Didache Paul declared that ALL the churches of Asia Minor abandoned his teachings. Early Church history has numerous examples of this abandonment and perhaps there is no better example than the Didache…. It’s first line reads, “The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the twelve apostles. This statement is stunning to anyone that has read the New Testament. According to the New Testament, the twelve had no ministry to the Gentiles. Not one word of scripture supports the idea the Twelve ministered to Gentiles - ever. Peter reluctantly did once and that’s not a ministry! But here we read a text, written about 100 A.D., with this glaring falsehood. The Didache contains no mention of Christ’s death on the cross for our sins, His resurrection, or salvation by faith alone. It contains nothing of Paul’s teachings about the Church, the body of Christ, the truths Paul taught about the believer’s identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. It contains no mention of Paul’s watchwords - faith, hope, and love. It says nothing about the Holy Spirit. In short, the Didache contains nothing about Paul. It’s as if he never existed. Its focus is entirely upon Christ’s earthly ministry to Israel under the Mosaic law and the teaching of the Twelve to Jewish believers - as is and does the RCC. 2 Corinthians 5:16 (ESV) From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. The Didache reveals those whom Paul described as “fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4) and is the earliest extra-Biblical example of Church heresy. It vividly exposes how the apostasy that began in Paul’s lifetime continued through the early church fathers, through Christendom for centuries, and continues today. Hence - the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

@@EPH-re2xjLet me guess, you and your little friends in your basement are the true church?

@@EPH-re2xj The Bible says the didache is bad where? You realize it has verses in it that are identical to what are in the Gospels? Who in history then are the real Christians that you can show that were against the Didache in 50-70 AD when it was written?

The Didache is also the first Catholic book against abortion as well. Roman men were attacking women they had gotten pregnant to force an abortion and this was the women's rights issue in 50 AD.

​@@EPH-re2xjwhat? You literally have not read Acts if you think Peter never ministered to gentiles.

Ouch 😂

You do realize that baptists are part of the protestant side of the argument, right?

You are catholic because your family was?

Cradle Catholic here too - and I am in absolute awe of our blessed converts.

Maybe last 60yrs, during the era of modernism - when Catholics have given up on sacramental living.

Maybe last 60yrs, during the era of modernism - when Catholics have given up on sacramental living.

@@johnflorio3576 here is the summation of all your beliefs to test if you are saved. Answer this please. How do you receive eternal life / get to Heaven?

AMEN BRUTHUH

@@thecatechumen Timestamp 33:47 In emergency situations it permits pouring, only when there is lack of water. There is no excuse for pouring in today's world where water is always plentiful. The Didache never permits sprinkling which the Roman Catholic Church did in error for centuries.

@@YajunYuanSDA oh yeah,the SDA knows intimately whats "...in error..." is

​@@YajunYuanSDA Speaking of errors.. we don't see the Pope telling everyone Jesus will be here on such and such date.. and then it doesn't happen. Hint hint... that's a false prophet... but papacy still going strong for 2000 years!!

@@essafats5728 It of obviously an error if the Roman Catholic permitted sprinkling and later said it is illicit. What term do you to describe this fact of history?

Water Baptism was for Israel.

I would ask what their biblical argument for having congregationalist church governance.

Why even get baptized at all?

@@maxellton exactly. It was for Israel. The baptism for the saved members of the church, the body of Christ: 1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For by one what? Water 🚿?

@@EPH-re2xj If baptism is symbolic, as what Baptists believed, then why go through the ritual of baptism. It doesn't do anything.

I’m very happy to hear!

You’re too kind

🙏🙏🙏

Being a former Protestant myself, & church-hopping constantly when I was a little boy growing up, so I can say this is the fruit of protestantism using sola scriptura, tota scriptura, & having Martin Luther has their father who they follow, instead of following the apostles. Its really really really sad that prots cant see, that all their man-made Churches, are literally giving all of them a exact start date from all their 1000s of Churches, that started within these past 500 yrs, u can literally research any prot Church u want, & find out the exact date it started on. But yet they still want to believe their following Jesus, & his apostles when their church didn't start in the 1st century... When I was a prot, I sometimes would hear Protestants saying look that church is celebrating its 100th anniversary, so they're literally telling us their church is only hundred years old🤦🏻‍♂️ But yet they can't use that very same logic, to notice their church is only 500, 400, 300 years old, that all started from the 16th century and not the first century... That's a huge sign to show us that satan is real, and spiritual blindness is real.

@@onlylove556 I have softened my statement some because I am assuming some of these folks are for the most part well-meaning. You being a former Protestant would have better knowledge. I am wondering if there are some who have their hearts in the right place and that you might hold in high regard.

​@@jflow5601The majority of them have good hearts. We have seen. Once you see you can't unsee. They haven't seen yet. Most people aren't seekers or thinkers. If your parents, grandparents, and entire family are of one denomination, it's very hard to see past that. It shatters your world.

@@onlylove556the simple issue here is the misunderstanding of the apostles doctrine for Israel and the failure to follow Paul and his doctrines to the church, the body of Christ. Outside of Paul’s epistles one will find no mention of the body of Christ …. All other scripture (outside of Paul’s epistles) is written to Israel and for our learning. Are you trying to follow Christ via His earthly ministry as is the confused and ignorant brethren of the RCC?

@@daddydothang8635folks chasing religion smh

You are correct. The church, the body of Christ as found only in Paul’s epistles as it was revealed to him as a mystery via our risen Lord.

@EPH-re2xj: St. Paul, though a great evangelist, did not die on the cross to redeem your sins. St. Paul’s epistles were written to places where the gospel had already been preached. They are written as continuing education and not as first principles.

@@johnflorio3576 thanks for the reply- I’m interested in what the RCC thinks the gospel is. I always like to ask ONE TRUE members to make sure I get the truth as they have access to the magic steer em! What’s the gospel of Christ as only found in Paul’s epistles? What’s the gospel of the kingdom as referenced in the gospels?

@@johnflorio3576 and of course always remember - Peter never knew the meaning of the cross nor did he preach the cross for salvation prior to Paul. He didn’t and you can’t find it.

@@johnflorio3576 Paul didn’t and apparently per the RCC and the Nicene and Apostles creeds - Christ did not either? Sly deception they use in the creeds. They slick!

I feel the same way.

Yeh the initial split from the Church set the whole thing in motion. It was inevitable. And there is only one solution.

As I was a Protestant for several years and spent about a decade going to as many as 6 Protestant churches a week, you probably don’t know the half of it. A congregation inevitably has at least one division in a ten year span and it was never over theology. It was always over something totally irrelevant. Carpets, who’s wife runs the kitchen, etc. just pride, plain and simple. A big donor in the congregation wouldn’t get their way and they would pull half the congregation somewhere else.

Or the vast disagreements amongst Roman Catholics?

@@delbert372 ya, because there’s so many Catholics complaining about infant baptism like in Protestantism. At least Catholics have moved beyond that.

Thanks for watching!

I am aware that many Protestants affirm BR, but I will have to look into the differences between the traditional view of the efficacy of the sacraments and the instrumental faith view. Also, Particular Baptists, I’d assume, have similar views of the sacraments as Calvin. However, in my baptist history class, it did not seem that any baptist group affirmed a type of baptismal regeneration. Nonetheless, thanks for your comment!

@@thecatechumen Thanks for your reply. So sorry, but a semester is very brief time to cover a historical movement, maybe was just a matter of choosing topics. Recommend: M. Haykin, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands- hisory prof at Southern Baptist Seminary also Stan Fowler, More Than Symbol- evangelical baptist. Appreciate your civil reply, learning with you. Respect. PS. Sounds like youre equating trad view of baptism w ex opera operato. I think history is much more vague for centuries as to how baptism works but would liketo hear what you find, perhaps in a later vid.

@@darewan8233Will do! Thanks.

The 33000 number is inaccurate, that same survey says there’s several hundred catholic denominations

Yeah, find a good catholic girl - like my ex wife, a good cath-olic who screwed around on me 4 time before I finally divorced her.

@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *Eh .. you were on a roller coaster. The best way to read the Bible for yourself to see what Bible really teaches.* *R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity. you said Great video. I was a cradle Catholic. At 30 I started going to non denomination churches. I thought they were great. I started to hate Catholic Doctrine. I was a big follower of John MacArthur till one day I listened to one of his Bible studies that said Catholics are not Christian and how they are satanic. Wait a minute, hold up I went t to Catholic Church we never did anything Satanic. I didn’t know much but we all saw the exorcist on how Catholic presses are the one to call(lol). Regardless I don’t know many Bible verses, but I always remember mark 2-24 a kingdom divided will fall. I started reading on the origins of the Bible and to my surprise, “who canonized the New Testament” The evil Catholics did, I am still reading on early church fathers, and wow, how can anyone with an open mind claim that the Catholic Church was not left by Jesus and his Apostles. I despised John MacArthur, till recently, Now I can thank him. My family gave me this great treasure of being Catholic, I just didn’t know its value.

😂

@@thecatechumencorrect me if I’m wrong, but did you say you were from Springfield MO? I watched a video yesterday and they said they were from Springfield MO, I think it was yours. If so, hello from another born and raised Baptist that crawled out of the swamp of Protestantism in Springfield MO. I live in Buffalo now though. Edit: nope, it wasn’t you, it was I miss Christendom

No, thank you!

Touché

Take your time my brother! Patience is a virtue! You are a treasure to the Catholic faith! God bless!

The Church has always believed that Christ imparted to her the power of the keys which involves the ability to remit both the eternal and the temporal consequences of sin. Indulgences are the remittance of a portion or whole of temporal consequences for sins that are already forgiven. While the understanding of indulgences became more defined over time, it is entirely consistent with the early church who already held that the power of the keys was conferred to the church. Hope this helps!

Do you not understand how development of doctrine works? Just because a term wasn’t used until later doesn’t mean that the basics of the doctrine weren’t there.

​@@thecatechumen Thanks for your reply. I was hoping for specific examples but ok, thanks. My concern is that the modern dogma of the treasury of merit consists of the combined merit of Jesus and his mother and the saints. I dont see anything close to this in the early church but rather as a departure from the earliest teaching and a diminishment of Christ. The claim of development amounts to a tacit admission that it was not a part of the apostolic deposit. Just saying, if your criticism that Baptist beliefs are not found in 2nd centuty fathers I think you have to apply the same standard to Rome as well. Again, thanks for the reply, respect.

Do you accept any of the other Catholic doctrines practiced *today* also taught by the Church Fathers? Such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the salvific properties of Baptism? What about the authority of the Bishops? What about the concept of "Just as Jesus Christ is present, so there is the Catholic Church"? See the writing of the disciple of the Apostle John, St Ignatius of Antioch letters to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7 and 8. One of Many examples. So if those Catholic doctrines are true, perhaps the Church has the authority to develop other doctrines based on the understanding of scriptures (The Bible) it compiled back at the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

​@@DF_UniatePapistMy point was that the critique of Baptist theology in the video relies upon the witness of the early church to affirm but when Roman dogmas are examined they are absent from early church testimony too. Difference is, development is claimed by Roman apologists but not allowed when critiquing Baptist beliefs. Just asking for fairness. Respect.

That is a little too close to Mormon land in my opinion. Why trust anything the early Christians said or believed if they all fell into apostasy? We rely upon them for the New Testament canon and for important Christological and Trinitarian developments and they were all paganized? Doesn't make sense that the Apostles could so horribly fail in their mission to hand on the faith - especially with the aid of the Holy Spirit. I'll go with Jesus over the Restorationists any day, because their epistemological ground for claiming the early Church was paganized and apostatized is taken away by that very claim.

Are you baptised by the baptisim of John's baptisim? Before the death and resurrection of Christ?

Lol

Read the letters of saint Ignatius of Antioch.

@@Kitiwake Saint Ignatius and church fathers made me catholic 👍 Like Brayden, I am also former protestant

The Church mentioned in Scripture is the Catholic Church.

@@thecatechumen *Too bad. Bible does not say that. Bible does not mention Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church. Self claims is NOT A PROOF for doctrines.* *Just in case you cite Ignatius. Ignatius did not once say "Roman religion = the Universal Church or Church Christ founded". Neither any early writings.* you said The Church mentioned in Scripture is the Catholic Church.

@@faithalone2171 “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-4 [A.D. 110]). Note, in the quote above, the Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” However, Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church. He does not use it as merely saying that the Church is universal, (which would still apply to the Church Christ established) but rather, he names the Church, calling it the Catholic Church. Ignatius on the Church at Rome: “Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” (Letter to the Romans, Intro [A.D 110]). As seen here, Ignatius of Antioch is writing to the Church at Rome. I will note once more that the Church at Rome is not a distinct institution with different beliefs than the Church that Ignatius presides over, but rather, it is in union with the Church Ignatius presides over, as part of the Church established by Christ. Irenaeus on the Church: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D 189]). Looks like your claim that “Roman” Catholicism started in the 300s is an erroneous one… In the quote above, Ireneaus says that every Church must be in communion with the Church of Rome. What he is speaking of are not distinct Christian groups with opposing beliefs. Is it not evident that the Church Christ established is a single institution? Who is he speaking of when he denounces those who assemble other than where it is proper? “[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2 [A.D 189]). “He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it - men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24 For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one…” (ibid., 4:33:7 [A.D 189]). Christ established one single Church institution! “The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes… To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eletherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D 189]).

Hey its YajunYuan!! I'm sure you are aware of the Didache. He even mentions it in the video.

While "immerse" is indeed one of the meanings of βαπτίζω, it is also used to refer to generic "washing" per the authoritative Greek-English Lexicon BDAG and can include affusion.

Water saves?

@@_ready__ True, water saves no more than saying Jesus is Lord. Look into sacramental theology... this may help with your confusion. 👍🙂

@@benjaminshirley it’s not in the Bible. Been there and done the false doctrine. Get out now

are you Orthodox?

Read Saint Iraneus.

Catholic apologists run to the early "church fathers"plainly because the Bible does not support their teachings. A born again believer does not rely or trust man-made traditions. Jesus and the Bible are the only Supreme authority there is.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are heresies invented in the 16th century.

Thanks for the input

Yup, just be comfortable in your own egoistic, narcissistic world where everything you think, do and say is holy and wont be contradicted by pesky guilt inducing sermons and confessions.

I’ll most likely pull shorter clips from this larger presentation, but I figured it would be helpful to be thorough on the historical part for Baptists who don’t know any better. I figured most of my Catholic audience would already know these things. Thanks for the input!

I prefer the longer and more detailed form, thanks!

@@krzy1446 my issue isnt long format videos at all. I routinely listen to 3+ hour long debates and monologues. What I observed in this video at least, is that the amount of material provided does not justify an hour long video. it could have easily fit in a video half as long. The feeling that one gets is that the video is dragging.

@@hippios well, i enjoy a pastoral approach that is more conversational. It reminds me of the holy father and his approach to teaching. He really tries to emphasize the person.

The fact that it permits pouring (it doesn’t say “in emergency situations”) only serves to legitimate the validity of pouring. Baptists dispute the VALIDITY of other modes - not the preferability. I believe that it is preferable to immerse 🤷‍♂️

@@thecatechumen "But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But *if you have not either,* pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." There is no preferability this is *conditionality,* do you notice the *if?*

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs No propaganda, I have highlighted in bold the part of the Didache quotation have ignored.

@@YajunYuanSDA Do you seriously think they would consider affusion invalid if other modes were available? It is clear that they uphold the validity of other modes. Given your argument, it would be more consistent to conclude that they believed even full immersion, if it is not done in a river with cold water, is invalid if it is able to be performed.

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs Catholic baptisms of adults done by immersion are valid. Confession of the Trinity is not the only requirement for a valid baptism.

How so?

As I have said to another commenter, “As for Catholic apologists who have made extensive free content for the public regarding the debate between Catholics and Orthodox, as far as I am aware, Lofton has done the most. What’s the issue?”

@@thecatechumen Lofton has done the most [damage] for Catholics, might be the issue.

@@YajunYuanSDA Interesting. Care to elaborate?

@@YajunYuanSDA and what of your body orifice did you pull that crap out of?

@@thecatechumen YajunYuanSDA will have to answer for himself but maybe he is referring to Michael Lofton's practice of supporting everything that Pope Francis says. Like the greatness of Genghis Khan and Russian imperialism. Or trying to change the Catechism to contradict historic Church teaching on capital punishment. Or allowing people who are divorced and civilly remarried to receive Holy Communion.

Jesus established the Catholic Church :)

If you know anything about the initial protestant attempt at reformation, then you know that "Papists" is a made up term.

@@admiraloatmeal he also wrote a very long Against Heresies. Go read that and see how much of it aligns with comes out of the Vatican.

@admiraloatmeal I see. You're going to hide behind official doctrine as opposed to the daily happenings allowed by the Pope like pagan worship in Christian temples, and closing churches for illness mandates, and then think that because Irenaus never mentioned anything like Immaculate Conception of Mary or Sacred Heart that wouldn't have taken issue with it.

@@admiraloatmeal I responded but it was deleted it seems.

As for Catholic apologists who have made extensive free content for the public regarding the debate between Catholics and Orthodox, as far as I am aware, Lofton has done the most. What’s the issue?

@@thecatechumen There are far better Catholic apologists than Lofton. In my experience, Lofton often makes weak arguments that have either been refuted or tends to strawman his opponent. Lofton himself concedes that he does not do his research prior to debating or debunking his opponents, showing he does not take his profession seriously. Trent Horn is in my estimation a far superior apologist, despite my theological disagreements with him

@@hippios Trent Horn is great too. I was merely giving an example of someone to look into for Catholic vs. Orthodox topics. While I disagree with you about Lofton, I respect your input. God bless.

@@thecatechumen It might not matter and it does not prove his own views, but Michael Lofton is a contributor to a pro-LGBT and pro-women's ordination website called 'WherePeterIs'.

Jesus established the Catholic Church :)

Where

Considering the rosary was invented in the 13th century, obviously no one prayed the rosary in the 1st century. However, Jesus did established the Catholic Church 🙂

@@thecatechumenso you admit the Roman Catholic Faith is a changing religion?

@@SabbatarianCalvinist Devotional practices can indeed be invented and evolved.. The rosary isn’t a part of the deposit of faith. Those things that were revealed by God in the Apostolic era are immutable, but devotions and disciplines in the other hand are changeable.

I don’t delete comments typically. I hate that your comment didn’t get saved, because I love reading responses and arguments from the other side. It might have gotten deleted automatically if you included any links.

@@thecatechumen Please accept my apology for my comments. I sent several replies and it appeared they were getting deleted and my comments were somehow blocked. Thanks for responding. If I get some time later I will try to resubmit my comment. Again sorry

@@TheOrthodoxLandmarker-jy2zs No worries! If the problems persist, you can always send them via email

Notice how every single one of the verses provided addresses a tangible assembly and not merely refers to an invisible aggregate of all true believers.

​@@thecatechumen *Yes Bible does describe Church as consisting of physical believers and physical churches. But nowhere says it refers to Roman religion - a local church.* BIBLE SPEAKS OF INVISIBLE CHURCH AND VISIBLE CHURCH ONE CHURCH in the BIBLE means ONE SPIRITUAL/INVISIBLE CHURCH with MANY PHYSICAL/VISIBLE CHURCHES. JESUS IS BOTH SPIRIT AND INCARNATION OF GOD IN THE FLESH. IF JESUS AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH IS SPIRIT, THEN HIS CHURCH IS SPIRITUAL/INVISIBLE TOO. JESUS IS ALSO GOD INCARNATE IN THE FLESH. SO THE CHURCH IS ALSO PHYSICAL/VISIBLE. ~~~~~~~ *I. PROOF OF SPIRITUAL INVISIBLE CHURCH:* *Bible is clear:* *Church is the body of Christ consisting of all believers, with Christ as the head.* 1. *Christ kingdom is invisible/spiritual:* Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." 2. *Christ kingdom is within a person:* Luk 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; Luk 17:21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." 3. *Church refers to Christians/believers:* Noticed it says “church in the house”. The house is not the church. But believers are the church. Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. 1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. 4. *Christ is the head:* Eph 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 5. *Believers are the body:* Eph 5:30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ~~~~~~~~~ *II. PROOF OF PHYSICAL VISIBLE CHURCH:* Within the first 60 years of the church age there were already a lot of churches. Local churches mentioned in the Bible: Antioch, Pisidia: Acts 13:14; Gal 1:2 Antioch, Syria: Acts 11:26 (Paul's home base) Athens: Acts 17:34 Babylon: 1 Peter 5:13; Acts 2:9 Berea: Acts 17:11 Caesarea: Acts 10:1,48 Cenchrea: Rom 16:1 Colossae: Col 1:2 Corinth: Acts 18:1 Crete: Titus 1:5 Cyrene: Acts 11:20 Damascus: Acts 9:19 Derbe: Acts 14:20; Gal 1:2 Ephesus: Acts 18:19 Hierapolis Col 4:13 Iconium: Acts 14:1; Gal 1:2 Jerusalem: Acts 2:5 Joppa: Acts 9:36, 38 Laodicea: Rev 1:11, Col 4:15 Lydda: Acts 9:32 Lystra: Acts 14:6; Gal 1:2 Pergamum: Rev 1:11 Philadelphia: Rev 1:11 Philippi: Acts 16:12 Puteoli, Italy: Acts 28:13-14 Rome: Rom 1:7 Sardis: Rev 1:11 Sharon: Acts 9:35 Smyrna: Rev 1:11 Tarsus: Acts 9:30 Thessalonica: Acts 17:1 Thyatira: Rev 1:11; Acts 16:14 Troas: Acts 20:6-7 Regions of churches: Region of Phoencia: Acts 11:19 Region of Samaria: Acts 8:14, 25 Churches of Judea: Gal 1:22 Churches of Galatia: Gal 1:2 Churches of Asia: 1 Cor 16:19 Churches of Macedonia: 2 Cor 8:1

@@thecatechumen *Whichever definitions i take from Scriptures, none refers to a local church called Church of ROme in history (it was called Latin Church or Western Church too).*

what a shallow, illogical thing to say...well dont expect anything more intellectual especially from a Protty

Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church

We don't believe in praying to the saints for the reason you stated.. We believe in praying to the saints, in the same sense we believe that talking to your friends and family and keeping in touch is healthy. God built a family of believers who are in communion here on earth and in the after life, hence why the Church is Universal because it is true in all time, in all places, past, present, future, here, there, in heaven and on earth. It does not distinguish between classes. The rich and the poor worship the same way, in the same opulence sertting. We are rewarded according to our merits which means everyone in Heaven was given a domain, small or big, but regardless, a domain. When we pray to saints, we recognize that they have been blessed with certain power and to extend that power toward us through their prayers to the almighty God.

No.

Protestants and Strawman argument 💆💆

@@idankpoaugustine1983That Yes. There is the Church Triumphant, Militant and the Church Suffering all united as the body of Christ because he is the head of his body the Church, the Catholic Church. Even Protestants are members but in an imperfect way because your founders separated themselves from the body.

@@philosophersbench6595 you do an unmerited service by calling that an argument. It's an assertion made in a vacuum of evidence.

The Catholic Church condemns idolatry 🙂

The rosary is a meditation on the life of Jesus Christ and thus is scripture

The Rosary is a form of contemplative prayer through which you can meditate on the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

​@@katherinec.1497don't waste your time explaining something that a person has no interest in understanding. Some people already chose to believe their own fan fiction about all the evils of God's Church, and no amount of evidence or explaining will change their minds. Not from a human, at least. The Holy Spirit is the only one who'll make them see the Truth.

Where in the Holy Bible does it say "read the Holy Bible"?

Right back at you

@@frekigeri4317 yeah. What’s the gospel of Christ? May God bless

Your understanding of church history is atrocious. Did you know the apostle thomas went to india. The apostle andrew made it all the way to presnt day keiv. They did not restrict thier ministry to isreal. All of the apostles preached to all the world. Peter was the one that initaly recieved that revelation from God in acts and eventually died in Rome. If you are wrong about that why should i trust you about anything else the bible says

@@chrisnewberry6691 ok thanks for those kind words. Can you please let me know what the gospel of your salvation is? How do you get to Heaven? Do you follow the 10 commandments to ATTAIN salvation as prescribed via the Catholic Church?

@@EPH-re2xj let’s see, did the gospel come with Jesus Christ and get taught for 2000 years by the Catholic Church, who was responsible for preserving the Bible or did it come about 1500 years later with Martin Luther and two reprobate kings of England, lol

Wrong

The word catholic was invented by christians to call themselves. Nobody denies that the church originated in jerusalem. Catholics do not reject the finished work of Christ. Dont slander your fellow Christians

Every word is a man made word, by your brilliant logic.

The entire English language was made up by men about 1500 years ago.

Fun fact, the term Christian was a man made word, made up to insult the Christians. But the Christians gladly took it in honour.