up against each other, and causes division, when we don't see eye to eye on such things.
in the old testament, the ark was kept in a man made temple, in a room that only the high priest could enter the presence of God. in the new testament, believers/the church are the temple of God's presence, whereby all may approach the throne of God, by the blood of jesus, thru faith in his name. by the resurrection of Christ, since pentecost, we are the temple of God, as well as was mary who believed. her womb was a temporary dwelling place, but then the full revelation of the permanent dwelling of God was revealed to all. the church then
would actually be the ark of the new covenant, it you want to talk about pictures, or types.
christ is revealed as the "last" adam, not the new adam. paul in romans 5, shows the stark contrast between the two, one represents death, the other eternal life. what the church fathers, st iranaeus says, is not scripture. by your reasoning, if mary is the new eve, and jesus is the new adam, then mary would be jesus' wife. how silly is that🙃no, no, no, death came thru adam, not mary. it was adam who sinned, mary was deceived. and based on iranaeus'
writing on this, he became deceived, going way beyond what is written, no matter who he knew, and paul warned us of such things. jesus saw this ideology developing in the minds of the people and refuted it boldly two times. and, anyone who blindly trusts their so called protestant pastor is not wise either. what makes you think that all pastors only have 4 years of bible college? that is weak. tho i vouch for none of them, without knowledge. what makes you think that many of us non catholics haven't study the bible for our whole lives? and how old are you? "who's OPINION has more weight?" well, what would jesus say to that?
yadda, yadda, yadda, the doctrines of men. "to the law and the testimony, if what they speak is not according to this word, there is no light in them".
there is only one biblical queen of heaven. go figure. rome loves their idols.
Women not being required to veil in the church is not in the bible (on the contrary in fact)
It is true because the authorians say it is. Ignore the contradictions of Paul. Ignore the passages and even books that were added later so Paul could be overridden. Ignore being in-filled with the Holy Spirit and given the Gifts. Listen to those who put themselves between the worshiper and the Third Member of the Trinity. There are no Christian priests in the New Testament. Judge bishops and deacons by how well they raised their children. Etc. Catholics simply miss it!
How the Bible was meant to be read: There were no punctuation marks or word spacing, slowing down the reader as he had to insert his own idea of where one word ended and another began.
On scrolls. Books as we know them, codexes, were just on the brink of being invented and used. Making it very difficult to return to a passage without having a good memory. There were no chapters and verses. If God had intended chapters and verses He would have had them in place in biblical times. Everything was put in place to make it MORE difficult to read and interpret the Bible
praying through icons?
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). Jesus is the Image / Icon of God. Iconoclasm is unbiblical. I recommend Jonathan Pageau's discussion with Alex O'Connor on the difference between icons and idols.
No praying through icons
@@slyth150 so you think Jesus is just an icon then? Not a separate person of the trinity? The claim is it's in the Bible, and that's not true.
@@Golfinthefamily by definition He is THE icon of God. "icon = An image; a representation." He is the means by which the fullness of God's revelation can be represented to man. To do this, He became man, that is to be made in the image of God.
BTW He is not a separate person because that would mean we worship three gods. Instead, He is a distinct person united with the other two persons within the Trinity. When I use distinction , I mean that we can ascertain who we are talking about by their relationships with each other within the ONE Godhead (Deuteronomy 6:4).
@@johnyang1420 It's not the icons themselves but what they represent. When you look at a cross, you think of Jesus and his sacrifice. In the same manner, icons are representations of saints who are alive in heaven. So, icons can be utilized like windows to the saints because of the association to them.
Sacrementum(Latin) had a definition before being chosen as the word to translate Mysterion(Mystery), Baptisma(Baptism), Euchristia(ThanksGiving), and others. It had the original military definition of Oath or Vow which has tainted the intent the Greek was trying to convey, making Sacraments similar to a ritual(magic). The christ Yeshua(Jesus) brings a sword and divides the sheep from the goats to assume this authority had been given to creation is well... be careful not to call upon yourself standards you must also apply.
The problem with the Catholic use of typology, is that they take something which is true, and use it to justify something false.
Take Mary as the Ark - yes, while the Lord was in her womb, she did serve as the ark of the covenant. But what is the ark? On it's own, it just a gilded box - it became Holy only because the presence of God dwelt between the cherubim. When the Temple was built, the ark was placed inside the Holy of Holies. When the Temple was destoryed, the ark was destroyed with it. So, where is the Temple of the New Covenant? "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" 1 Cor 6:19 - if Christ now dwells in us, are we not also Arks? That makes perfect sense, for whenever Jesus speaks of his mother in the Bible, he makes her equivalent to all those who believe in Him: "“Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:49-50, "But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” - Luke 11:28
Is the ark of the covenant itself a co-mediator and co-redemtrix alongside God? Does the ark draw people to God? Does anyone ever pray to ark? The answer is, no. It would be blasphemy to mistake the wooden box for the presences of God that sat upon it.
The Ark wasn't destroyed. That is a popular Protestant belief because they removed the book from their Bible that actually says what happened to it. Prior to the Temple being destroyed it was hidden. This is important. "Jeremiah came and found a cave-dwelling, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense; then he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy" (2 Mac. 2:5-7)
When the Jewish Christians heard that the Ark was in Heaven, they would have known what it really meant. If the Ark had been destroyed, it wouldn't have meant the same thing as being hidden and now revealed.
Next, like most Protestants, you make this into a "Catholic thing". The understanding of these typologies have been held in ALL of Christianity until after the Protestant Movement. We actually see this typology in place very early on by the early Church Fathers (even prior to the word "Trinity" in Christianity).
You are also correct in the connection between us and the Holy Spirit and the Temple. This is why Mary is the Queen in Heaven, and also the mother of Christians and Israel (as representing God's people) in Revelation 12. This is another thing that Protestants miss. Mary is our hope and proof of what we will also become. The Bible tells us that we will become Sons of God and share in His reign and will be given crowns. But, they deny that about Mary.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." - St. John Henry Newman, a former protestant.
@@hirakisk1973 Whether or not the ark was destroyed or hidden is a moot point: either way, the presence of God no longer dwells there, but within those who believe. It played an important, but ultimately temporary role. God appears to have gathered his people back to Israel, and at least so far the ark has not be found... this calls into question the veracity of Maccebees' as prophetic scripture, at least for now.
As I said, I don't deny the typology, but rather the way it has been used. The Marian dogmas cannot be found in any writing prior to the 3rd century (it might even be as late as the 4th century, though my memory fails me on this point). Again, where is the ark itself ever prayed to or called co-mediator with God?
The only "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible is a pagan idol, mostly likely Asherah (although Jeremiah doesn't mention her by name). We know from archaeology that the Israelites used to worship her alongside God, as his "wife" prior to the exile (inscription have been found dedicated "to Yahwah and his Asherah") - multiple Kings, both the good and the bad, are criticised by scripture for failing to take down the Asherah poles and high places associated with her worship. It's quite astonishing to me that Rome would pick up on the subtle references to Mary as the ark, but miss the blatant references to worshiping the "queen of heaven" as the terrible idolatrous sin that it is. And do to so while elevating a human being to the status of divine-in-all-but-name...
Mary, as a fellow believer, is elevated to the same status as the rest of us, as a fellow Son of God - which is why the scriptures makes an equivalence between her and the rest of Christ' disciples, as I have already said.
@@hirakisk1973 Whether or not the ark was destroyed or hidden is a moot point: either way, the presence of God no longer dwells there, but within those who believe. It played an important, but ultimately temporary role. God appears to have gathered his people back to Israel, and at least so far the ark has not be found... this calls into question the veracity of Maccebees' as prophetic scripture, at least for now.
As I said, I don't deny the typology, but rather the way it has been used. The Marian dogmas cannot be found in any writing prior to the 3rd century (it might even be as late as the 4th century, though my memory fails me on this point). Again, where is the ark itself ever prayed to or called co-mediator with God?
The only "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible is a pagan idol, mostly likely Asherah (although Jeremiah doesn't mention her by name). We know from archaeology that the Israelites used to worship her alongside God, as his "wife" prior to the exile (inscription have been found dedicated "to Yahwah and his Asherah") - multiple Kings, both the good and the bad, are criticised by scripture for failing to take down the Asherah poles and high places associated with her worship. It's quite astonishing to me that Rome would pick up on the subtle references to Mary as the ark, but miss the blatant references to worshiping the "queen of heaven" as the sin that it is. And do to so while elevating a human being to the status of divine-in-all-but-name...
Mary, as a fellow believer, is elevated to the same status as the rest of us, as a fellow Son of God - which is why the scriptures makes an equivalence between her and the rest of Christ' disciples, as I have already said.
@@hirakisk1973 Whether or not the ark was destroyed or hidden is a moot point: either way, the presence of God no longer dwells there, but within those who believe. It played an important, but ultimately temporary role. God appears to have gathered his people, and at least so far the ark has not be found... this calls into question the veracity of Maccebees' as prophetic scripture, at least for now.
As I said, I don't deny the typology, but rather the way it has been used. The Marian dogmas cannot be found in any writing prior to the 3rd century (it might even be as late as the 4th century, though my memory fails me on this point). Again, where is the ark itself ever prayed to or called co-mediator with God?
The only "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible is a pagan idol, mostly likely Asherah (although Jeremiah doesn't mention her by name). We know from archaeology that the Israelites used to worship her alongside God, as his "wife" prior to the exile (inscription have been found dedicated "to Yahwah and his Asherah") - multiple Kings, both the good and the bad, are criticised by scripture for failing to take down the Asherah poles and high places associated with her worship. It's quite astonishing to me that Rome would pick up on the subtle references to Mary as the ark, but miss the blatant references to worshiping the "queen of heaven". And do to so while elevating a human being to the status of divine-in-all-but-name...
Mary, as a fellow believer, is elevated to the same status as the rest of us, as a fellow Son of God - which is why the scriptures makes an equivalence between her and the rest of Christ' disciples, as I have already said.
I was hoping you might address some of the RCC heresies I have the most trouble with, but no such luck. Here's just a few:
1. Purgatory (no Scriptural basis, and undermines the doctrine that Jesus paid the FULL PRICE for our sins)
2. The perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had siblings, and the Bible even NAMES SOME OF THEM) and the attributing to her the power of being a co-redeemer (which you briefly touched on, but not at all convincingly).
3. The ascending of Mary (she died like all people and will be raised at the resurrection of the dead).
4. Praying to Mary (we have ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, and it isn't Mary).
5. The idea that the communion becomes the actual body of Christ making his once and for all sacrifice for sin to be a continuous sacrifice administered by priests. Jesus was clear that he was speaking of SPIRITUAL things when he described consuming his body and blood.
6. Making sainthood something other than just the sanctification of the believer through belief in Christ. Catholic sainthood attributes the miracle to the person and not the Holy Spirit and glorifies a person instead of God.
7. The forbidding of priests and nuns from marrying.
You are not catholic. Unless you read history you will never understand
You didn’t listen to Cameron. You are a Protestant. All Protestants will be Catholic one day
Dang, I still can’t find the teaching of medieval indulgences or the treasury of merit anywhere in the Bible.
I still can't find Sola Scriptura or Faith alone
@davidww5792 You do not understand it because no one has explained it to you. The same way you don't know the word "dang" came from an expression that takes the Lord's name in vain.
@@theneighborguy You can find "faith alone" in James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
@@timiscorner4601 Luther added the word “alone”. You don’t find that anywhere else in any other Bible. Cursed are those who add or take away to Sacred Scripture.
@@MeekCatholicbig words from a group that changed the literal law of God.
I like the idea of the age of the Old Testament was the age of the Father and the last 2000 years was the age of the son and i believe the post covid time was the start of the next age of the Holy Spirit. In our isolation many souls are seeking old knowledge and the holy spirit is filling people and this internet world will spread the Holy Spirits knowledge in this age.
Really? Show me a person that was appointed pope after Peter died. You can’t because it’s not an office nor is it supposed to be one that succeeded.
Many who are truly in Christ understand the role of Mary in God's salvation plan, and are aware that God chose her to be the vessel from which Jesus would be born. Many honor and respect Mary for saying, "Yes" to God, and they thank her.
There is an acknowledgement of the many typologies of Mary in the Old Testament, but what exactly is the point that you are making? Is your point to exalt Mary above all of the patriarchs of the Old and New Testaments who were also chosen vessels of God?
In Scripture, we see how the Apostle Paul suffered greatly to spread the Gospel to remote areas, birthing many fledgling churches and writing/dictating practically half the entire New Testament. Yet, the great adulation that Paul receives in the Roman Catholic Church is much less in comparison to Mary.
Mary, upon her understanding of Jesus' words, would resoundingly agree with what Jesus said to His followers, "So you also, when you have done all that you are commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants, we have only done what was our duty."
There are those who will read this and say, "Well, Mary is in heaven now. It is a lot different than when she was here."
Well, the patriarchs of God are in heaven now also.
No Cameron, your understanding of the scriptures is based on presuppositions and missing the authors intent. Let’s compare hermeneutics and you will see clearly what I am saying.
Teach us then.
Your arguments about Mary were mostly from NON BIBLICAL writings (eg Irenaeus). Saying "the old is better" is absurd, as even the Apostles were battling heresies in their day. It all must be tested against Scripture.
Let's test that theory:
1. Papal Infallibility. Exactly against the testimony of scripture. If Peter was the first pope, then papal infallibility is false because Paul rebuked Peter, and Peter admitted he had been teaching incorrect things, making Christ's sacrifice null.
2. Immaculate Conception. Nowhere to be found because such heretical doctrine would necessitate all women being born without sin going all the way back to Eve.
3. Degrees of sin. The scripture says to trangress one small part of the law is to trangress all of it. Therefore, there are no mortal and venial sins. Since Romans chapter 5 says that sin brings death, all sins are mortal.
I can keep going.
Saying everything the Roman Catholic (fake) Church teaches is in the scriptures is like saying gay marriage and abortion are in the scriptures: they are only in that the scriptures stand opposed to them.
Where´s solo scriptiura in the Bible?? the 5 solas? Trinity?? Protestant reformation is it in the Bible?
According to the catholic church, they even wrote the bible, never mind what God has to say about the scriptures! Talk about boasting?
You are lying again to promote the Church of Rome. This is really disappointing. I pray that no one is seriously damaged by your misrepresentations.
Your videos are spiritually irresponsible.
He's incorrect of course, but he seems genuine (so probably not strictly lying, which is deliberately misleading people).
the pope acts, forgives sins and alters God's law... that my brother is blasphemy that is catholic teaching i don't not agree with
I’m sry but Purgatory is not in the Bible😂😂
Is the trinity in the Bible? Or is it infurred?
@@danielgomessilva8966 where is Purgatory inferred in the Bible?
@@michaelnoble2432 **Scriptures Suggesting Post-Death Purgatory**
1. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Paul describes a scenario where the works of a person are tested by fire after death. The individual is saved, but through a process of suffering:
> "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
This is interpreted as a purification of the soul for entry into heaven.
2. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46
Judas Maccabeus collects a sin offering for fallen soldiers who had committed idolatry, praying that their sins might be forgiven. This assumes the dead can benefit from prayers, implying a state where purification is possible (not heaven or hell).
> "Thus he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."
3. Revelation 21:27 (????)
> "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]."
For those who die in God's grace but are not fully purified, this necessitates a state of post-death purification, as most people are neither perfectly pure nor condemned.
---
**Typological Support**
1. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)
The servant is handed over to the jailers "until he pays all his debt." This aligns with the Catholic view of temporal punishment for sins being purged post-death, before heaven.
---
**Early Church Tradition Supporting Purgatory After Death**
Prayers for the Dead
The practice of praying for the deceased in early Christianity (e.g., inscriptions on tombs, writings of Church Fathers like Augustine) assumes the dead can benefit from intercession, which would be meaningless if they were only in heaven or hell.
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine explicitly supports the concept, teaching that some souls undergo purification after death and can benefit from the Eucharist, alms, and prayers offered by the living.
@@michaelnoble2432 **Scriptures Suggesting Post-Death Purgatory**
1. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Paul describes a scenario where the works of a person are tested by fire after death. The individual is saved, but through a process of suffering:
> "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
This is interpreted as a purification of the soul for entry into heaven.
2. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46
Judas Maccabeus collects a sin offering for fallen soldiers who had committed idolatry, praying that their sins might be forgiven. This assumes the dead can benefit from prayers, implying a state where purification is possible (not heaven or hell).
> "Thus he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."
3. Revelation 21:27 (???)
> "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]."
For those who die in God's grace but are not fully purified, this necessitates a state of post-death purification, as most people are neither perfectly pure nor condemned.
---
**Typological Support**
1. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)
The servant is handed over to the jailers "until he pays all his debt." This aligns with the Catholic view of temporal punishment for sins being purged post-death, before heaven.
---
**Early Church Tradition Supporting Purgatory After Death**
Prayers for the Dead
The practice of praying for the deceased in early Christianity (e.g., inscriptions on tombs, writings of Church Fathers like Augustine) assumes the dead can benefit from intercession, which would be meaningless if they were only in heaven or hell.
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine explicitly supports the concept, teaching that some souls undergo purification after death and can benefit from the Eucharist, alms, and prayers offered by the living.
@@michaelnoble2432
**Scriptures Suggesting Post-Death Purgatory**
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
2 Maccabees 12:43-46
Revelation 21:27 (???)
---
**Typological Support**
1. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)
---
**Early Church Tradition Supporting Purgatory After Death**
Prayers for the Dead
The practice of praying for the deceased in early Christianity (e.g., inscriptions on tombs, writings of Church Fathers like Augustine) assumes the dead can benefit from intercession, which would be meaningless if they were only in heaven or hell.
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine explicitly supports the concept, teaching that some souls undergo purification after death and can benefit from the Eucharist, alms, and prayers offered by the living.
U can believe Irenaeus I will believe the Bible...
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 KJV
[21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
There u have the one who save us from s atan's b ondage and restore our personal relationship with our Father, don't see Mary mentioned.
In Luke 1::42, Elizabeth cried out (ἀναφωνέω ). The Greek word ἀναφωνέω Is only used in the presence of the ark in the Greek Old Testament of the Septuagint (LXX). The Septuagint is what the authors of the New Testament we're using as a reference. When Luke utilized this word, he was referring to the New Ark as Mary.
ἀναφωνέω is used one time in the New Testament. In this passage.
Protestants don't even know where the old ark was placed. They don't have 2nd Maccabees in their Bible.
Jesus is the new Manna, the new high Priest, and the Eternal Word (10 Commandments). And Jesus was in the New Ark of the Covenant.