This rig and set up has worked great for me & I highly recommend it. And better its affordable if you are one a budget. I just made a vid demonstrating the distances your mention. I post it tonight and link it under this comment. Best of luck!

@@alpha4IV Oh cool, fantastic! Thanks for the great feedback as yes indeed I'm on a budget. looking forward to the new vid!

@@petermarshall5363 Well you are wrong. But let's take it one step at a time. I've looked this up before, but can you list all the verses the Catholic Church has listed an OFFICIAL teaching on? Its not many.

@@petermarshall5363 here is the copy right to the translation: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000 November 11, 2002 Copyright (c) by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

@@petermarshall5363 here is a list of all the verses in the bible that the Catholic Church has definitively defined: Romans 5:12 ("By one man sin entered into this world") refers to original sin. 
 2. I Corinthians 4:7 ("What hast thou that thou hast not received") proves divine grace to be a sheer gift of God. 3. Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc.") must be regarded as prophetic of a Redeemer to come. 
 4. Genesis 3:15 ("I will put enmity between thee and the woman"), and Luke 1:28 ("Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee") contain at least implicitly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 5. Philippians 2:6 ("Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc.") refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation. 
 6. Matthew 16:16-19 ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church") and John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep") contain the doctrine of Papal Supremacy. 
 7. Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren") must be interpreted as providing a basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. 
 8. John 3:5 ("Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God") shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water. 
 9. Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24, recording our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "Do this for a commemoration of me", indicate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the apostles being ordained as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Eucharist. 
 10. Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-29, demand the literal and not merely a symbolical interpretation of our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body," "This is my blood," so that we must hold they teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or Blessed Sacrament. 
 11. Malachi 1:11 ("From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice") is a prediction of the Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 12. John 6:54-57 ("unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood") does not require Communion in both kinds instead of under the form of bread only. 
 13. Matthew 18:18 ("Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven") and John 20:23 ("Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them") prove the Sacrament of Penance and the power of priests to forgive sins in confession. 
 14. James 5:14 ("Is any man sick . . . let him bring in the priests of the Church . . . anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord") teaches the existence of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. 
 15. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37 ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and souls and mind and strength") do not require a love so spiritual and out of this world as to exclude all human emotional feelings and desires based on devotional sentiments. [John 3:5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 
 [Luke 22:19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 

 [1 Cor 11:24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 

 [John 20:22-23] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." 
 [Rom 5:12] Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned - 
 [James 5:14-15] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. One of my sources is Jimmy Akin from a blog list of his.

@@petermarshall5363 Would now like me to copy and past the JB, NJB, & CTS publisher & translator note at the front of their book explaining the relationship between the three and how each developed from the other or are we okay with short hand in KZfaq videos?

@@alpha4IV Thank you so much for the work you have put into your four replies. I was not talking about the bible text but the footnotes. The text is approved but that does not extend to the textual notes. Some of which contradict or a critical of Catholic Teaching. I have copies of the following toog : NABRE, RSV CE, NRSV CE, NIV, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV 2CE), Jerusalem Bible and finally, Orthodox Study Bible. You might also be aware of several errors and omissions in the CTS New Catholic Bible. One example is Daniel 12. Verse 1 is incomplete. The following is missing after the word distress: "unparalleled since nations first came into existence. When that time comes, your own people will be spared, all those whose names are found written in the Book".

thanx

there is only one true church

@@alpha4IV HA HA HA HA HA. Oh! YOU ARE SERIOUS??? LET ME LAUGH EVEN HAR DER. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. SHEEP HA HA HA HA HA SLAVE HA HA HA HA HA HA H SNAKE OIL SALESMAN HA HA HA ....

@@alpha4IV kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n618i7B8ur3Penk.html

The Orthodox are Catholic. One day we will be one again, both sides want the schism to heal. We are two lungs of the same body.

I am so sorry for my lack of energy with your videos. I wasn't expecting to tackle them last evening. But I started late as my father had an issue just before stream and I was distracted. Not my best performance. I promise to examine/analyze any future vids of yours more attentively. Thanks for the great comment.

@@alpha4IV yeah man no worries at all! I've never had to take care of a parent like that so I can't even imagine the kind of mental toll that takes. Shoot me a message when you're ready and I'd love to stream with you!

I like ecumenical editions of the bible, but either the Catholic or Orthodox is fine. Catholic is easier to purchase.

@@alpha4IV i was arguing which one we agree on not which to buy which one is word of god it

The Catholic, The Orthodox and Even the Protestant (short testament ;-)) are all and each the word of God. Deuterocanon literally means second canon and treachery means third tear canon. I'd recommend a Catholic Bible, a Orthodox Bible, or an Ecumenical Bible. Which Translation you pick up really doesn't mater as long as it is a translation and not a paraphrase. To read into my answer, I am saying what I am saying, nothing more nothing less. All three options regardless of translation or language are the accurate. But the Word of God, the Logos, is Jesus Christ. Again, I am saying exactly what I am saying. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Either the Orthodox or the Catholic canon I recommend and stand by. The extra few books in the Orthodox Cannon are acceptable to Catholics and tolerated by the Church.

@@dalecaldwell agreed

I doubt I'm big enough for him to give me the time, but I appreciate the sentiment

@@alpha4IVhe would do it if you reached out I bet you have a thousand subs

@@DrKippDavis I was using the NAB. It translates "humiliated/dishonored" as Violated. I mention it in my "Gavin Said A Thing Video." I think the NAB (New American Bible) leaves less ambiguity but I don't know if it is more accurate.

@@alpha4IV Yeah, the whole point being made there in the video was that the translation of this word is really challenging, and subject to considerable conjecture. Based on its usage in several contexts in which a woman is sexually penetrated, and then devalued, its appearance in Deuteronomy 21 is much more likely a reflection on the depreciation of her sexual utility as a marketable asset. Why? Because in several other instances this sense is conveyed by the responses and expected actions of her male overseers. So, this is why it is really important to know what's going on in the original texts, in their original languages before having strong reactions based on the English translations.

It wasn't his translation choice that was bothering me. It was his callousness. And the term used in the NAB to identify the act that was done by the Male Soldier as a violation of the Captive the wife now ex-wife non-slave as having been violated leaves her with dignity saying that the cost of his admiration or lust can not be restored/paid back thus leave her alone. I am not saying that is how Dan or you would read/understand that passage but as someone who as a younger person went through trauma these words when I first read them and read them since were comforting.

@@DrKippDavisIt wasn't Dan's translation choice that was bothering me. It was his callousness. And the term used in the NAB to identify the act that was done by the Male Soldier as a violation of the Captive the wife now ex-wife non-slave as having been violated leaves her with dignity saying that the cost of his admiration or lust can not be restored/paid back thus leave her alone. I am not saying that is how Dan or you would read/understand that passage but as someone who as a younger person went through trauma these words when I first read them and read them since were comforting.

I don't give a view. I'm also being consistent with both the NAB translation and the consensus of scholarship as presented in the Happer One SBL Study Bible, New Oxford Annotated Ecumenical Study Bible 5th Ed, The Crossway ESV Study Bible, Norton Critical Edition of the KJV commentary, and the Oxford Catholic Study Bible 3rd Ed.

I was being very gentle. Watch Randal Rouser's take on this if you want something with more bite. Or, if you have the stomach for it, watch the diablocritics rewatch/watch-together if you want to see scholars use "evidence" to irreverently eviscerate the "apologetic" used in Gavin's Original Video. And there was no nastiness in my video toward Gavin. His presentation while polished was stupid and ill advised. His wording was sloppy and offensive. I kept my references to the Bible, Livy, and Thucydides. As well as references to personal trauma I experienced as a child and how I personally dealt with such things. Not that any of that makes me an expert on anything. But I have helped others through trauma and recovery, especially in my 20's when I taught self defense along with being a personal trainer and martial arts instructor. I can tell you that Gavin misunderstands what survivors and victims hear when they read a passage such as this.

I am surprised at your comments, only because I've seen you around KZfaq and possibly on Twitter as well although could be someone with a similar handle on Twitter, but I thought you were Catholic. Like, Catholic Catholic. I take from these questions and their phrasing that you aren't. It's very surprising. considering you take the moniker Cafeteria Catholic?

@@alpha4IV I am not at Twitter, but I have commented on a few videos of yours. I chose this handle because firstly I like to point out, that every one is a cafeteria catholic. Because the catholic faith isn't a monolith but a subsummation of all different kind of views and ideas. Secondly, although I have left the visible body of the church, according to catholic teaching I still am a catholic. I reject many teachings the pope utters, like there are to many fa** in the priestly order, I still hold to catholic social teaching or the importance of caring for the poor. Thirdly, I am not against religion, I see value in the community, the ritual and the desire for the transendent. I would prefer a church that focuses on the myth and ritual rather than morality. The fatal flaw christianity brought to the world, was the connection between morals and faith. my understanding is, that ancient polytheism was much more interested in orthopraxy than orthodoxy. Religious wars were not necessary because deities could be syncretised into the well established believesystem. I still enjoy a good liturgy, but I despise it when the priest uses Leviticus to argue against gay marriage. Thankfully Germany is way more progressive than the US catholic church. Perhaps we know, that the second part of the Leviticus passage was still enforced 80 years ago and the church didn't protest against it.

@@CafeteriaCatholic While I appreciate your comments, you've given me too much to respond to succinctly in a comment section. Instead, I will offer some initial and general thoughts here and may provide a longer video reply in the future. The question of anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church is more relevant to me than you may know. I have Sephardic heritage on my paternal side, and John Chrysostom is one of my favorite early church fathers. I handle this issue the same way I handle Paul's apparent anti-Semitism: by placing it in the context of its time and culture, then moving on. I was also surprised to find out that I had read *Quo Primum* and many of the documents you mentioned. Only *Romanus Pontifex* was new to me. Regarding the Catholic Church's relationship and involvement in both conquest and slavery, I could honestly answer in the same way as I did about its apparent anti-Semitism. However, in re-reading your suggested Papal Bulls, I noticed a fatal flaw in your estimations. This flaw also appeared in your second reply to me: you seem to misread history and either impose modern anachronistic ethos or display an overly cynical analysis. What is now considered unacceptable language was simply how people spoke at the time. You also conflate different issues, each deserving its own extensive response. Since I have already addressed anti-Semitism, I will move forward to your questioning of the Catholic Church's historical political heights, which condition is currently non-existent and no longer relevant. To answer your question: yes, the Catholic Church has experienced political corruption. However, this does not invalidate either the Papal office or the Church itself. Another problem with your cherry-picking of events is that you seem to interpret these examples with the worst possible motives, attempting to be either overly cynical or critical. As I engage in anti-apologetics on my channel, I do not feel the need to justify apologetical rhetoric that tries to minimize or recontextualize the bad actions taken by members of the Catholic Church. The truth should speak for itself, but your polemic approach to Catholicism is no better than the apologetic stances you aim to attack. I am not, nor have I ever been, a radical traditionalist. I've never been indoctrinated with that way of thinking or viewing the Church. I am a cradle Catholic who left the Church at 13 and returned at the age of 33. I have read extensively on Greek and Roman history, as well as some Mediterranean and Middle Eastern writings, all of the ancient type (in translation, of course). I also read almost all the major religious scriptures from other faiths long before I finished the Bible all the way through for the first time. My perspective on Catholicism is probably very different from yours. That being said, I do spot heresy and schismatic tendencies in some of your stated opinions. However, as I am no bishop, I will not label you as such. I grew up in the post-Vatican II Church and live in the spirit of Vatican II. Until the Church holds another binding Ecumenical Council in my lifetime, that is the spirit I will probably live under for the rest of my life. I have no problem with this and have a distaste for radical traditionalists, fundamentalists, and extremists of all stripes. As I hinted earlier, your views of world history and church history seem flawed. While you are overly cynical in your estimation of church history, you appear overly naïve and optimistic in your understanding of ancient world history. For instance, you claim that "Ancient polytheism emphasized orthopraxy over orthodoxy, which allowed for syncretism and the avoidance of religious wars." As someone who has spent a great deal of time-possibly over 600 books-studying the ancient world, mostly Greece and especially the Mycenaean period, but also with a love for almost all ancient cultures, especially anything pre-1000 BC, I can say that your view of their polytheism and ecumenical nature is naïve at best and counter to the truth at worst. Religious warfare did not begin with Judaism or Christianity. I hope this helps with your understanding of my position. If I do a video follow-up to these questions, I will give you credit in the video.

@@alpha4IV You are right about my statements concerning polytheism. I was probably a bit too engaged. I am well aware that the official church would consider my views heretical but given the fact that I am kind of excommunicated that is only fitting. Maybe i misunderstood the term cafeteria catholic but I am under the impression it conotes someone who picks and chooses the parts he likes and rejects other parts. I guess my main problem is to see any signs of the divine in church history. Much like in bible history and probably the most important in my history. That led me to deconstruct most of my previous beliefs. Including the idea that G*d is an allpowerful allknowing and allloving creature. (creature is probably not the right term) I am not even sure a god exists. So probably the term agnostic catholic would be better. If you choose to answer in a video, firstly thank you for your effort. Secondly I know the polemical nature of my response, the thing I am most interested in, is the question wether the church fathers played a role in creating the cultural context in wich the medieval antisemitism/judaism could arise. Not knowingly or intentionaly but accidental. I can relate to your argument about Vatican II being the newest binding council, before my deconstruction I would have been in the same place. I guess behind my question concerning antisemitism lies a theodicy, God knew what would happen in my Country. When the N*** arrived they didn't need to teach antisemtism. They had secularized a religious tradition that grew out of othering and persecution by christians. Sometimes against the teaching of the church and sometimes with her blessing. Why didn't God protect his church from introducing such ideas in the minds of christians? I am sorry that my responses are so long, it is the first time I share these thoughts and I am doing this in a language that isn't my native tounge.

Who built it though?

​@koppite9600 I don't know "who". But I know they built this city on rock n roll!

You didn't even attempt a Google search? For how long will you be in denial?

@@koppite9600 I don't care who built what church. That's why I didn't Google anything.

@@B.S._Lewis It's not like we can't tell when a person is in denial.

He has arrived at that conclusion.

Gavin or Trent would have done better as would have Jimmy. & I think Trent and Alex have gone a few spars.