Welcome to The Catholic Voice. This channel is dedicated to educating people on Catholicism, refuting, live debates, and more. If you like the sound of that, subscribe and contribute to us!
Brother as a fellow Catholic I appreciate u defending are beliefs.. but u gotta press em on that whole free will thing God endowed us with. an Jesus himself saying not everyone who says Lord Lord will be in my Kingdom .but those who follow my father's will.. that already right there is action.protestants dance around the world doin works so much an say you gotta do basically the same thing as Catholic doctrine.. but say but acting out ur faith by doin as Christ isn't doin anything jus believing.. I guess all those christiansfor the first 1500 years are wrong
Whole family was Catholic highly recommend looking at the information from read also from the Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible from your perspective and not from you where taught
1.Which Jews is Roman's 3:3? The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Those that followed Jesus were all Jews and used those books.2. Jesus and the Apostle quoted from the Dueterocanonicals. 3.Their were Prophets around Prophetess Anna, so their were Prophets he stated their were no Prophets for 400 years before Christ, so he is in error. 4 Jews did accept and some didn't. 5 Josephus belonged to the Pharisees. So he accepted only certain books but the Sadducees accepted 5, Essenes accepted the Septuagint, Bereans accepted the Septuagint. AND Timothy accepted the Septuagint too. You did a great bro.
Wonderful job dealing with his initial talking points on the canon. I find that the vast majority of the reasons he cites to reject the deuterocanon are arbitrarily drawn up and applied (i.e. he doesn't have an objective way of grounding the criteria or of applying it only to the deuterocanon). Ex: He says none of the deuterocanon were cited or alluded to by Jesus or the Apostles (debatable). Yet, when we point out instances we think are alluding to what is written in a deuterocanonical book they say "well just because it's alluded to/cited doesn't mean it's Scripture." Or when we point out that books like Esther are no where cited in the NT, their criteria all of a sudden shifts.
was Mary sinless? no I don’t believe that. She was 14 when she was imbued with the Holy Spirit so how much could she have sinned? did she turn away from sin yea I can believe that but that she was born sinless nope.
What is so sad is that these "pastors" and non-catholics actually believe they know what the Catholic Church teaches, without ever reading or trying to understand what the church teaches. Everything is out of ignorance - yet their hearts are so hard, there ears so blocked, their eyes so blind, their opinions so important to themselves, even if they did read the catechism, I doubt they would be able to understand. We need to pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters. Keep up the good work @TheCatholicVoice! Even though sometimes it feels like vain repetition when talking with multiple protestants - just maybe, one comment will be inspired and one reader will find the Holy Spirit make that seed grow in their own hearts.
Stop spreading your christianity.Whole world has known this.Your countries keep your religion with you okay dont poke us useless fellows.If there was peace in your religion where is peace in Israel and Palestine.Only humanity survives
Regarding the cabin: 1) the text cited if Josephus is written in a polemic against pagans. Obviously he is going to steel man the Jewish position by claiming a uniformity that is clearly not there based on the Sadducees rejection of resurrection and the dead sea scrolls 2) he mentions the "law and the prophets" and says the deuterocannocial does not fit into that. But neither does the mutual history books we accept like kings and chronicles 3) he states that the oracles were received by the Jews. That's all. We all agree that the Jews wrote and received the deuterocannocial. But scripture doesn't say the Jews will DETERMINE or infallibly discern the canon. So therefore the argument assumes this... Unfairly To use a metaphor: St Paul: "the groceries were delivered to the Jews" That doesn't mean Bob put all the groceries in the cupboard. It means all the groceries were given to bob 🤷♂️
Rom 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to _all men_ because _all sinned"_ How many have sinned? All except Mary, right? Uh, nope, that's not what it says. It says ALL have sinned, and death spread to ALL humans. Rom 3:23-24 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" All except Mary? No. ALL have sinned. The only exception is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, because He alone was not subject to the Original Sin which descends from Adam through the fathers of men; Jesus' Father is God the Father. Stop and think for a minute. Paul wrote this letter to the Romans, by special divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit, as Truth from God to us. It was written several years after Christ's ascension. In those years, Paul met Mary and Paul spent time in Jerusalem with some of the other Apostles. If Mary were regarded as another exception... if she were considered to be so sinless as to not need the salvation from sin (through faith in the Savior) that all humans desperately need, wouldn't Paul have mentioned such an important detail to the churches in his letters? Wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to teach the church in Rome that Mary was uniquely holy and that all _except for her_ have sinned? If Mary were such a big deal in the church of the Apostolic Age as she is in the modern Roman Catholic Church, why are there no teachings about her in Acts or the Epistles, beyond the statement in Acts 2 that she was present and praying in the upper room with the other disciples? Was Mary sinless? Mary didn't think so; Mary acknowledged her need of a Savior. Luke 1:46-47 "And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and _my spirit rejoices in _*_God my Savior""_* If (as you claim) Mary was "free from sin from the very start," she didn't show it! John Chrysostom certainly didn't think Mary was sinless. He believed that Mary exhibited the sins of pridefulness and vanity at being the mother of Jesus. Look at what he said in his Homily #44 (I quote from NewAdvent dot org): "And this is hence especially manifest. "For while He yet talked to the people," it is said, "one told Him, Your mother and Your brethren seek You." But He says, "who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact *that which she had essayed to do, was **_of superfluous vanity;_** in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son,* imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; *they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a **_superfluous vanity,_** and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.* And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, "While He yet talked to the people;" as if he should say, What? Was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" BTW, Luke 1:28 is rarely translated "full of grace" by Bible scholars. You'll generally find this phrase in the Catholic Bibles such as the Douay-Rheims translation, but most Bibles use the phrase, "highly favored" to indicate that the idea of _fullness_ (of grace or favor) is an unwarranted interpolation of the Greek word _charitoō._ This Greek word only appears in one other place, Ephesians 1:6 -- "to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has *blessed* _(charitoō)_ us in the Beloved." (Some translations render this, "bestowed favor" or "made us accepted.") If you want to be consistent in your hermenetics, you would be obliged to translate this as saying that God has made all Christians _full of grace_ through faith in Jesus Christ. If you read early church history, take note that the cult of Mary was totally unknown for the first 150 years of the church. In the late 2nd Century, Gnostic-influenced documents which magnified Mary to some degree were written and began to circulate among the churches. The Protevangelium of James was the first; it contained errors of doctrine and history (such as, Herod did not martyr John the Baptist, and Mary never arrived in Bethlehem but gave birth in a cave along the road). Next came "The Book of Mary's Repose;" which teaches falsely that Jesus is a created being (not Almighty God) and it falsely characterizes Mary as the dispenser secret passwords necessary for salvation! Not long after this came the “Pistis Sophia,” which relates an alleged conversation between the recently-risen Christ and His followers, portrays Mary as “a learned master of the cosmic mysteries” in that she received “secrets directly from her son and interpreted them for her son’s followers.” The “Gospel of Bartholomew” also portrays Mary in a similar role; she fields questions from the disciples and explains “the sacred mysteries” to them; when asked how she bore such greatness in bearing the Christ-child in her womb, Mary purportedly warns them that if she were to tell them the answer, “fire will come out of my mouth and consume the whole earth.” The “cult of Mary” picks up even more written support in the Fourth Century with the writing of the “Six Books Dormition Apocryphon.” In this document, set in the days following Christ’s ascension, the apostles are portrayed in open veneration of Mary. A Roman governor kneels before Mary and venerates her. Even more significantly, the sun and the moon venerate Mary in the upper room where she resides! After her death, the patriarchs and the prophets venerate her, too. The “Six Books” contains numerous accounts of Mary’s successful intercession with her Son on behalf of Christians. Many healings and miracles are attributed to her intercessions. A significant number of her intercessory prayers are for agriculture and fertility, which shows that _Mary was the replacement for the pagan goddesses_ of these popular causes at a time in history when Christianity had been declared the state religion and numerous pagans were joining the churches _because it had become the popular thing to do._ Do you see the progression? After Acts 2, Mary recedes into the background and the Apostles say nothing about her; Mary becomes just another believer and follower of her Lord, Jesus the Messiah. But the Gnostics pump her up more and more as time goes on, and within the space of about 200-300 years people are seen praying to Mary, venerating her, and attributing miracles to her. But a rotten root cannot produce a healthy tree. If Mary were truly someone worthy of hyperdulia, prayers, and dogmas, _surely the Apostles would have mentioned something!_ Truly, Mary was greatly privileged to be chosen as the mother of Jesus, the incarnation of God. But let's not make her out to be more than she was. If not for Mary, then God would have chosen some other Jewish virgin to be the mother of Jesus; He would never have surrendered His plan of redemption for all mankind for lack of one particular young girl. We should never have gotten to the place where people attribute outlandish, Godlike qualities to Mary. Consider some of the absurd things written by _canonized_ Roman Catholics: St. Antoninus: "God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but also under the dominion of Mary." St. Anselm: "The Lord, oh holy Virgin, has so highly exalted thee, that by his favor thou canst obtain all possible graces for thy servants, for thy protection is omnipotent. Thy help is omnipotent, oh Mary." Richard of St. Laurence: "Our salvation is in the hands of Mary." Richard of St. Laurence: "Jesus said of his mother: _No one comes to me unless my mother draw him with her prayers.”_ St. Bernardine of Sienna: "Oh Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and (since) we must receive the grace of salvation through thy hand alone, then our salvation depends on thee.” St. Bernardine of Sienna: "God listens to her prayers as though they were commands." St. Alphonsus Liguori: “Mary is called the co-operatrix with her Son in our justification, because God has committed to her keeping all the graces that he has destined for us. Wherefore St. Bernard affirms, that all men, past, present, and to come, should regard her as the medium and negotiator of the salvation of all ages." The above statements are heretical and borderline-blasphemous, for they virtually deify Mary and make her co-equal with God the Son. - - - - - James 3:1 "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that _we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."_ 1Tim 5:17 "Let the _elders who rule well be_ considered worthy of double honor, especially _those who labor in preaching and teaching."_ This gray-haired elder and former cradle Catholic prays that you may have many more decades in which to study and learn. Peace.
How could Our Lord be in a womb of a woman with sin?? This is God. He’s too holy . I love Mother Mary if she is loved by Jesus then she is my Holy Mother too.❤
@@marthacannizzo4791 How could our Lord be in a world that is sinful? The Bible says He humbled Himself to become man and to die for sinners (Philippians 2:8). The Bible says that God the Holy Spirit indwells every believer. If you are a believer and follower of Christ, the local Real Presence of God lives inside of you. Yet you are a sinner, saved only by grace. How can God live inside a sinner? Do you suppose that the Holy Spirit flees in disgust every time you sin? To say that our Lord could not be born of a sinful young woman because He is "too holy" is to deny the power and the love of our Almighty, merciful Savior. Rom 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Rom 5:7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- Rom 5:8 but _God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us._ Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, _we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him_ from the wrath of God. Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
You don't understand WHY Mary is held in such high esteem by Catholics. It is not that she did anything by her own merit. Christ chose her to be his own mother. He gave her a unique and special grace to be preserved from sin. That grace still comes from His saving death on the Cross, such that she can rightly say God is her savior in her Magnificat of Luke 2. To give a counter from the Patristics, consider what St Augustine (a favorite among the Protestant Reformers, despite his thoroughly Catholic writings) wrote about Holy Mary. In his treatise On Nature and Grace, St Augustine wrote against the heresiarch Pelagius, who erroneously taught that many biblical figures inclusing Mary had lived sinless lives meriting eternal life. Augustine explicitly repudiates this in ch.42 and emphasizes that the only mere human to be sinless was Holy Mary, by the special grace of Christ her son. He says "We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." Also, in ch.6 of his treatise on Holy Virginity, St Augustine emphasizes that Holy Mary is the Mother of the Church, that she, in the Spirit, is "clearly the mother of His members, which are we: in that she wrought together by charity, that faithful ones should be born in the Church, who are members of That Head: but in the flesh, the mother of the Head Himself." I'm more inclined to trust St Augustine than online commenters...
Noticed this ages later, 12:53 sounds like I cussed but I promise you that my headphones muffle outside sound. I did say “shoot”, but it sounds odd because again my headphones muffle sound outside.
@@kwing6017 At best they'll try to point to how James says "I will show you my faith by my works" to a hypothetical person saying "you have faith and I have works" as if the point of works is simply to boast before other men how much better your faith is than theirs, but also God doesn't care about it at all (perhaps this is an uncharitable understanding). The common protestant way of explaining James 2 is that works are merely evidence of faith, rather than something that genuinely plays a part in our being made right before God (in that it completes grace and faith). But the only reason I can think of for being justified (made right) before man is so that other men can trust you as someone credible, like if you're teaching something (which is simply not the point of James 2).
Ryan’s question at 33:30, basically if you trust in God today but later you sin 5 times and then die, do you still go to heaven? In one sense this severely underestimates the fact that sin offends God and that it leads to death, mortal sin in particular. This question is like asking “today I trust in you God” then tomorrow committing murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and blasphemy all in the same day and still expecting to be saved. That’s obviously insane, because Ezekiel tells us how you can’t be expected to be saved for your righteousness today if tomorrow you turn to wickedness as if your past good deeds compensate for your present evil deeds. The other sense of this question is that you sin venially out of your human weakness but still trying to remain a friend of God. In that sense yes you can still go to heaven (with some cleaning up to do first). But I don’t think Ryan makes that distinction.
What does it mean to be saved by faith alone? Faith is a trust in revealed truth. The question I may have is how does this trust itself save us? First, what exactly are we trusting in? We put trust in something by assenting to it (that’s at least part of it). Assenting to _what_ exactly? That by Jesus dying for our sins and rising to eternal life and by our coming into communion with him, we can rise to life even if we die. That’s perhaps one precise thing to assent to. Is it now the case that this assent alone is good enough to merit righteousness? Surely trusting in this is more than just intellectual assent? Real trust impacts how you act, so if you don’t act in accord to your assent, it can’t be a meritorious trust. We also must trust that in order to love god we must keep his commandments. After all, we are told that we will be judged according to our works. It is sin which leads to death, and sin is an act, so how do we have good acts to be judged by instead? We are saved by being righteous, the question is how to become righteous? Firstly those sins need to be removed, and then life in righteousness must be lived out. Obviously it can’t be done all on our own apart from grace, because we can’t earn God’s infinite favor no matter how many deeds we may heap up, as if we can boast of our own goodness. Sin is only wiped away and genuine good deeds are done in response to the promptings of God’s grace (not prior to it, but after it). I return to the question of how faith relates to this, which is what I’m curious about. We perhaps know these promptings of grace through faith, ie trust in the claims that sins can be forgiven by a crucified man and that that good deeds are in fact meritorious for life in heaven. Because who in their right mind would feed a hungry man instead of themselves if there was no merit to be gained from it regarding life in heaven? You first have to be moved by grace to do that. I think there’s a sense in which we are righteous by our deeds (in the sense that we’ll be judged by them) and there’s another sense in which we are righteous by grace (in the sense that we cannot be righteous without it). Equivocating is what causes all the disputation. TL;DR me thinking out loud
Heads up, don’t let them call the Deuterocanonical book apocryphal. Apocrypha means hidden and was specific to the “Gnostic” writings. The 7 books they removed were never hidden and not connected at all with Gnostics. Also don’t use Maccabees for purgatory. That was before Jesus’s resurrection so it doesn’t apply to Christians. Keep up the great work
0nIine christians are sI0wIy kiIIing christianity they d0 m0re damage t0 "faith" than an army 0f atheists ever c0uId they exp0se their fIexibIe "m0raIs," their inabiIity t0 think criticaIIy and their chiIdish 0bsessi0n with an imm0raI invisibIe man the reaI c0medy is when they argue 0ver wh0 kn0ws what the invisibIe man wants and surprise, surprise they aII cIaim t0 be c0rrect they aII get their c0nfirmati0n fr0m the same imm0raI ancient b00k despite there being severaI ancient b00ks they arr0gantIy kn0w their`s is the c0rrect 0ne I appIaud y0ur eff0rts in highIighting h0w christians c0ntradict each 0ther c0nstantIy t0 the p0int 0f absudity
I just started watching it and I unfortunately will have to listen to it in bits and pieces because I’m tied up with several things but this dude from @needGodnet, starting at around 2:26, commits the biggest flaw that Protestants have. They use a crippled bible in the KJB. First of all they deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals as they were removed, if I’m not mistaken in 1825 by some British printing company. Martin Luther didn’t like them however, they were still included in the KJB but not as part of it; just something that made a good read. ML and others didn’t believe they were inspired, that is why they go all over the place with their own interpretations and form their own churches, splitting over and over and over, ad infinitum. He seems to be comparing the CC to the Mormons. He says He goes to the Jewish people, but they deny Jesus, so does he want to follow their footsteps? If so, then he also should deny Jesus. Protestants fail to understand that King James had NO, absolutely NO authority to have a new version of the bible written. The CC canonized the bible WITH THE AUTHORITY given to Her by Jesus Christ. King Jimmy was a secular leader. It’s just like as if there had been a bible authorized by President Obama and calling it the true bible and he removed several books. Luther didn’t think the Letter of James or even Revelations should be part of the bible but they were kept anyway. This dude lacks wisdom as the Book of Wisdom was removed from the True bible and he hasn’t studied it, or maybe he has, but since he has, as I said, a crippled bible, he will not believe anything that is written in them. The CC canonized the bible in 382 AD and approved by Pope Damasus and the CC Bible has remained the same since then. Those that protested didn’t like what was in them as they would have had to remain Catholic. BTW this dude from @needGod.org was spanked in a debate with Alex from voice of reason.
This wasn't a debate, and it was barely a "discussion", which you also say it is. This is you hijacking a Q&A session, trying to steamroll. If you want a debate, arrange it properly with someone who agrees to debate you.
Great explanation Ryan. God bless you for explaining the simplicity of the gospel to this young man. May God open him up to the truth and make him trust(have faith) our Lord
If Christ is the parachute, I see having faith in it (i.e. in Jesus) as actually putting it on (so trusting in Jesus that He will save you from sin and death, which Protestants do) but then actually _jumping_ from the plane, taking action (living that faith in the real world). Saying you have faith in Christ (merely trusting in the parachute) whilst remaining in the plane that will crash (indulging in the desires of the flesh and putting the things of this world above God) is not going to save you. God is our strength, he is the only one who can save us from sin. Therefore, to be saved is to rely on Him, rely on his grace, rely on his plan for you, and that means taking action. If a man wants to overcome porn, it's not just a mental act, it's surrendering yourself to God because you know he's the only who can set you free, and surrendering looks like actually talking with Him, building your relationship, because if you want to trust in God, you must try to nurture a relationship, because trust only increases with a relationship, and every relationship is based on trust. It means not thinking you will be strong enough on the internet alone in a room, hence, asking God to help you change your lifestyle etc. Sola Fide allows for moral laziness because our actions don't affect our salvation, which is so not true. I can't see that doctrine having divine origin. It's true my actions can't _earn_ me heaven, but they can get me in hell!
3:29 thats a blatant lie, everyone had different canons, especially about the epistles, some even considerated ester to not be canon (athanasius) which protestants have in their canon, some disregarded hebrews, others disregarded revelations, not to mention that the apocriphal have to be scripture because Jesus quotes them all the time, infact wisdom is the first book to teach imortality of the soul, and heaven, its the first book ever to talk about a holy Spirit. If everyone taught the 66 canon is the correct one than in would be the canon today lol, furthemore did the early christians taught infalliably when its convinient for him? But when its about the eucarist, when its about no salvation outside the church, when its about infant baptism, its like : no bro trust scripture
Well done man! Make sure you contact your bishop to make sure he's cool with you naming your channel "The Catholic Voice". If you include "Catholic" in you channel name, you run up against Canon 216 in the Code of Canon Law. After watching this video though, you have nothing to worry about.
13:04. Ryan says, “I see continuing in His kindness is continuing to believe.” Imitating Gods kindness is not described as believing ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE to my knowledge. Why does he equate charity with faith? They are not the same. 1 Corinthians 13.13- faith, hope, and love are three things that will last forever, AND THAT LOVE IS THE GREATEST OF THE THREE.” Love is greater than faith. Acts of love are greater than acts of faith, I would believe….
I think they're all separate but linked concepts, I doubt God is worried about who discerns between them because acting from either should reflect the others.
Keep doing what you’re doing. Debating is an acquired skill and, sadly, being right doesn’t mean you’re gonna win. Don’t be fooled by the Protestants who follow a perversion of Christianity which has come forth in the last few hundred years… Keep up the good work. It is hard to undo heresy that a person has built his entire Christian life upon…The entire Protestant view of God, Christianity, salvation, is warped. About a question he asked: “If God has judged you based on how you’ve lived, would you go to heaven or hell?” I see what he’s trying to ask, but is this not just the same question as “are you going to go to heaven or hell?” I say this because God DOES judge off based on how we’ve lived. Needgotdotnet proposes this idea as if it’s a hypothetical 😂 The thing is, while how we’ve lived does include sin, it also includes turning away from that sin and choosing God and staying in Gods grace. God isn’t only judging us based of our sins… If God isn’t judging us based off of our lives, what is He judging us on??? If He sees we have lived a sanctified life, then He will reward us. If He sees that we have lived a life of unrighteousness to the very end, then He will not. Am I missing something? The answer to Ryan’s question in this context would be yes…right?
I`m unsure why a gen0cidaI, baby murdering, sIavery c0nd0ning, invisibIe man w0uId have any right t0 pass judgement 0n any0ne given that adam and eve are fictiti0us, as dna c0nfirms, I cann0t be heId resp0nsibIe f0r the aIIeged acti0ns 0f fictiti0us characters, in the same way I am n0t resp0nsibIe f0r the murder 0n the 0rient express f0r instance erg0, I am n0t a "sinner" have never sinned against an invisibIe man
The Catholic Church did not outright ban the translation of the Bible into the common vernacular. However, they did restrict and prohibit the possession, reading, and use of certain editions and translations of the Bible. The Church preferred to keep the Latin language as the liturgical language, even when no one else spoke it. They also provided only a few difficult-to-access "chained Bibles" and forbade Bible translations in the vernacular. The modern belief that medieval Catholicism opposed translation of scripture into the vernacular is largely exaggerated and misleading.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty What just like the martyr St. Thomas More for us Catholics brave solider of Jesus Christ who stood against the tyranny of a king even though he lived a life of comfort in that kings court. Killed for being Catholic and faithful to the true faith, a smart faithful man of God who could see that King Henry 8th was taking England down an ungodly path by make his own Christianity. The Catholics when England turned to the Anglican religion had all there property and wealth taken from them if they didn't convert, most lost their very lives. Centuries of religious persecution, catholic were not allow to meet together to celebrate mass until the 1800s.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty No William Tyndale was a troublemaker with wild ideas and got what was coming to him. It was thanks to him that King Henry 8th decided that England will become a theocracy under a King, and there for gave himself the right to stealing property, wealth, and the lives from the Catholics living in his country. You're not fooling anyone that knows history with your appeals to emotion. William Tyndale wasn't executed because he translated the Bible. He was executed for sedition and possible regicide amongst many other charges. So you're the one that is incorrect.
@@TryingToFollowChrist37Trading atrocity for atrocity does not detract from the point that your original comment is a blatant lie. Also research John Wycliffe and the execution of Jan Hus.
Such a straw man to say we believe that our actions amount to anything compared to God's mercy. But what they do is express walking in Christ and building a *relationship* with him. To be part of his body
The early renditions of the KJV had the Deuterocanon. It was later removed by the Reformers. This is very concerning because the church held those books to be scripture. Luther wanted to remove the Book of Hebrews, James and I believe Revelation but was ultimately talked out of it. Fast forward to our time and there are scholars that are now saying that some of Paul's letters and other epistles are spurious. If Protestants remain consistent, they would have to consider removing those books in question as well. Need God keeps saying "we don't think they are scripture" for X reason. First, I don't know who "we" is but if he just follows his line of reasoning that the scholars take, he will end up siding with them or even Luther.
Church leaders who rejected the Apocryphal books: 5th Century: Jerome, Rufinius 6th Century: Pope Gregory the Great, Bishop Julinius, Bishop Primasius, Anatasius of Antioch, Leontius 8th Century: John of Damascus, Venerable Bede 9th Century: Alcuin, Nicephorus of Constaniople, Agobard of Lyons, Walafrid Strabo, Haymo of Halberstadt, Ambrose of Autpert 10th Century: Radulphus Flavicencius 12th Century: Zonaras, Rupert of Tuits, Peterus Mauritius, Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, John Beleth, Bishop John of Salisbury, Honorius of Autun, Peter Comestor, Peter Mauritius, Adam Scotus, Philip of Harvengt 13th Century: Glossa Ordinaria ("the tongue of Scripture" and "the bible of scholasticism" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia), Archbishop Johannes de Columna, Nicholas of Lira, William Occham, Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher 15th Century: Archbishop Antoninus, Bishop Alphonsus Tostatus, Cardinal/ Archbishop Francis Ximenius, Jacob Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Alonso Tostado, Dionysius the Carthusian, Thomas Walden 16th Century: Jean Driedo, John Ferus, Cardinal Cajetan, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis. Those who voted against the inclusion of the Apocryphal books at Trent. Cardinal Seripando, Bishop Bertano, Bishop Nacchianti, "the Servite general" (Bonuccio), Cardinal Madruzzo, Bishop Fonseca, "the Carmelite general" (Nicholas Audet), Bishop of Agde, and the Bishop of Carole. Check out @ProtestantNotes on insta for more.
Additionally, the earliest canon list, made by Melito of Sardis had no apocryphal books. 39 OT, 21 NT (exclusion of the NT “antiligomena”) Josephus, a second Temple Jew, uses the 39 book OT. Eusebius records the Protestant Canon as his.
Please note that the Council of Trent is considered as an ecumenical council. Consult the lower portion of my previous post to see those who voted against the apocryphal books at Trent. The 39 book proto canon has never been contested. The apocryphal books always have been questioned, even in the council that declared them as canon.
The parachute saves you but you still have to put it on. It's sad that protestants manipulate the scripture to fit their ideology. You need the faith to believe the parachute can be used to save you, that causes you to put it on.
