Please never stop making videos, neither in this, nor in the next live... You're one of the reasons I'm finally becoming a catechumen in the Catholic faith 🙏🏻
I read an article talking about slower than light travel to other stars, taking some hundreds of years. They suggest asking one of the established churches to monitor the mission because they are the only organization capable of being around that long lol
In 2000 years of church history, for 3/4 of it people had to read it without verse references... So glad we live in a time that the Bible is more accessible.
4:02 This is definetely one of my favourite quotes so far, Thank you Fr for continuing to use your wise words to help others understand the Christian truth
Father Casey, you are an amazing conduit for teaching. You truly have an amazing Spiritual Gift for this. I’ve always struggled reconciling evolution and creation, but you harmonized them so succinctly for me. This is a combination of “mind blown” and shear joy. Thank you, again.
In addition to all the criteria you mentioned Father Casey, one other thing that was also used in determine which books to include when the canon was compiled was something referred to as the "Doctrine of Embarrassment." That is--The Bible (Old Testament or New) does NOT hold back on calling out the faults of its heroes. The authors will even call out their OWN faults and sins (something completely unheard of in other religions' sacred texts). This runs in stark contrast to Roman, Greek, and Germanic tendencies to paint one's self as larger than life or even infallible. The authentic gospels and epistles all contain concepts of personal humility (NOT considered a virtue in the ancient world) and mentions of the writer's own short comings and failures. These would have been considered odd at best, and in most cases scandalous to either Jew or Gentile, and to Romans in particular. Most of the heretical gnostic texts on the other hand contained more "powerful" and charismatically appealing characters and acts that bent towards worldly pagan virtues rather than God's.
@@KarmaBurner It very much applied to Jesus's teachings. He didn't sin. He DID however preach among many other unpopular concepts humility and servanthood, which, in the ancient world were NOT considered virtues like they are today. Not to jews, and especially not to Roman gentiles. But if you read some of the heretical texts. They portrayed Jesus differently, and in most cases, the false Jesus would have been more tolerable to wide audiences.
How would this line up with the heroine Judith? She was a very beautiful and prayerful widow who assassinated an enemy general. Perhaps you could mention that the people of the city were ready to surrender under the siege.
@@killianmiller6107 Excellent question, and now that I think about it, that may play a part in why Judith is considered part of the deuterocanonical apocrypha to protestants. They don't consider it a "forbidden" or heretical text by any means, just not one as easy to completely validate by all the criteria.
@@jakecarter9920 yet he's still portayed as perfectly coherent with the narrative he was representing, wasn't he? You say other cultures tend to portay their heroes as larger than life, infallible etc. Isn't jesus portrayed the same way, coherent with his narrative?
You didn’t mention them, but the psalms are a source of strength for me each day. “Like as the hart desire the water brooks so longeth my soul unto you, oh God.”
The bible uses narratives to teach existential truths about us and our relation to God. Some of these narratives are actual historical events, some are legends long in circulation before Genesis was written, and repurposed to convey the message of YHWH to humanity.
7:00 It is worth noting that "Bible Annotations" are not infallible and reflect other people's interpretation of Scripture. For example, the footnotes in the NAB are not authoritative Church teaching and promote a certain view of Scripture. One should be following what the Church teaches on certain bible passages, but these teachings are not often found in bible annotations.
Perhaps I could observe that there are 80 books in the Bible; well 81 as the Ethiopian included Enoch Father Casey doesn't even seem to know how many books are accepted as cannon by the Roman Catholic church
@@jedisilvr there are 14 these books The First Book of Esdras, The Second Book of Esdras, The First Book of the Maccabees, The Second Book of the Maccabees, The Book of Baruch, The Book of Bel and the Dragon, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, The Book of Esther, The Book of Judith, The Prayer of Manasseh, The Song of Solomon, The History of Susanna, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Wisdom. The Ethiopian Orthodox include Enoch so actually 81 books in total If you look up the protest Geneva Bible or KJV: there are all there. The Bible is often published in exacerbated versions as these are more popular - why protestants think there are only 66. I find Christians so ignorant of their own faith. I am confident you don't even know the first or last line of your own holy script
@@russellmiles2861 - some of those books you cite are actually fragments of other books, and Esther is already in the canon. The Catholic canon has 73 books, plus additions to Esther and Daniel; the Protestant canon has 66. Esdras is not canonical in either. Some Orthodox traditions include 3 and 4 Maccabees, which you don't even mention. The Ethiopian canon has 81 because it has books not included in either the Catholic or Protestant canon, like Jubilees and Enoch. You might want to go back and reconsider what you do and don't know on this topic.
When I think of the Creation, I imagine the Earth as clay on a pottery wheel. Every turn is a year - so who cares if it took millions or thousands of years to make? He made it and that's okay with me. I don't question his methods.
My understanding of creation as described in the Bible. The seven days are a metaphor, not literal 24-hour time periods. What they reflect is ORDINAL or sequencing of creation events. And it was never intended to be a scientific explanation.
Might I suggest the Bible In a Year podcast by Fr. Mike Schmidt. It's on RU-vid, on Hallow, and other sites. It was the best way my family and I got through the entire Bible in a year. Highly recommended!
This might be a good place to point out that scammers and fraudsters love to operate within faith communities, and other places where people trust each other.
Interesting vid. I appreciate your perspective. I have never had an issue with Genesis v evolution. As you noted, the Bible explains why and evolution explains how.
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 - you have no way of knowing that. What is clear is that the writers of Genesis seemed more concerned with expressing their relationship with God than with recording the exact details of how he created everything.
It's even obvious in the text that it's what we're supposed to understand (because chapters one and two give different order in which things were created, yet it didn't lead to one chapter being cut).
Father Casey, about the chapters and verses, I would like to point out that the chapters were done first in the 13th century by Stephen Langton [a Catholic archbishop], and the verses were done by two people, first Sanctes Pagnino [also a Catholic], and then refined by Robert Estienne, who was Catholic at the moment he did the verse numbering, but will turn protestant later on, indeed.
Highly recommend the Didajé Bible ✨ has comments, explanations, maps, history and everything you need to know in order to really comprehend the Bible 😊
God in the Old Testament was dealing with kings and rulers, directing international relations and wars, and the overall survival of humanity. The ministry of Jesus Christ as God the Son on Earth was directed towards individuals to teach us how to live virtuous lives that please God the Father.
1:08 When I was in high school and taking my confirmation classes, the priest, who was there at the time, always suggested specifically to start with either Matthew or Luke. He believed those gospels where the best ones to start with so those were the two gospels I often suggest. But I do agree all the gospels are a good start with the Bible. He has a podcast I listen too a lot of Sundays because he still says a lot of good homilies.
@@flowergirl5336 It's called "Study, Pray, Serve". His name is Fr. Andrew Ricci and he is part of the Diocese of Superior. Feel free to google it. You'll find his podcast.
POPE BENEDICT XVI, in 2007, said that the debate raging in Germany and the United States between those who believe in God as Creator and those who support evolution is an absurdity. The two positions, he said, are “presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives.” The pope said, “This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution, which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other hand, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical questions: Where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?”
Could you explain something fundamental: why was Jesus’s death on the cross necessary to achieve remission of sin. Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins. Why was Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross needed?
Not father Casey but the reason is God’s justice. God is perfectly just and perfectly loving. Since God is just he’s not going to let sins go unpunished but since he is perfectly loving he wants no one to go to hell
To prove the axiom: there is no greater love than to give your life for another. There is no greater love than God’s, and the crucifixion is the proof and the example
@@howardgootkin4216 It does indeed fit the dictionary definition of axiom, and the proof is that Jesus, God made man, proved His love for us. If you don’t see the relevance to God, then I assume you don’t relate Jesus to God.
Titus 3:3 KJV "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers (many different) lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the Kindness and Love of GOD our SAVIOR toward man appeared 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to HIS Mercy HE saved us (through HIS real shed Blood/Justification), by the washing of regeneration (born again spiritually/cleansed as by Water/Sanctification), and renewing of the HOLY GHOST (restoring our soul not sacrificing CHRIST over and over again in the unbloody sacrifice of the mass); 6 which HE shed on us abundantly through JESUS CHRIST our SAVIOR; 7 that being justified by HIS grace (GOD's free gift of salvation), we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Parenthesis mine)
Its a matter of function and form and conserving energy. It makes more sense to have animals change to suot their enviromwnt than it is to make ten trillion animal species. Its a beautiful solution to a fallen world. In the beginning it was "Bird, beast, fish" and everything comes from those original designs. Its elegant in its simplicity but mind blowing in Its complexity.
Thank You Fr. for sharing this video with us. My question is not so much about the Bible as it is about the faith. Is there forgiveness of our sins after we die? I head someone on youtube ask this but didn't really answer it. Thanks much for your help. Blessings.
Lovely video, thank you! A couple thoughts... * In re Genesis and evolution: I see the Old Testament as the "explain it to me like I'm a Bronze Age savage" approach. God left the biomechanics and mathematical research to us to do later. * In re translations: at some point could you review the Jehova's Witness "New World Translation"? I read parts of that and got unhappy, because it seems so disingenuous. I feel like my JW buddy is being deceived. * Also about translations and accuracy vs ease of reading: is the standard higher for "the words in red"? That is, my Bible has all of Jesus' words written in red.
I was discussing Creation and the Big Bang with my fundamentalist supervisor. I told him to imagine the biggest possible number for the age of the universe. Then what was here a week older than that number, God
Father Casey, I had to listen to the video in 0.75 to truly digest all the information. I wonder if I am the only one who needed to do this or if you may consider speaking slower or doing less questions pero video
What does this question mean “Can a Christian believe…?” Believing something isn’t an act of will. You don’t decide to believe in it. You believe it because that’s the conclusion your mind has come to of its own accord. You also can’t turn it off just because someone says to. This is a total abuse of the meaning of belief.
I think your use of the word "belief" conflates opinion with assent of faith. One can have lots of opinions that are natural but ill-informed. An assent of faith may not come naturally, but it is something that compels us to the truth even if it doesn't seem obvious at first.
Thank you for saying "communities reflected...and wrote the texts", I am a big believer in the Johannine community rather than a single author of John. I find myself in good company with Pope Benedict 16th ;) Thanks Father.
It's astounding how many people still think you can't be religious and accept evolution at the same time. Literalism is not the only way to understand scripture. Also, the RSV2CE is the best Catholic Bible translation.
The division of the Bible into verses was made by Robert Estienne, starting in 1551, in Paris and Geneva. However, the numbering of verses in the Hebrew Bible appeared around 1440, when Rabbi Isaac Nathan added them to create a concordance. Stephen Langton (Lincolnshire, 1150 - Slindon (Sussex), July 9, 1228) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1207 until his death and was a central figure in the dispute between King John of England and Pope Innocent III. He is recognized as the person responsible for dividing the Christian Holy Bible into chapters.
I would like to know if I can be a catholic without worshipping mother Mary. I have faith, I believe in the Holy Trinity and the presence of the Holy Trinity in our daily lives, i believe in the sacraments and I believe in the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist..but I respect Blessed Mother Mary's role in the Bible. Because of this reason of not worshipping Mother Mary, I was actually considering moving to another denomination for a while but I admit that your videos have stopped me in my tracks for the present time.
Catholics do not worship Mary, they have devotion to Her, as the Mother of God, to have recourse to Her protection, to implore Her help, to seek Her intercession. All for the greater glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to whom all praise and thanksgiving are directed. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
I understand that but there are some things i dont understand, like why are there 10 Hail Mary's for 1 Lord's prayer in the rosary, why is devotion to Mary an absolute requirement for being a Catholic.
@@drdeepika8545 devotion to Mary is definitely not an absolute requirement. Devotion to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is. Devotion to Mary is good and recommended. Going to Jesus through Mary, by example for a petition asking Mary to ask Jesus in your behalf. Asking her intercession for a deceased or the conversion of a sinner ... She is the Daughter of God the Father, the Mother of Our Lord and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. She is full of grace and a powerful intercessor for us to receive the grace we need. She is the Woman that crush the head of the snake, so it is good to ask for her protection, miraculous medal, scapular... The demons fear her. We are all sinners, our prayer are flawed, distractions..., each Hail Mary we give Her, she turn into a perfect Glory be ... and offer it to God. She is our Queen and our Mother. Jesus is the only way to the Father, Mary is the easiest way to Jesus. The rosary is biblical, and while praying the 10 Hail Mary you should meditate on the mysteries associated with each decade. There is a lot more. I hope this help, there's are books on the subject, also the cathechism of the Catholic Church mention Her.
@@drdeepika8545 - because without Mary, there's no Jesus, and also because she's our spiritual mother who helps lead us to him. As for the rosary, think of it as if it takes 10 Hail Mary's to equal one Our Father.
It is interesting to look at the books excluded from the New Testament. For example the gospel of Thomas is just a list of things Jesus said that Thomas thought noteworthy. They would have been extremely relative to those who may have encountered Jesus, but without context some of their meaning is lost. The four Cannon Gospels cover the same information, but provided context for us later readers.
I've had the occasional luck using 2 Peter 3:8 to get young earth creationists to back down (specifically the ones who "believe" it because that's what everyone at their church believes, not so much the ones who actively study YEC to the exclusion of other ideas). Since it doesn't just say that one day is 1000 years but also 1000 years is a day, that doesn't mathematically work unless one understands that God controls time -- not the other way around. It doesn't convince the YECs of evolution but it does get them to understand that Old Earth Creationism is a "Biblical" interpretation and maybe even see Theistic Evolution as a variety of OEC.
Perhaps a good video idea would be a longer video on the words of Pope Pius stating the belief in evolution is not a contradiction to belief in Christianity. Since it's such a controversial topic in the Church world, a lengthier explanation might be helpful.
The encyclical Humani Generis addresses the subject. In essence, the church said there was no compelling reason to reject evolution, so long as the existence of the soul wasn't denied in the process.
Just watched this video with the wife. We loved the content but have a request ... can you perhaps take a breath between questions? You speak rapidly and go from one question to another with the speed of an auctioneer ... Just a little pause maybe 2-3 seconds before giving a new question/answer point would be nice. Are you on a time line? So that you have to cram as much data into an 8 segment period as possible? Just saying ...... Thank you for the content and your effort.
You know what they say, "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night". Meaning we don't know how much time Fr. Casey has left to get us this info! That said, I wouldn't mind a quick pause for breath between questions either. ;D
It depends on what strain of Judaism. The saducees, pharisees and samaritans relied strictly on hebrew scriptures. The hellenists (which included the Apostles) used the septuagint.
Some gloss overs, especially when it comes to Protestant views (expected,sadly, when we are dealing with Vatican vs. Others). Imagine if we could bite the bullet on where we were wrong.
You sound surprised ❓- Father Casey pumps out some awesome stuff for years now and I am certain has brought a plethora of people closer to GOD via his videos
@@openminds8765 haha, I didn’t mean it like that, I just meant that I found the video to be especially well done this time around. I like Fr Casey, been watching him for a year now
@@generalyousif3640 Kool 👍🏼 - thanks for the clarification - glad you like his videos too - I find his stuff thought provoking and informative - I think the videos help grow in my Spirituality
ISAIAH 43: The Lord God says: Remember not the events of the past. The things of long ago, consider not. See, I am doing something new! Do you not perceive it!? You burdened me with your sins, and wearied me with your crimes. But is I, I who wipe away your offenses for my own sake. I remember them no more. PSALM 103: God does not deal with us according to our sins; he does not punish us for our crimes. He has compassion as a father having compassion on his children.” Ps. 103:10, 13. PSALM 103: Merciful and gracious is the Lord, slow to anger and abounding in kindness. He pardons all your iniquities, he heals all your ills. He redeems your life from destruction, he crowns you with kindness and compassion. Not according to our sins does he deal with us. As far as the east is from the west, so far has he put our transgressions from us.
"Sola scriptula" ... hmm, "little scriptures"? ;D It's sola scriptura, but I catch your drift. To my understanding, the big deal there is the role of tradition and the living Church, which Catholics appreciate, and Protestants enjoy less. End of the day, we're still all on "Team J", right?
Regarding your ans et on Genesis and how it tells us that God created the world, just not how, I think it's interestong to put chapters 1 and 2 side to side, as the order of the Creation differs in both (man and woman together vs separately, and also plants days before man vs after he was milded from clay). Sounds like the men who wrote those parts and kept them side to side agree with this position.
So funny story, I don’t remember what video of yours I was watching, but you said at the beginning “ which God would you want? The God of the Old Testament or the God of the New Testament? Before you got your next sentence out, my thought was “ I want the god of the Old Testament. He continually is trying to woo the Israelites and Jesus talks about damnation the most of everybody.” You then said in the previous video something like, “ thinking they are two different gods is a heresy or something like that and most people probably want the hippie loving Jesus rather than the wrathful God of the Old Testament.” All I could do at that point was laugh.
I have a question, Father Casey. How can you say that God is literally angry when the Bible is not to be taken literally. I thought that theologically, God does not get angry as in literally. Can you expound more on that?
No one said the Bible isn't to be taken literally. There are different levels for understanding scripture. Some can be understood literally, and some is better understood metaphorically or spiritually, for example. God would have no human emotions, because he's not human. We personify God to try to understand him, but he's beyond our ability to fully understand.
@@3ggshe11s when Fr. Casey and other priests and deacons said that God got angry and blew up Sodom and Gomorrah, they mean that it actually happened by insisting that it's true it happened. Such things like that make me not want to love and believe in God anymore and that God has the God-given right to do so (as in terms of a clergyman saying "Oh no no, He is benevolent" while God goes off to kill some random person) and that God is above H/his own laws as in "Do I as I say, not do as I do" and "sin" as much as H/he wants and not have single splotch on H/himself (such as call names whatever He sees fit). I am afraid that if I did not believe until I die that God actually blew Sodom and Gomorrah, I would be condemned to hell.
I'm sure you know 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation." If the Scripture is God breathed by men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, even if we don't know what God's meaning is, I'm sure God knows the exact meaning of what He said, which He did not leave to our private interpretation.
And how exactly are we supposed to get at that meaning? I can't hear God's word directly from Him, so interpretation seems the only valid way. However, if that interpretation is informed by scholars, or the Church, it isn't private anymore. Interpretations become more valid, if based on good research and many people's involvement.
@@loran1212 We should use the Scriptures to be instructed how we can get very close to God. The problem is most people find that too high a price to pay. We could start in Jeremiah 29:13, " And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." There are too many things we love more than God and won't give up in order to hear the Holy Spirit clearly, but don't think it can't be done. It's not that God doesn't want to get close to us, it's us that separates us from Him. He wants us to seek Him.
@@carolynkimberly4021 You might have used that excuse 150 years ago when education and the Scriptures were not readily available to the general public, but when you say that today, it just shows a laziness and willing ignorance to ignore the truth, much like foolish cult members that become brainwashed and blindly follow, leading to their destruction. The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to study the Scriptures (unlike your way of thinking) so that he might correctly understand them. (2 Timothy 2:15) He didn't say don't bother studying them, just listen to me, even though he was a true Apostle. If a true Apostle like Paul instructed that the Scriptures should be studied, why do you believe we should just rely on the "Church" to give us the proper interpretation of them?
I would beg to differ about where to start reading the Bible. As it is such an enormous book, it can be very overwhelming to start somewhere in the middle. Since most people already know the basic gist of the gospels, I'd say try to read cover-to-cover. It's the only way I was able to not get distracted during the less exciting parts, and it helps, I hope, when reading certain passages later, to have a broad overview, that reading the whole thing can give you.
That hard thing about that is many are likely to read through Genesis and halfway through Exodus, then get kneecapped by all the rituals and laws in the second half, Leviticus, and Numbers, discouraging them from pushing through and getting to the more readable narratives. To go cover to cover you have to really want it no matter what. I think it is good to go cover to cover, to have a broad overview of everything, but you do have to want it or else you’ll get stuck some places and it’ll take 3 years to get to the New Testament (which was my case)
The Old Testament has a theme of failed attempts to eliminate sin. The New Testament theme is to live in a sin filled world. This also tell us or displays the man working to understand God.
God seems to fail consistently at stopping it. And hey, he designed us while being omniscient, so the outcome is part of the plan. If he wanted it any different, he couldve made a different version of humans.
@@trafalgarlaw8373 I'm struggling to follow the post. God failed at what? It would seem humans choose; they choose narcissism, commonly called original sin. We do not have to sin however we do. How can we blame our choices on God.
@@whatsup3270 Well apparently god wants to eliminate sin,but hes still not succeeded. He failed with his original design, he failed with the flood. While you can blame individuals for their individual choices, god still chose the nature of humans. He chose the things we like, the sins we have inclincations for. At the point of designing, he knew EXACTLY which setup would lead to what outcome, every single choice we made. If he didn't like the future this would lead to, he could have changed it. The way things are and went is exactly what he wanted and planned. Alternatively hes incapable of making his plan succeed, or us sinning etc is part of his plan and is what he wants.
@@trafalgarlaw8373 Again I struggle to follow that logic. What sin did God commit? Is the comment God doesn't need us so if eliminated there would be no sin. Or if we were incapable of choosing, we could not choose. Is the claim since God made us capable of choosing God must bear the consequences of our choice. It seems mixed with the claim the entire history every move was known first before man was created which is to say no man has ever actually sinned as he never had any choice. Again, that blames God., nice for us. I can't see any logic that leads me to believe we are just actors in a plan every thought and action already exists, and we just are the robot that performs. Our performance seems to benefit us not God. If one steals does God benefit? it seems to me God benefits when we benefit by choosing to follow his plan without his stripping our free will. This means high losses but excellent wins. We can benefit here, or we can benefit after it is our choice.
@@whatsup3270 1) What sin did god commit? Lots of killing in his book mostly, plus the whole creating a system where anyone he doesnt save is tortured forever. One can argue whether its immoral to not help people when you can, with all the horrible suffering that goes on. 2) Well, having choice is of course nice. But even with that, it's not like they're random. For example, a man cheating is partly led by lust for another woman, something new. Now, having that desire is not his choice, it's innate. His choice is to control it, and some other things. But if you assume god designed our nature, then you must also assume the desires we have, whether to help people or steal, are also something he intended. He has created people without that, like angels. Or himself, depending on your perspective about what determined his nature 3) I think its fair to say we shouldnt give god responsibily for our mistakes and sins. However, we then also cannot give him responsibility for the good things we do. If i steal, it's my sin, and if I gift, it's my good deed.
The Eucharist is the true body of Christ, and so, by definition it cannot be idolatry. But people's approach to it can be very idolatrous when they approach it as a magical object with no effect on their lives. If your "worship" God is only about getting what you want without any desire for conversion or mercy, then you're not worshipping God, you're worshiping yourself.
James, Jude, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John. So called because they were catholic in nature -- that is, addressed to a universal audience, and not just one specific church.
I always thought Franciscans unlike Jesuits and Benedictines are not that intellectual. Thought they were God's rejects from other more intellectual orders. I was so wrong. You are a doctor of the church and saint in making.
The comments regarding infallibility were rather interesting from a Protestant perspective, because I have met some Protestants who believe that the Bible was “entirely free from error” and “literally true” in “the original manuscripts.” Somewhat ironically, I can’t find the least bit of biblical justification for this idea, and tend to go for the Catholic ideas about infallibility and some amount of non-literality instead (with, of course, the Protestant proviso that scripture is nevertheless a higher authority than any synod counsel or whatever).
A book is not an authority. Authorities are people or organizations that have the right and ability to settle a dispure. If what you mean by the "Bible is an authority" is that those that produced the Bible had authorities greater than anyone active today: that's true. The Bible is part of the Deposit of Faith, which is what the Apostles gave to the church as public revelations. The books of the Bible, though not in a clear list, are part of what the Apostles' authority binds us to. Nobody has a higher authority than the Apostles, but you may have misunderstandings on the contents of the deposit of Faith, it's the church's job and her inherited, lesser authority that steps in to solve disputes about what the Apostles have already bound
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription uhh, if this is meant to be the start of some explanation of why “sola scriptura” is wrong, don’t bother. You wouldn’t be the first Catholic on RU-vid (and specifically in comments on Father Casey’s videos) to attempt (and fail) to convince me of the error of my Protestant beliefs, and RU-vid isn’t the only social media platform where Catholics have tried and failed. I’m better educated in theology and ecclesiology than most lay Catholics, and that education is a large part of why, while I respect my Catholic brethren and the good men of the Catholic Church like Father Casey, and find things like these educational videos worth watching, I will almost certainly never be Catholic.
@@logicisuseful An authority means a person or organization that has the right and ability to settle a dispute. Is the Bible litterally a person? No. If it "governs" in a given context, it's through an exegete, who is the authority. Are you using a different definition of the word authority?
An oath to poverty? bible explains the fate of those who reject the pursuit of ever-growing wealth, as shown in Luke 12:13-21. The Parable of the Rich Fool reminds us why many refuse to settle for complacency.
I'm reading the New American Bible. Where does Jesus say anything about eternal damnation? Am I missing something? He talks about Gehenna, the Outer Darkness, and contrasts the life of the age with the pruning of the age. All of these are states of being we experience in this life. None of this is about what happens after we die. The Kingdom is here and now, and we choose here and now whether or not we are part of it. Jesus says nothing about the afterlife in all His teachings except in parables which are meant to alert us to what we need to do in our lives today. So please list any verse where Jesus talks about the afterlife in terms of eternal damnation.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Where in Matthew 25 does He talk about eternal damnation? He compares the sheep getting the life of the age to come (living in the Kingdom now) and the goats getting the Kolasis (pruning, chastisement) of the age to come. There is no word in this passage that suggests an eternal state. Revelation is allegory. It is talking about the fall of Jerusalem. All the events alluded to in Revelation have already happened, and none of them lasted forever.
Yes, the Septuagint/LXX is older than the Masoretic Text…but that’s such a misleading statement. The MT is in the original Hebrew. So that, in chapter 7, Isaiah says “the almah (young woman) conceive.” In the LXX, it says “the virgin (παρθένος) will conceive,” leading to the idea that this verse was about immaculate conception (it does not have that connotation in Hebrew, nothing about the word “almah” denotes virginity). So yeah, the LXX is older than the MT, but the MT better preserves the meaning of the Old Testament by not having botched translations like that. Which is why even the Bible you recommended (NAB), which has the Catholic seal of approval, uses the MT as the base for translation of the non-apocryphal parts of the Old Testament. By saying the LXX is older than the MT, you seem to be implying that Luther’s choice NOT to use the LXX made his translation inferior to preexisting Catholic translations based on the LXX. But all Bible scholars today agree the MT preserves the original Old Testament better than the LXX, hence the official Catholic translators no longer use the LXX (except for the deuterocanonical books, of course). Of yeah and, same goes for the Jewish religion, it doesn’t use the LXX and there are only 24 books (Genesis to Chronicles) in their Bible. So Protestants and Jewish people agree on canon, it’s just the former has the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament whereas the latter has the Talmud for interpretation.
The belief in the immaculate conception does not come from Isaiah 7:14. Even Matthew cited its Septuagint translation as being a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, which is a belief common to all Christians.
I am trying to read the bible but I think I'm going to quit. I started with Luke's gospel and I just cant. Archaic writing, no coherence between the parts and the footnotes are nice if you're preparing mass. But for my autistic brain, the book is just painful. I will be looking for something a bit more theological that puts the pieces in context of their time, explains the involved people and cross references other bible parts directly. I need way more structure than the bible offers.
I expected more from this video. Yes, the old testament god has his good moments, and jesus gets angry (like... once?), but there IS a very clear difference between god in the old and new testament. Even a child can see that
@@BreakingInTheHabit that may be the case... but he still was responsible for literal genocides and the destruction of entire cities. He was merciful to his own chosen people (sometimes, and at the cost of the lifes of others)... but ask the egyptians, Sodom, Gomorrah... everyone on earth except from one family (according to the Noah story). Yes a lot of people may ignore the good stuff, but you are also doing your own kind of selective reading.
@@BreakingInTheHabit - I think that's an oversimplification. Just to cite one example, the entire book of Joshua is basically one long string of divinely ordered genocides. God was more violent because the people who wrote about him were more violent. It took Jesus to come along and essentially say we had God all wrong. You have heard it said.... but I say to you....
