A Brief Biblical Argument for the Papacy (…this aged well 🙂)

Подписаться 8 тыс.

Просмотров 3,6 тыс.

50% 1

Back when Cameron Bertuzzi (host of the fantastic channel, ‪@CapturingChristianity‬ ) was wrestling with the biblical and historical arguments for the papacy as a Protestant, we included this little biblical argument for the papacy at the tail end of our “Did Peter Leave a Successor in Rome” episode.
We have heard the arguments from Matthew 16 and John 21, but an often neglected text is Acts 15 (especially in the light of the information we presented in our Jerusalem Council episodes). There is perhaps no biblical text that better demonstrates the full pattern of authoritative decision-making in the Church.
Leave us your thoughts!
LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE!
SOCIAL:
/ thecatholicb.. .
/ thecatholic.. .
/ thecathbros
NOW STREAMING ON ALL MAJOR PODCASTING PLATFORMS!
SEND US AN EMAIL WITH QUESTIONS OR TOPIC REQUESTS:
thecatholicbrothers@gmail.com

Опубликовано:

27 ноя 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 168

@matthewjamesb.234 Год назад

Damn I’m Orthodox but that last 2 minutes my man had me nodding my head lol. Good stuff

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

😂 thanks Matthew! Glad that it didn’t come off polemic-y. One of our pet peeves is invective in either direction between Orthodox and Catholics. Thanks for listening, brother👍🏻

@JR-tl8tg Год назад

Damn good you guys make it so clear keep it coming guys. Here's why history is so important it clearly shows the sequences of events especially so when it comes to to church teachings.

@chrishorton8213 Год назад

One of the best videos I’ve seen about the papacy

@southpawhammer8644 Год назад

OMG love the thumb nail LoL 😆

@BrianHoldsworth 4 месяца назад

Subbed!

@TheCatholicBrothers 4 месяца назад

Honored!!

@catholic3dod790 Год назад

Hi, Catholic brothers There are a lot of Catholic Three Days of Darkness on RU-vid videos and links. But I don't hear much about orthodoxy three days of darkness. Everytime, I heard a lot of errors from protestantism about the 3 DOD. What do you think about orthodoxy three days of darkness?

@francikeen 5 месяцев назад

The 3 Days of Darkness are pre-figured by the Days of Darkness upon Egypt at the time of Moses & the Exodus. And the 5th Bowl of Wrath of the Apocalypse describes days of darkness, without numbering them. (Rev 16:10-11) You may already know that. I just find it interesting!

@billdavis5483 Год назад

So in acts 15:19 it is James that said "Therefore my judgement..." . and he lays it out in a specific way. It is Peter that silenced the council and basically said we should not put the yoke upon the gentiles. James took his lead from Peter and fleshed out a doctrine. It is the judgement of James in composing something that goes along with what Peter said and includes other things to satisfy some party.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

If I’m understanding your comment, I would say “Not quite.” Pay attention to what Peter decides (the actual matter at hand) and what James decides (how to #1 synthesize this decision with Levitical Law and #2 how to tangibly implement the decision in Jerusalem and beyond). The first is the function of the Primate, and the second the function of the canonist. We are not calling for an anachronistic read of Acts 15 where we eisogetically apply later titles and categories to the biblical text, but to merely mark the pattern of authoritative decision-making among the Apostles and to recognize in later superstructures the perpetuation of that same, basic formula.

@brianfarley926 Год назад

All the Bishops to this day when they make a declaration at an Ecumenical Council says, “Therefore my judgment…” translation means in his opinion, his view of the subject. He was in agreement with what Peter stated. And if you back up further into Acts it was Peter who given revelation from God about gentiles being brought into the church, he was given revelation by God about dietary laws being done away with and it was Peter who began Apostolic succession with Barnabas. Then Peter formally declared that circumcision is no longer the entrance into the faith by gentiles and then they all fell silent. James was making a prudential decision that was in alignment with what Peter declared. And what Peter declared went against the OT so it was upon Peters authority that he was overriding Scripture as they understand it. It’s the Church through Peters authority given to him by Christ that enables this

@josephpostma1787 Год назад

When I was a Catholic I would have said if the early church had the councils and the same church continued to have them to this day, how can Orthodoxy be the original post-100ad church?

@GoIrish2026 Год назад

Why aren’t you Catholic anymore?

@josephpostma1787 Год назад

For about a year a Steubenville conference inspired me to care about the faith and be devout. I realized I only believed because of my environment. I looked at Christian apologetics hoping to return to the faith. I also asked God to clearly show himself to me. I never got a clear response and the apologetics sounded insufficient. I then became a deist. Now I am an agnostic atheist. I hope this gives another viewpoint.

@brianfarley926 Год назад

It’s not. Orthodoxy was Catholic until the great schism. One church. They became there own branch once they decided to stay in schism which really finalized at the Council of Florence

@francikeen 5 месяцев назад

@@josephpostma1787 Joseph, your loss of faith was also inspired by your environment. We are constantly surrounded by environments, either righteous or unrighteous environments.

@josephpostma1787 5 месяцев назад

@@francikeen Insofar as any of our ideas are, I agree. Also, add in neutral environments.

@ronaldcatapang5739 Год назад

" ye are the temple of the living God". 2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God : as God has said ,I will dwell in them ,and walk in them;and I will be their God,and they shall be my people . Colossians 2:8-10 KJV Beware lest any man spoils you through philosophy and vain deceit,after the tradition of man ,after the rudiments if the world and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily . 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 KJV Let no man deceive you by any means that the day shall not come ,except there shall come the falling away first ,and that man of sin be revealed ,the son of perdition. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth at the temple of God ,showing himself that he is God." " Most holy father"? - blasphemy ! Wake up Brethrens! Its high time to awake from you're sleep! " For ye are the temple of the living God" - 2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV

@yohansuy3096 Год назад

Its only claims. Not the truth.

@JH324 Год назад

Thinking Peter holds the keys rather than Jesus is like renting your faith vs owning Salvation

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

Explain. So you don’t believe that Jesus entrusted *His* keys of the kingdom to Peter? Do you have a biblical or historical argument to the contrary?

@zealandsword9557 Год назад

@@TheCatholicBrothers Biblical literalism on a holistic or within a flawed selective and applicable process will outweigh the balance of the associated reality in regards to Christian theology, infallibility thereof, due to tradition or scripture. Theological discrepancies applied after a theological event can present serious deviation in terms of theoretical application and interpretation, foreign to its form from inception, I.e. branches of the Church, Islam, Judaism. As we have interpreted, certainly if you’re Catholic nonetheless, or Orthodox, (metaphorically mostly for Protestantism), biblical literalism in our modern day interpretational dialogue, is not the actual and full way of interpreting the word and neither are basic capabilities of deduction prevalent, as we all should walk around eyeless, handless if we’ve sinned, must remove logs out of eyes, must concede to the notion that even the first among equals is actually Satan, etc. We must be careful to assume certainty within the realm of possibility as per the examples above.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

@@zealandsword9557 we are not biblical literalists. However, though in another realm it is otherwise, down here the “elevator pitch” is often useful for laity when they work through the tradition, so expounding Acts 15 with attention to patterns of decision-making and demonstrating its congruence with how the Church made decisions thereafter, is useful. That there is more nuance to any given biblical text is a given. However, even in this case, even the nuanced picture (see our full Jerusalem council episode) still lends itself to a Catholic understanding of the event.

@zealandsword9557 Год назад

@@TheCatholicBrothers Not necessarily, it depends on who you ask. The premise for interpretational “reality” is subject to bias and contradictory psychological phenomena, which, therefore, is a questionable circulation of theory on its own. We witness this phenomena amongst multiple collective groups claiming divine inspiration, led by the Holy Spirit, yet happen to hold differences in belief, I.e. denominationalism. Factoring in common objective realities adhered to by the west, the human interpretation of the multi dimensional codex of metaphysical theories living in harmony, can be regarded as plausible when studying the capabilities of the human psyche in its ability to conjure up fallacy, and deem it as logic, ultimately stemming from different experiences in life or a philosophically inconsistent theory. The brain can do this to provide a greater means for survivability in accommodation to natural selection, which favours progress, less strain, whether true or false. That being said, the ultimate mediator of whether knowledge is true or false remains in our relationship to the divine realm, the primary mover, as everything would be up for subjection, and it’s our interpretation of the divine, whether true or false that must also come into consideration, as that stems from bias as well. Amongst all the hurdles and barriers one must clear, primarily, in attempt to provide “so called” rational conclusions, or to find truth itself, which is actually confirmed by the divine, it must be exempt from the interpretational flaws humanity maintains, not to mention the major deviation a theory is subject to based on “minor” discrepancies (denominationalism and branches of Christianity.) Therefore, dogma in of itself should be questioned as, multiple contradictions are capable of existing amongst one another in the human mind, (this is even in tandem to the conclusive misconceptions presented by illusions to the senses.) It is dependent on how the senses have accumulated and fashioned data within the mind, (how it has interpreted it based on morality and natural selection, traits) and therefore to begin to even declare our capabilities to rely on patterns a lone in association with founding a fundamental structure of theoretical pillars, the common happenstance of divine interpretation within the biblical era, is even subject to interpretation to a degree. We must be careful to associate Indefinite reality to that which is divine inspiration as the divine realm is immeasurable by human standards. This is where it gets tricky and dogma is associated.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

@@zealandsword9557 sounds like you’re interested in a conversation that is about 20 steps back from the topic in the video; namely, that of epistemology. Not really in the scope of this video, however fruitful an epistemological discourse may be in another context.

@ReformingApologetics Год назад

This is absolute nonsense. There were no "canonists" in the first century. Scripture says nothing whatsoever about James writing anything. How is it ok to make up so much stuff? Scripture doesn't even call Acts 15 a "council." Here's what Ken Pennington, a leading canon law scholar at Catholic University of America says: "Although later church fathers, particularly John Chrysostom, did justify conciliar assemblies on the basis of Acts 15, modern scholars have concluded that the assembly described in Acts 15 at Jerusalem cannot be described as a “council” or “synod.” There is no evidence Christians of different communities gathered together to decide matters of discipline or doctrine until the late second century. Nonetheless they undoubtedly regularly resolved questions inside their local communities with congregational assemblies." Even when this comes to be known as a "council" over 350 years into the church, you won't find a single person calling James a "canonist" until around, oh maybe something like the year 2023 on RU-vid.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

In the full episode we said that James’ *function* at the gathering fits the picture of *what we would later* refer to as drafting the canons of a council. The point is that this early “natural” pattern of decision-making provided a blueprint for our later, institutionalized iteration of it. You’re reacting and typing before considering.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

And Pennington’s quote pretty much says the same thing that we’re saying. Albeit, I would say Pennington needs to give more consideration to the synodality that already existed in the structure of the Sanhedrin and other official gathering bodies of the mainstream Temple cult… Pretty clear in this early stage that the Jerusalemite community had formed a kind of parallel Sanhedrin just a stone’s throw away from the High Priest’s palace in the Upper City. Anyway, as Pennington is saying in your quote, what was a perhaps “natural” process for the first century Christians became the blueprint for the synodal tradition of the early Church. Stepping away from history and to ecclesiology, the burden of proof for an alternative model of authoritative decision-making in the church would be on the Protestant side of the debate, as the historic church appears to be imitating the biblical model and the Protestants creating novel ones. Yes?

@ReformingApologetics Год назад

@@TheCatholicBrothers So are you saying the very idea of magisterial councils emerges through doctrinal development? That is fine...at least it's honest. The Scriptural fact is this is a description of "Apostles and elders" with no evidence whatsoever of Peter being a pope. Even James refers to him by using his familiar, Aramaic name. He doesn't even call him "Petros." The various novel descriptions that seek to impose later history on the Scriptural account are nothing more. Just call it a seed and describe how it evolves. Don't make it into something it's not.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

@@ReformingApologetics We *did*say it’s a seed of later development …. Did you even watch our episode?

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

@@ReformingApologetics you’re also overstating the case on the other side of the spectrum. It’s not *that* much later of a development…. The churches are holding regional synods on this pattern immediately in the second century.. Irenaeus of Lyons already insists on the churches having to agree with the Church of Rome due to its association with the premier apostles. And this use of the word “elder,” I fear, is also coloring your reading of the texts. The “elders” (presbyters) of Israel were none other than the priests…. So, this gathering in Acts was more “formal” than you’re likely envisioning, as it was mimicking the gatherings of the priests in the Sanhedrin. There would have been a proper order in the proceedings. Again, among the early Jerusalemite Christians are active, Jewish priests.

@ronaldcatapang5739 Год назад

Wake up! See.Matthew 24:5, "Vicarius Christi" ? (vicar of Christ/a claim who stand in the place of christ/a substitute) "substitute of Christ"? - blasphemy ! Matthew 24:5 KJV For many shall come in my name ,saying ,I am Christ ,and shall deceieved many."

@mmbtalk Год назад

Catholics and Protestants have strongly contested on whose authority carried the day at the Jerusalem council. Here is my take, " Shut up Catholic!; Shut up Protestant! And let the people who actually attended the council decide on this one!" Acts 16:4, "The Apostles and the elders= joint decision!!! Only people with ulterior motives will suggest anything else because the Lord made it clear that His kingdom was never to be based on worldly structures of hierarchy (Luke 22:25,26). Peter, himself accurately defines his position in 1 Peter 5:1-4. However, power-hungry people will not stop at anything to introduce self serving ideas!

@lukewilliams448 Год назад

Peter bound the Church on the matter of circumcision, the Apostles and Elders simply agreed with him. It was the perfect cooperation of Matthew 16 and 18.

@mmbtalk Год назад

@@lukewilliams448 says you, but Paul and Barnabas say something else! Look man, I would rather go by what people who where there saif than an opinion of an individual with vested interest!

@ungas024 Год назад

There's only one Church that can bind and loosen, Christ said i will build my church and give the keys to Peter, take note he did not say CHURCHES he said CHURCH. Who gave you the authority to interpret the bible as you have done here?

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

@@mmbtalk thanks for commenting, my friend. Do you lend any weight to the words and actions of those who either personally knew the men that were there *or* those who knew the men who were companions of the men that were there? Does it matter that Ignatius of Antioch (whose Church had been founded by Peter himself only a generation previous to him, and who himself had contact with the Apostle John) wrote to the Roman Church: “to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location 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 in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). Irenaeus of Lyons (a companion of Polycarp, who was a companion of the Apostle John) wrote: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Jesus had promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, so that we would be led into all truth. So, was the Church (gathered in sacred council in 451 as at Jerusalem in the 1st century) mistaken in her understanding of Acts 15 when they alluded to the Jerusalem council when exclaiming “Peter has spoken through Leo!” ? They clearly have, as the backdrop to that exclamation, the understanding that Peter was the decision-maker at Jerusalem and that Leo had successfully exercised that same authority in their midst with his Tome. Finally, merely pointing out that Peter was the clear decision-maker at Jerusalem and the clear head of the apostles does not in any way contradict Jesus’ admonition that the apostles must not be like the Gentiles and lord their authority over the brethren. Jesus, after all, is a King, and the apostles His emissaries. Kingdoms still have proper order and hierarchy. The only difference here is that the sign of a great Apostle (or bishop, or elder) is that the man filling that office would lead in such a way that he becomes the servant of all. It is actually for this reason that one of the earliest titles of the pope was “Servant of the servants of God.”

@Adam-ue2ig Год назад

Well said, notice Paul and Barnabas already know and dispute against the judaizers in Acts 15 before Peter speaks and James says "I judge concerning the matter" some Catholic apologists including Jimmy Akin openly admit Acts 15 does not do the legwork Rome wants. Paul also makes a point to declare in Scripture that he didn't go to Jerusalem i.e "RCC" to consult and see whether his doctrine was correct. Instead he went to Arabia and when says whoever they were or "seemed" to be they added nothing to his doctrine. He also makes it clear his teaching didn't come from man i.e Peter or a church authority, rather he got it directly from Christ along with his authority as a true apostle.

@rhwinner Год назад

It comes to this believe in the papacy or risk going to hell. I'll believe in the Pope Thank you very much. Let's compare notes in 100 years...

@ronaldcatapang5739 Год назад

" Scott Hahn...brilliant theological argument"? With all due respect, God has no agreement with the Graven images of catholic church .wake up! 2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV And What agreement hath the temple of God idols? Wake up Brethrens! Did you know? Idols are devil's ! See what Apostle said. ( 1 Corinthians 10:14,19-21 ) 2 Corinthians 6:14 KJV "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with untighteousness? ..." Romans 1 :18 KJV "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven from all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,who hold the truth in unrighteousness." (See. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV) Romans 1:21-25 Because that when they knew God ,they glorify him not as God: neither were thankful,but became vain in their imaginations,and their foolish heart are darkened. For professing themselves to be wise ,they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,and yo birds ,and to fourfooted beast,and creeping things . Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts,to dishonour their own bodies Between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie:and worship Ang served the creature more than the creator ,who is blessed for ever.Amen." "Belial" (2 Corinthians 6:15) Referring to "worthless idols" ( Deuteronomy 32:21) "The Falling away from the truth" ( the Spirit of truth shall be taken away). See. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV. Beware of Catechism! The book in tittle "catechism of catholic church", It's not The bible! It's not the word of truth ,it's not the gospel of salvation ! Colossians 2:8-10 KJV "Beware lest any man spoils you through philosophy and vain deceit,after the tradition of man ,after the Rudiments of the world ,and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Acts 17:29 KJV For as much we are the offspring of God we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold,or silver,or stone ,graven by art and man's devices. "The Falling away from the truth" 2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV "The mystery of iniquity doth already work : only he who now letteth will let,until he be taken away." 2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV For time they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lust shall they heap among themselves teachers having itching ears ; And they shall shall turn their ears from the truth ,and shall be turned to fables. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish,for they did not received the love of the truth,that they might be saved. For this cause God shall sends them strong delusion that they should believed a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth,but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV Therefore,Brethrens, standfast,and hold the traditions which ye have been taught ,whether by word ( the gospel ) and our epistles ( the letters). Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,who holds the truth in unrighteousnes" (see.Romans 1:21-25 KJV)

@philoalethia Год назад

Any of us can pick some isolated verses and ignore the remainder of the text, load those versus up with the meaning we want to impute to them, and then assert that they prove my position. I'm sorry, but your presentation here is basically dishonest. In Roman Catholicism, "The Papacy" means that there is a single, supreme head of all of the earthly Church who has immediate jurisdiction over every Christian, is infallible, etc. To claim that Acts 15 justifies this is just insane. There is absolutely NOTHING in there that indicates that the Bishop of Rome will have such perpetual authority over the entire Church. Your comparison of the Roman Catholic Church with the various Orthodox Churches is just a category error. There are so many awesome things about the Roman Catholic Church. The more that people like you make arguments for it, though, the more it seems to be built completely upon fallacies. I am really grateful for the many wonderful things I learned and experienced while I was Roman Catholic, but the more that I hear from the current crop of apologists, the more I feel I was fool to join in the first place, let alone stay for almost three decades. You really need to stop this.

@achilles4242 Год назад

They’re being more muted than what you’re accusing them of here. They’re not saying this is dispositive with respect to the veracity of the papacy as Catholics conceive of it. Rather, they are saying this has some indicia one would expect if the Church were to develop a papacy in the way it has. You can say there is no indicia present, that’s fine, but I don’t think they’re being dishonest here. Modus I really do like your comments - do you have a blog? Or if not what are some recommended readings you have?

@philoalethia Год назад

@@achilles4242 I understand and sympathize with your position. Roman apologists often propose to "make an argument for" or even "prove" Papal Supremacy. When pressed--when it has been pointed out that they have failed gloriously to do this--then the fall back is "well, the elements are in place for Papal Supremacy to come to be." They then list these various elements. But compatibility is not evidence that something is the case. Further, there is an unfortunate tendency to gloss over or completely omit elements of incompatibility. We could take nearly any passage from the Bible and assert rightly that it is compatible with Papal Supremacy... or its absence. Let us consider the Acts 15 passage invoked here. What is REALLY being invoked is NOT a plain reading of Acts 15, but a particular interpretation that is largely a reading back into the text something that isn't clearly there in the first place. If one had never heard of Papal Supremacy, I don't know how he would derive from Acts 15 that Peter and all of the later successor bishops in Rome alone have supreme, unilateral, universal authority and also are infallible. The problem, of course, is that it doesn't follow from the fact that Y is compatible with X that Y is the case. Whether Y is the case is another matter, and mere compatibility with X doesn't constitute evidence of Y, let alone an argument or proof for Y. Regarding my rather mean employment of the term "dishonest": I think that it is dishonest and deceptive to assert that compatibility constitutes evidence for a position. Now, it could be claimed that there was no intention of dishonesty or deception. To which I would happily respond, "okay, it was just a simple mistake then, right?" But the apologist's response then is NEVER to admit the error. Rather, he tends to double down on what is clearly an invalid form of reasoning. If I am doubling down on invalid forms of reasoning, them I'm simply being dishonest at that point... and deliberately engaging in deception. I might be sincere. I might even be likable (or not, in my case). But I am still pushing ideas and rationales that are demonstrably invalid. And that's "just not right." :)

@achilles4242 Год назад

@@philoalethia Like I said I like your comments so thank you for this too! May God bless you. But seriously, do you have a blog or anything you write?

@philoalethia Год назад

@@achilles4242, I do not have anything like that active at this time (I am working on a PhD dissertation and some other things that take up a lot of attention).

@achilles4242 Год назад

@@philoalethia Say no more haha that is a good amount of stuff. What is your PhD in?

@aaronshipp8766 Год назад

If your doctrine goes back to the apostles why wouldn’t you celebrate the feasts of the most high & eat clean? 🤔 After all the apostles were Jews n kept the commandments. So much has changed from keeping the commandments & so many man made commandments have been added it’s crazy.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

“Man-made” only if you believe that the Church is a man-made institution. As it turns out, the Church is of Divine institution and has been given the Holy Spirit to govern her belief and practice.

@aaronshipp8766 Год назад

@@TheCatholicBrothers no I said a lot of commandments added and the the letter of the most high has been disregarded for some reason brother. What you’re saying isn’t even what I mentioned.

@TheCatholicBrothers Год назад

@@aaronshipp8766 could it be that because “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” though? (2 Cor 3:4-6) 😏 But that aside, let’s get some specifics on the table. Any particular commandments that have been neglected and others added that you would like to open up for discussion?

@aaronshipp8766 Год назад

@@TheCatholicBrothers for example the feats of tabernacles, day of atonement, and Pentecost which the disciples would have kept as Jews have been disregarded while Easter and Christmas are kept in place of them. Btw im referencing lawlessness which is transgression of the law like eating pork which is the letter of the most high he wants his people to follow (holiness).

@aaronshipp8766 Год назад

@@TheCatholicBrothers also im confused why you’re mentioning that verse what’s your point? Are you saying that keeping the commandments as Christ and the apostles did kills? Help me understand what u mean.