It was actually Mike Winger who brought me here. I was watching his videos on Catholicism and I thought I'd like to hear the opposite side defend itself so I searched up "Mike Winger Catholicism rebuttal" and now I've been enjoying your videos for who knows how long haha

@tessa7413

2 жыл бұрын

You are a rational thinker, and honest truth seeker! God bless!

@jayjackson5932

2 жыл бұрын

Same. I started watching Trent based on suggested KZread videos after subscribing to Mike Winger's channel. Good job KZread algorithm. Both good content, sometimes gold.

@Lupen69

2 жыл бұрын

@@jayjackson5932 dialogue between them when? Haha

@intedominesperavi6036

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lupen69 Sadly, Mike doesn't want this.

@williammagsambol2143

2 жыл бұрын

Become Catholic ;)

Shoutout for the best popular Marian book I have ever read: Dr. Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary". Phenomenal. It covers in great yet accessible detail the Old Testament basis for all Marian Dogma (and much doctrine too).

@PopCultureCatechism

2 жыл бұрын

I second this. Dr Pitre has done some amazing work.

@mickyfrazer786

2 жыл бұрын

The lesser known yoda quote "Always inspiring, Pitre is!"

@jattebaleyos116

2 жыл бұрын

It is also easy to read and understand

@megbonita

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Get the book.

@Anyone690

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! I recommend this all the time (and I am an aspiring Bible Scholar)

You've really opened my mind to Marian typology, which I have never considered or even known about before. Thank you!!

@nightshade99

2 жыл бұрын

It's all demonic

@johnvitelli3862

2 жыл бұрын

@@nightshade99 your demonic to go after Jesus Christ Mother the Theotokos.

@michaelharrington6698

2 жыл бұрын

@@nightshade99 oof

@nightshade99

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelharrington6698 I know, right?

@andreeattieh2963

Жыл бұрын

@@nightshade99 tilma of our lady of Guadalupe says it's not demonic Neither science nor protestants can explain it

“Typology” doesn’t behave as an efficient cause of Dogma, but rather is a testimonial proof of the Church’s adherence to the word of God. When Peter and the Council of Jerusalem declared definitely that Circumcision is void, the “scriptural proofs” didn’t bring this to light for Peter but the scriptures were useful for Paul in combating those who rejected the council. Hence, when Paul speaks to the Galatians he first mentions the councils ruling and then goes on to ask the Galatians “who bewitched your?” Then, he argues against their assumption that the word doesn’t contain what has been explicitly revealed at the Council. He does this by arguing from typology. But Paul’s words are very harsh. “You who want to be UNDER THE LAW do you hear it?” Why “under the Law?” Because they rejected the clear ruling of the council and the dogma that all must adhere to, thinking it contrary to their scriptures. Then Paul shows their own scriptures they boasted in to reject the councils ruling, actually contains the councils ruling typologically hidden within. Thus, the first proof for a Dogma is that “it’s been revealed by God to the Church.” If the Church declares its definitive then its definitive. The Scriptures are a further witness that serves as a “reproof” for those who reject that the Church is the Bride of Christ. Ironically, those who reject the Word of Gods Church do so on the basis of the word of God.

@ironymatt

2 жыл бұрын

Very well put. I would only add to your concluding statement that they do so on the basis of *their interpretation* of the word of God. They, as do all us followers of Christ, see through a glass but darkly.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@Nick B rocks this is just false! The OT does in fact state that God ultimately wants circumcision of the heart: Moses had long before prophesied: "Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6, Which is guess what in the bible. to cite such a declaration that the Church gave us this "New" dogma to the early church is false and in error. The first covenant did in fact require the Jews to be circumcised to belong to God. This was an outwardly expression that you are inwardly devoted to God. God on the other hand found fault with this as stated above in Moses prophecy that God will circumcise the heart instead. How does this therefore relate to the book of Acts during the Council of Jerusalem? Well, Paul as he was preaching became aware that others were preaching the Gospel but was requiring them the Gentiles to be circumcised first and then you are saved. Paul debating with them at first arguing that he witnessed the Holy Spirit descend upon the Gentiles(Uncircumcised) just the same way as the Jews(circumcised). As a result, in order to ensure he wasn't running the race in vain he met up with Peter and the other Apostles to discuss this issue. Thus, the council of Jerusalem began: Much debate and arguing broke out and then Peter stood up and spoke saying: This practice was even hard for us why therefore should be burden them with this yoke? Then Paul and Barnabas bore witness that the Holy Spirit descended up them in the same way. Then, James the Bishop at Jerusalem agreed with Peter and Paul and declared that it is not part of salvation and cited a verse that also indicates a change in bringing others outside of Israel into the fold. Therefore, even Paul, Peter, James all references the Old testament as a source when declaring a judgement on how one ought to be saved. God can not be usurped or disrupted in any way but through Christ just as the Father sent the Son so does the Son send/gave us the holy orders for us to follow.

@MountAthosandAquinas

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielhaas9469 Thanks for your reply. Right now I am tossing to and fro in my mind as to rather or not I should even respond. For I grow tired of these mere trifles. For the sake of my sanity and seeing no fruit from this engagement (your response is already characteristic of those who don’t actually want to engage) I prefer to just say simply, good day and thanks for your opinion.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@@MountAthosandAquinas Well that is unfortunate, if however; you change your mind please reach out as I greatly love speaking about God to my follow Christians: When I see errors within a theological context while trying to draw parallels to the church as if it divorces Gods word troubles me. But go and peace and may the love of God bring you great joy!

@MountAthosandAquinas

2 жыл бұрын

@On Fire In Christ Sigh. The scriptures you laid out do not disprove (even slightly) what I have written. Rather then spend time engaging with you (doesn’t even seem fruitful) I will simply say that the Jews (who possess the Scriptures) don’t believe Jesus is biblically sound either. They would reject Him as the “new Adam” would reject Him as the “Isaac” (Paul calls him in Galatians) reject Him as Israel (Matthew calls Him) and reject Him as the second Person of the Trinity. In short, your way of thinking is in accords with theirs, only with Mary. As they don’t see Him ANYWHERE in the Scriptures, neither do you see the Blessed Mother. Blessings

Thank you Trent for your eye opening videos ,I am a Catholic from India ,I face so many question from many protestant people all around me ...I was unable to answer their objections about catholic belief,I was always embarrassed being unable to answer their objection,now i know my faith and more proud to be a Catholic

@roseg1333

Жыл бұрын

Amen Brother bless you for wanting to learn more about our faith. Bless you 🙏🏼🕊❤️

@duckymomo7935

Жыл бұрын

Probably because Catholicism is just flat out wrong and requires mental gymnastics

@veritasmuy2407

10 ай бұрын

Is Rome right that DEATH entered the world by the WOMAN/Eve ?? Or is Apostle Paul right that DEATH entered the world by ONE MAN/Adam (Romans 5:12) thus no need for a "new Eve" ?? Is Rome right that Mary is the "new Eve" that crushes Satan ?? *Or is Apostle Paul right that Death/SATAN were crushed/destroyed by ONE MAN/Jesus dying on the cross (Hebrews 2:14)* -- Jesus is the SEED of Israel -- Isaiah 65:9 -- that has ALREADY crushed Satan's head/power (Genesis 3:15) Is Rome right that Mary's name is part of "redemption/salvation" and thus she is "co-Redemptrix" alongside Jesus as Redeemer ?? *Or is Apostle PETER right that there is NO OTHER NAME by which we are redeemed/saved than the name of JESUS ALONE* (Acts 4:12) -- *so Mary's name is NOT part of Redemption/Salvation -- Mary is NOT co-Redemptrix.* CHOOSE whom you will believe, you can't follow Rome AND also the Apostles/Canon because they CONTRADICT each other.....

@SirvietheBlueWolf

3 ай бұрын

@@veritasmuy2407 Thanks. You can see the lies with Marian and Catholic doctrine too

@jasonwhisler8209

2 ай бұрын

Care to explain why you would say this?​@@duckymomo7935

Winger’s comment “but Elizabeth wasn’t leaping”…. Is so desperate. I feel bad for him as he says it. Like someone who isn’t convinced but trying to convince himself and others.

@Nolongeraslave

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z6RrpquKnrW_f5s.html I think in this one you may hear that Winger's comment was not that desperate.

@cactoidjim1477

2 жыл бұрын

Or it could be a great ProLife passage showing how two Persons can share the same identity. That Winger doesn't even allow for potential interpretations when discussing symbolism is troubling.

@veritasmuy2407

2 ай бұрын

YOU: Winger’s comment “but Elizabeth wasn’t leaping”…. Is so desperate. *ME: It was John The Baptist leaping for joy at the presence of JESUS -- because John was the One sent by GOD to go before Jesus and turn the hearts of God's people back to GOD as prophesied in Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6* -- so says JESUS in Matthew 11:10-14. No one was leaping at the presence of Mary -- *Mary was totally UN-important to the Original Jewish Church -- they were ALL focused on KING DAVID* -- see Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:9, John 7:42, Romans 1:3, etc *Even the GLORIFIED JESUS was ONLY focused on King David -- claiming to be the OFFSPRING OF KING DAVID, not the offspring of Mary -- see Revelation 22:16* Mary was ONLY chosen because she was a descendant of King David -- Luke 1:32, Luke 3:23-39 -- *Mary had King David's DNA in her and could pass it on to Jesus who would eventually be the KING OF THE JEWS (Matthew 2:2) that will sit on his father King David's Jewish throne in Jerusalem in Revelation 20:4-6.*

@merkon9442

Ай бұрын

Typologically, it would have had to have been Elizabeth leaping. Mary is the Ark, no? But even if John is leaping, the typology still doesn’t work. John is leaping at Jesus, which would type David as leaping at the Ten Commandments. That’s just not it. Instead, the typology would suggest (if we wrongly assume John is typological of David), that David was leaping at the four men carrying the Ark, as Mary carried Jesus.

@KjoNiels

Ай бұрын

@@merkon9442 I disagree. First, it says when Elizabeth heard MARY’s greeting, the child in her womb leapt. Why would it need to be Elizabeth who leapt? It seems clearly to point to Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant. Nobody is arguing that Elizabeth nor John the Baptist are types of King David.

Protestants on passages like these: “Nope no connection to see here. Just Catholics reading something into an unrelated text. typology schmypology.” Atheists and Jews on the same passages: “passages like these texts from the Gospel are so closely connected it’s obvious the Gospel isn’t historical, the author just copied straight from the Old Testament!” 🤦🏻‍♂️ Ave Maria ora pro nobis peccatoribus

@JimmyGorman-ft7dd

3 ай бұрын

Real

Trent is so smart. Thank God he became Catholic! I wonder how he stays so humble... When I started studying the faith, I became a little arrogant and hard hearted...

@nightshade99

2 жыл бұрын

But remain naive?

@roseg1333

Жыл бұрын

I think it’s the fruit of the religion most Catholics I’ve met even on the internet are very humble and kind a few are arrogant but it shows how well we follow the faith and if we are falling into sin or not.

@mjramirez6008

Жыл бұрын

@Alain Hight Luckily you stay so well informed and highly alert dear brother, keep on commenting

@roseg1333

Жыл бұрын

@@mjramirez6008 I’m sorry but you guys are misguided. we don’t need you guys to help convert us we already believe and follow Jesus.

@duckymomo7935

Жыл бұрын

Trent is smart but not good, he’s trying to enforce bad teaching’s

brilliant. I notice his blunder with episkiazo, and noticed that William Albretch did too in his video. But the way you contrast that with his claims about Christ is brilliant. He is utterly inconsistent and by undermining Mary he undermines Christ.

Very strong rebuttal here. Not Catholic, but the typology between Mary and the Ark is very strong. To deny it is to reveal your bias.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

*Now Believers are indwelled by Jesus (John 14:23), does that mean that Believers are the Ark ?* Besides, the most important part of the OT Ark that represented JESUS and God's mercy on a lost Mankind, was the MERCY SEAT -- and the Mercy Seat was NOT INSIDE THE ARK, it was on top/the lid of the Ark. See Ephesians 2:4-9 and compare Exodus 25:18-22 with John 20:12. Mary is not the Ark. *EVERYTHING about the Ark represented JESUS, the Savior of Mankind -- the Mercy Seat, the bread, the high priest rod, the Law, the gold, the wood, the two angels, etc.*

@nightshade99

2 жыл бұрын

Or it reveals your discernment from the Holy Spirit

@St_Pablo298

2 жыл бұрын

I agree that the center of salvation is Christ, but we have to at least admit the similarities between Mary carrying the Lord and the Ark carrying the manna, the priestly staff, and the law are obvious. I am still wrestling with the Marian dogmas of the Church; however, I feel we Protestants have pushed her completely to the side in many ways. She is forever Christ’s mother. Only two people can say they saw their son die on the cross for humanity, God the Father and Mary. The role of the queen mother to the one who sits on the throne of David is laid out in scripture. Even the early reformers held a very reverent opinion of Mary. Jesus is and forever will be our sole means of salvation; however, this doesn’t necessitate our pushing Mary completely out of view.

@nightshade99

2 жыл бұрын

@@St_Pablo298 Mary is not divine

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

@@St_Pablo298 YOU: "we have to at least admit the similarities between Mary carrying the Lord and the Ark carrying the manna, the priestly staff, and the law are obvious." -- *ME: Nope. Because the MOST IMPORTANT part of the Ark that represented Jesus and our New Covenant with GOD, was the MERCY SEAT -- Jesus being the mercy of GOD toward a lost and sinful world* (see Ephesians 2:4-9, 1Peter 1:3, Hebrews 8:12-13, Titus 3:5, etc. And the MERCY SEAT was NOT INSIDE the Ark -- it was the lid/on top of the Ark (Exodus 40:20). *So how can you say that Mary is the Ark because she carried INSIDE HER the items that represented Jesus, when the most important part of the Ark that represented Jesus was NOT INSIDE the Ark ??* JESUS Himself is the Ark. *EVERYTHING about the Ark represents Savior Jesus -- the wood, the gold, bread/manna, law, high priest rod, Mercy Seat, presence of GOD -- even the two angels -- see John 20:12 and Exodus 25:18-22.*

Its funny how Winger uses the Septuigint to describe his understanding but also refuses to accept the canon of the Septuigint which held the 7 books that protestants removed. 🙃

@Emper0rH0rde

2 жыл бұрын

Martin Luther is literally the protestants' authority on the canonicity of scripture.

@TheEngineerd

2 жыл бұрын

"The Jewish evidence from the Second Temple period (e.g., Philo, New Testament, Josephus) and the clear statements of church fathers (e.g., Melito of Sardis) furnish no evidence for a wider Septuagint canon among Jews or early Christians. Rather, the evidence conforms closely to the Hebrew canon. These sets of evidence should cause us to reconsider the evidence of the early codices and should force us to ask a different question: Are all books placed within a codex considered to be part of the canon? If the answer is “no,” then how are we to explain the data?" I've read that youtube doesn't like links, but an article shows up on logos' website if you search for Was there a "Septuagint Canon".

@TheEngineerd

2 жыл бұрын

@@Emper0rH0rde Pretty sure James and Jude are in non-Catholic Bibles.

@Grantthecatholic

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheEngineerd indeed. Luther shifted some books like such to the end, shifted some others to the middle with a title saying “these are not held equal to scripture” there, and todays protestant bibles have 7 books missing thanks to Luther’s heresies

@isaacleillhikar4566

2 жыл бұрын

They didn't remove them. The cannon aproved by the pope at the time said the same thing and Jerome informed him, because he's a source because he actually investigated it, didn't just go with what it seems. The council of Trent Added them in.

Our brother William Albrecht has also done a few videos thoroughly dissecting Mike Winger on this same subject!

Enjoying Trent's rebuttals; more importantly, learning lots. Subscribed.

What gets to me is the absolute lack of deference Winger has upon encountering this tradition of the hermeneutics of typology and deforms it to serve _HIM._ When he doesn't like it it's "gobbledygook", but whenever it pleases him it's sola scriptura.... The arrogance of these people is quite frankly grotesque.

@computationaltheist7267

2 жыл бұрын

Hey there my friend. It's good to see that you're around.

@tessa7413

2 жыл бұрын

They're charlatans. I think many of the pastors (at least deep down) know that they're being dishonest.

@takmaps

2 жыл бұрын

Facts qwerty

@michaelmoll1214

2 жыл бұрын

@@tessa7413 That's so extreme a statement. I am one of those pastors, and I come here to listen and truly understand the Catholic view on Mary. I know Mike well, and that man is no charlatan. He seeks to please God with every fiber of his being. If Marian doctrine is true (I am undecided at this point), then our Blessed Lord will lead me (and Mike) to that truth in HIS own timing. Show love and grace, not impatience and vile insults.

@pedrogutierrez1547

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. He has to be dishonest if he wants to keep his pastor gig at his local Bible church. Coming to the truth would probably mean he would need to get a real job.

Really liking the Counsel of Trent. Fantastic!

I love how you give so much context to the people you refute. It just goes to show the strength of Catholic doctrine.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

LOL. So lets read John 19:25-27 within its CONTEXT and ask ourselves: Did Jesus tell ALL of the believers at the foot of his cross that Mary was THEIR mother ?? No, Jesus selected ONE GUY out of the crowd of believes and told that ONE GUY to take care of Mary as his own mother -- and from that hour that ONE GUY took Mary to his own personal home. *So WITHIN CONTEXT, how does Trent and the Vatican come to the private interpretation that Jesus was making Mary the mother of ALL believers ???*

@strikevipermkII

2 жыл бұрын

@@veritasmuy2407 Add it to Revelation, and Mary is the Queen of Heaven, mother of Christ. She also is the representation of the Church itself, given that the disciples placed the deposit of faith in the Church they created, just as God placed Christ in Mary. You cannot divorce one piece of scripture from the rest of scripture to suit your own ends. The typology is there, you just disagree with it.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

@@strikevipermkII YOU: "add it to Revelation, and Mary is the Queen of Heaven, mother of Christ" -- *ME: What ?? 1)). Jesus made it clear that BELIEVERS were his true "mother", and that Mary being his physical mom was of no importance in the Kingdom of GOD* -- see Matthew 12:46-50. 2)). *Mary is not mentioned in Revelation -- the Woman of Rev 12:1 is the physical 12Tribes of Jacob/ISRAEL as described in Genesis 37:9-10.* Mary can not be the Woman Rev 12 because the Woman is ON EARTH during the last 3.5 years being persecuted by Satan (Rev 12:12-17) -- Mary is in Heaven along with all the other Believers that have physically died these past 2000 years. 3)) *The "queen" is the BRIDE of the King -- not the King's mother (Psalm 45).* In patriarchal Judaism the mother of the King is totally unimportant and NEVER reigned with her son, the King. And you might want to take note that in order to be a Queen, a woman had to be married to a King -- like Bathsheba was married to King David -- and even Bathsheba was only called the "wife" of the King, not the queen -- and she had no power in the Kingdom of her son (1Kings 2). And you might also NOTE that Saul, David, and Jesus' moms were NOT married to Kings, and therefore were NEVER seen as a "queen" or a "queen mother" by the Jews/Jewish Church -- that is why you can't find ANY verses in God's Scripture to back you up.. I don't know where you got the idea that Mary was a queen of anything cuz it certainly is found no where in Holy Scripture, OT or NT.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

@@strikevipermkII YOU: "She also is the representation of the Church itself, given that the disciples placed the deposit of faith in the Church they created" -- *ME: First: the Woman of Rev 12 can not be the Church because the Church did not birth the JEWISH Messiah (verse 2).* SECOND: your definition of "church" is not Biblical. The word in the NT is "ekklesia" which means "the CONGREGATION or assembly of Believers" -- *the Original Church taught the BELIEVERS/congregation about Savior Jesus, thus FAITH is in the individual BELIEVERS -- not some physical religious organization.* GOD/Holy Spirit indwells the individual BELIEVERS (1Corith 3:16, 1Corinth 6:17), not some physical religious system.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

@@strikevipermkII YOU: "just as God placed Christ in Mary" -- *ME: Since Jesus now indwells all Believers (John 14:23), are Believers now the Ark ??*

Yeah! You're the only other person I know, besides myself, that uses the Zach Morris timeout. Great clarification as always. Thanks for doing what you do! God Bless.

Trent, you have been on fire lately. One request/video idea: can you do a video on "the burden of proof" and how atheists/lacktheists have kind of been spoiled by it (in a way)? Too often I encounter an atheist that thinks that, because they're atheist, that absolves them from providing the burden of proof on ANYTHING, regardless if they actually make a claim or not. An atheist could say something like "science is the best/only way to gain knowledge of the world." The theist would ask for proof of that, and then proceed to get scoffed at for "shifting the burden of proof" when the atheist made the claim in the first place. I encounter this pretty often by atheists; a video encountering this would be useful. Thanks again.

@jendoe9436

2 жыл бұрын

I guess one thing to point out is the Church’s relationship to science, which is pretty much “learn what we can and thank God for providing the world.” If they try to bring up the Galileo Affair, just steer the conversation away from the incorrect notion that the Church hated the Heliocentric model for being ‘unbiblical’ and point out the most popular astronomers at the time also didn’t believe it without further evidence. Plus, the Church has been a long time supporter of science in understanding God’s creation and bettering the human experience. The only major problem comes when science directly contradicts what we know of God’s workings. In those instances, the Church looks more into the issue and attempts to find out what is actually going on.

@glof2553

2 жыл бұрын

@@jendoe9436 I would agree. Even secular philosophers and historians have admitted that the Church was more faithful to reason than Galileo at the time, and Galileo was chastised essentially for not doing science well enough and then proceeding to use bad theology while antagonizing the Pope. That said, that can/has been pointed out to atheists, but the original point stands. Atheists will often believe that, because they're atheists, that absolves them from the burden of proof on anything, regardless if they actually make a claim or not. When called out, they complain about the burden of proof being shifted. People making claims have burdens of proof, and both atheists and theists make claims. "Atheism is a lack of belief" is a claim that requires the person who says it to provide proof and not scoff it away.

@Grantthecatholic

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/goOlr6Rscq6ud6g.html here is Trent’s response to such a thing… hope this helps!

I'm a critical Catholic, but I've learned infinitely more from Pastor Winger's Bible teachings than I did my entire life prior to 35 yrs old. He's partially responsible for my reversion to the RCC. His only deficit at this point is that it's not Catholic ... yet.

@veritasmuy2407

10 ай бұрын

Is Rome right that DEATH entered the world by the WOMAN/Eve ??

@Skarlet-ju8sr

5 ай бұрын

He refuses to submit. Pride.

May God bless you and your work.

Another home run, Trent. Fantastic job.

The funny thing is Mary is drawing him to herself and he doesn’t even realize it. She has a mysterious way of doing this. Adding him to my rosary. 😃

@gfujigo

2 жыл бұрын

What does this mean? Why not draw someone to Christ or God?

@TristenTaylorMD

2 жыл бұрын

@@gfujigo Mary leads all to God and Christ, they’re not mutually exclusive. In fact, to be led to Mary makes it much more likely you’ll be successfully led to Christ

@pxsmythe8913

2 жыл бұрын

@@gfujigo it means that the Queen of Heaven as the Queen Mother does helps the people under the kingship of her Son. All Marian direction is to Christ

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

Mary doesn't draw anybody to herself...It is God the Father who does the drawing and who then gives them over to the Son. For whatever the Father has so does also the Son.! Lets stick to what is written about how who does the drawing to Gods word and not out of pious acts!

@Iurymasterful

2 жыл бұрын

Our Lord did not think of Divine Revelation the way you did: Matthew 23: 1-3 . "Moses' seat" is not cited in the OT once, yet it is confirmed by Jesus. It was a doctrine originally transmitted orally then codified in the Mishna.

As a former Protestant who often ended up at churches where the pastors had specific “anti-catholic” sentiments, I do not know how you endure this breed of Christian enough to decipher anything they say. I find this type of speaker so pretentious. Perhaps it’s because I literally always know the arguments they are going to use.

@basicin4mationvlog293

2 жыл бұрын

Hahaha I'm from Philippines and literary in the Philippines those protestants and heretics alike "shopping" in the Catholic faith. They cannot teach without attacking the Catholic church. But thanks God there are new priest recently ordained and they were the result of apologetics. They are now frontline in apologetics and very successful. Pray for Father Darwin Gitgano a young priest who is an exorcist and apologist. He debated heretics.

@kadeshswanson3991

2 жыл бұрын

@Phil Andrew I think its apparent that @caratacus doesn't understand how reason works nor how to critically read. It is apparent by his constant use of illogical fallacies and his inability to remove his personal bias to understand the points you're making.

@kadeshswanson3991

2 жыл бұрын

@Phil Andrew it's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

@tommygun333

2 жыл бұрын

Good point. But these attacks tell me that I'm in the only right Church. evil one makes hearts of others attack.

@EmberBright2077

11 ай бұрын

That's exactly how I see 99% of Catholics. Don't take your assumptions for granted.

@8:05 Um Mike, I think you are undercutting your case here buddy. If the Greek word for overshadow means miraculous healing in relation to St. Peter's shadow, then it clearly indicates something miraculous in relation to Mary as well.

I've honestly never imagined anyone could actually deny the Visitation - Kind David connection. One thing to just ignore, but straight up mention it and deny it? Insanity, invincible ignorance is gone for this guy, we need to pray for him. judgement day is going to rough for him at this rate

I don’t get how a pastor spends a bunch of time preaching to his flock about what he thinks other people are wrong about. Pastor Mike, what is YOUR doctrine other than NOT Catholicism?

@jayjackson5932

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure he has hundreds of videos. Strange that Trent doesn't link the page or original video in the description. It really is just a handful of videos I've seen of his that question Catholicism.

@tessa7413

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! I just made a comment pretty much saying the same thing! Lots of Protestant pastors do it! I think they feel that their teachings are on shaky ground, so they feel the need to deceptively drill misconceptions about Catholicism into the minds of their followers before they find the truth for themselves.

@stephenjohnson7915

2 жыл бұрын

Protestants gotta protest. They’re usually not conscious of it, but their beliefs are often just a matter of taking a Catholic position and saying “no it isn’t.”

@stooch66

2 жыл бұрын

@@jayjackson5932 this was a sermon to his flock, not just a video. Say I go to mass and my priest spends 30 minutes explaining why a Mormon doctrine is wrong…I would be weirded out. Just saying. God bless you.

@jayjackson5932

2 жыл бұрын

@@stooch66 This is during a class, not his sermon. He talks about a lot of different subjects in these classes, and he takes questions at the end. God Bless you too.

Love your videos Trent!

Thank you Trent. Very helpful. Please make more rebuttals on Mike Winger and other vloggers who discredit Catholic truths.

Mike Winger: *makes a video on catholicism* Trent: "and I took that personally"

@christineczyryca5820

Ай бұрын

Huh? You need to be more specific

Which one of Christ Apostles ever said that Mary is the new ark of the covenant?

Thank you for this video! I was just watching Mike Winger's video on Mary Typology and so glad for your rebuttal. God bless.

Does anyone say that Jesus is the new ark of the covenant? It seems to me that it's more fitting that Mary would be since Jesus is the word of God and the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is never God himself but a carrier of his presence.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

The Arc of the Covenant is a copy of what is in Heaven. You are Temple of God because within YOU dwells God. First the Holy Spirit is the first installment of that inheritance and whoever believes that the Father sent the Son into the world to him/her also will have the Father and Son come to them.

@NicklasNylander87

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielhaas9469 I don't understand the relevance of this comment as pertaining to mine. Perhaps you want to post it as a stand alone?

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@@NicklasNylander87 It is releveant because of your statement that only Mary is the new ARC. But for God for to US who believe we all are the ARC for God wanted to dwell within us not by something made from hands or material by his creation but by his hand and handiwork. As it is writtent: Behold, I have made all things new and they shall be my people and I shall be their God dwelling among them.

@NicklasNylander87

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielhaas9469 I never stated that Mary alone is the new Ark of the covenant, I simply asked if anyone knows of anyone claiming Jesus to be the Ark - because that would seem like a strange thing to me. Since Jesus is the Word of God not the holding place for the Word of God. I don't think your argument disproves anything here. Your statement only says that believers are an ark or a holding place for God presence now - or as it where, after the resurrection. And this is done through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Mary was the only one to carry the physical Christ within her, and this happened before Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church - EI its not the same thing to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit and being the Ark of the covenant in the unfolding of Biblical history.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@@NicklasNylander87 thats why we need to be careful here..I could make the argument that the body of Christ is the Ark for behold all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell...but beyond that. I can't say one way... What troubles me is when I hear you are forced to believe Mary was X or Y when we don't know anything about it. And it is even more troubling when Cathloics cite odes of Solomon or the ascension of Isiah to draw on Marian dogmas..we are never instructed to go beyond what was handed on to us by the Apostoles. Therefore, if a certain text is being used and it can't be shown that it came from the Apostoles it should be rejected at max and held with extreme caution at min. And should never be used to force a belief on the church

The Church fathers in the first few centuries AD also pointed these examples out.

@duckymomo7935

2 жыл бұрын

The Church Fathers were also wrong in this regard. CF are not infallible.

@paulmualdeave5063

2 жыл бұрын

@@duckymomo7935 The disciples of the Apostles themselves are wrong? What basis do you have to say that? Who knows more than them what Christianity is??

@paulmualdeave5063

2 жыл бұрын

@@duckymomo7935 Feel free to look this up. What tradition in Hebrew history is the basis for Catholics to say Mary is our Queen and Jesus is the King?

@duckymomo7935

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulmualdeave5063 the earliest mention is mid-second century way too far removed from the Apostles. So you're still wrong. if it was that important (to the Apostles), it would've been explicit in the biblical text.

@duckymomo7935

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulmualdeave5063 If you look hard enough you can always find similarities. The correspondences between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is equivalent to Islamic arguments that Muhammad was the prophet Moses prophesied about in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 rather than Jesus. that doesn'tmake Islam correct.

The Winger analysis on Mary meeting Elizabeth reminds me what you have said on father Carey lately. That there is a genre of writing, i.e. the evangelists trying to link events to create a meaningful situation. Therefore question back to protestants, is the Bible not inspired? Or there are parts more inspired than others?

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

It is about Christ not Mary...the whole point of the annunciation of the LORDs coming is to fulfill what was spoken by the Prophet Jeremiah and others who said the Messiah is to be born of a virgin and by the descends of the root of Jessie and David. If it is typology..then it only is typology of Christ.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@Brian Farley this is just incorrect...what you are essentially saying is if Mary said no, then salvation would not come as if a human being can disrupt and usurp God's will... Its true that in our cooperation and communion with God that when we share the gospel that we have a share in leading people to Christ. But Mary is not the source of salvation nor are we.. For if we plant or water it doesn't grow on its own but God who makes it grow...Keep in mind it is God who is choosing us and not the other way around...Peter says exactly that... Now you might say, so God rejects people who are trying to come to him? And I say yes, why? Because God knows our hearts and as a result if that he knows who will and who won't accept him...the whole basis if John 6.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@Brian Farley yes she is blessed because God came and became man by the power of the Holy Spirit. God chose Mary to be the God bearer. But Mary is still greatly dependent upon God which is why she says I rejoice in my God and savior.

@danielhaas9469

2 жыл бұрын

@Brian Farley thats just incorrect...no human being can disrupt or usurp God's will..as it is writtrn..before God laid the foundation of the world God chose us and wanted to save us... What does the OT and NT say about God? God uses us to accomplish is will...when God speaks it will not come back to him void.. Look at how many prophets said no when God called them! Jeremiah said no, Jonah said no and tried to run away from God. Does God choose someone else? Nope, for who he calls they will answer and do it... Nothing and Noone can change that what God has decreed can change that fact.. It is good that Mary did not say no for she can be viewed as a model of saying yes LORD be it done to me in accordance to your word... but also Paul and many others who have come to God.. Again, God chooses us and not the other way around

@matthewbroderick6287

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielhaas9469 Without Mary’s free willed consent, there is no Man/God to redeem us! Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

Thank you for articulating these clear double standards of Marian biblical interpretation.

@nightshade99

2 жыл бұрын

Great spin doctor, isn't he?

@johnvitelli3862

2 жыл бұрын

@@nightshade99 research the 5 deadliest sins against Our Lady.

Why does not Mike Winger discuss what the Church Fathers said about Mary?

@johnflorio3052

2 жыл бұрын

@Bouseux: The Early Church Fathers were Catholic. For evangelicals this is a non-starter which is sad.

@michaelt5030

2 жыл бұрын

I watched a video of his once on divorce and remarriage in the Bible, and when he got to the Catholic view of things and referenced the Church Fathers' views, he pretty quickly dismissed them with quotes such as "not sure why they're called 'fathers' when they didn't found the Church" and "they held some really weird views about marriage" (I'm absolutely paraphrasing here). It seems to me he holds them in pretty low esteem.

@marcokite

2 жыл бұрын

because he's a protestant and they can't see anything outside of the Bible

@bouseuxlatache4140

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnflorio3052 the paradox is that new baptist and evangelical churches tend go back to the Church Fathers and read them putting Calvin and Luther aside. There are many protestants on the internet with a great interest to the early Church and really willing to re-discover the early Tradition. The Holly Spirit is guiding

@benjaminw309

2 жыл бұрын

The first few centuries they didn’t say a whole lot about Mary. I never thought the early fathers seemed very Catholic in that regard. It seemed to develop over time.

I guess the difference between seeing typology of Mary and Jesus is that one of main points of the Old Testament was to point to Jesus and the understanding of events would be clear when looking at the life of Jesus (for example, Abraham sacrificing his son). Luke 24:27 "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." and also in John 5:39 "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me" and later in verse 46 " If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me". The only other person in the New Testament with a clear prefiguring was John the Baptist to Elijah. Even then the whole point of that was to point to Jesus as the Messiah. If we are looking at typology, it makes more sense biblically since all things were to point to Jesus and that is the whole purpose of typology, that Jesus would be the new Ark of the Covenant. Why? He represented all three of the elements in the ark. Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the law, Jesus said he is the bread of life and Jesus is our high priest forever. I think it is missing something to say that because Jesus was in Mary's womb, it should be her. But, even if we take the examples given as actual typology, they are all pointing towards Jesus and who he is and not to Mary as an end goal to the typology. In your video, the point is drawing attention to Mary, which was NEVER the goal in any of the typology anywhere else in the Bible. But, I agree that in regards to overall typology, some things are a bit of a stretch. IMHO there should be a CLEAR and concise correlation between the two comparisons that when seen there is no doubt as to what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament and how it was fulfilled in Jesus.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

Agree. Mary can't be the "Ark" because the most important part of the OT Ark that represented Jesus as the mercy of God to lost mankind was the MERCY SEAT which was NOT INSIDE the Ark -- it was on top/the lid of the Ark. Besides, ALL Believers are now indwelled by Jesus (John 14:23), by Roman logic that would mean we are all Arks.

Honestly he’s being disingenuous at this point and it’s ridiculous. The worst part is that he won’t even want to have a discussion, so he keeps on lying, and misrepresenting us and tradition. I wish he would just talk to us, but he won’t for whatever reason

@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast

2 жыл бұрын

Disingenuous is the exact same word that came to my mind.

@lonelyberg1808

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think he is lying, I rather think it is misrepresentation

@RobRod305

2 жыл бұрын

@@lonelyberg1808 Misrepresentation can be a form of lying, whether intentional or not

@johnyang1420

2 жыл бұрын

Truth is not on Mikes side….thats why.

@johnyang1420

2 жыл бұрын

Mike has a bu$ine$$ to run….get it?

very solid and logical apologetics. well done!

Thank you Tren!

This comment is before watching. I predict Trent will fail. Mike will be consistent. I will edit in my after thoughts after. (edit). I was right. Mike wasn't completely right; but, he wasn't inconsistent. He looked for typology about His God. He didn't look for typology about a sinner who needed a Savior and doesn't do anything for him.

I came here from Sam Shamoun's channel ! Nice work ...GBU

Hi I am a subscriber of Pastor Mike but I loved your response so much the last part got me the most though - don’t be a downer cuz we love Mary ☺️☺️☺️ nah there is nothing wrong with that I love her too!! Haha you are such a kind heart God Bless you already subbed!

Good job Trent.

How does anyone take Winger seriously? Dude won’t even have a discussion with a Catholic 😂

@spurcalluth6300

2 жыл бұрын

Conversations with Catholic laymen has never been official church doctrine. Why should Mike chat with a guy like Trent (a lay apologist who has zero authority in the church) when the official documents are available online? Do you figure that Mike is illiterate?

@IAMFISH92

2 жыл бұрын

@@spurcalluth6300 Yeah, I’m actually starting to suspect he is either A.) extremely dense or B.) extremely dishonest given how badly he misrepresents the Catholic position. And that’s coming from an Orthodox Christian who also has a lot of disagreement with Catholics. Mike’s biggest priority is supposedly to equip his followers to be able to adequately dialogue with Catholics and other non-Protestants. And yet when given the opportunity to set an example and demonstrate this type of dialogue himself he refuses? Haha ok…Seems kind of suspicious, to be honest. It’s almost like he isn’t willing to be challenged on his positions. Never take an apologist seriously who isn’t willing to step out of their echo chamber. Doesn’t matter if that person is a Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or anything in between. If they aren’t willing to be challenged by the group they’re critiquing then it means they know something is lacking in their position.

@spurcalluth6300

2 жыл бұрын

@@IAMFISH92, I honestly don't know if Mike sees himself as an apologist. Sometimes it seems like it, other times it doesn't. My guess would be that he would say he isn't an apologist. It sounds like he considers himself to be a religious KZreadr, and that's all. But I might be wrong. Anyway, it seems like he is very attached to Protestant church tradition, while not really wanting to admit that Protestants have church tradition.

@IAMFISH92

2 жыл бұрын

@@spurcalluth6300 He classifies himself as an apologist. He literally gives lectures on polemics.

@spurcalluth6300

2 жыл бұрын

@@IAMFISH92, also, I think I've heard him say that the not-engaging-in-debates is a time management issue. There's no reason to read more into it than that. Not every conversation I have with a Catholic has to be recorded and moderated, and I figure the same is true for Mike. I don't know what goes on in his private life, but I don't think I have reason to think he just walks away if someone privately wants to discuss things.

When I listen to Mike Winger, I get the same creepy feeling I have when I encounter a scam artist from a Bangalore call center.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

When I see a statue of the female Mary INSIDE the buildings for worshiping the ONE TRUE GOD, I get the heebie-jeebies cuz that is the abomination that the satanic AntiChrist will do -- Deut 4:16, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 9:27, Rev 13:13-16...... TRULY... C R E E P Y...

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

When I see the Roman Vatican inviting demonic pagan religions to set up their female idol on church property, and allow the demonic religion to hold demonic religious rituals on church property, and even have their "christian" ministers participate in the demonic religious rituals (Amazonian Synod) -- I get the creepy feeling that I'm watching the Roman Vatican PROVE that they belong to this evil world and are NOT "of God" -- *what did JESUS do when the people of God showed disrespect for GOD's property in John 2:14-16 ??* No wonder the AntiChrist comes out of ROME -- Daniel 9:26.

@MainframeCobol

2 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂gold

@IvanAlvarezCPACMA

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know that isn't Satan speaking to you?

@MainframeCobol

2 жыл бұрын

@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA by their fruits ye shall know them simple no?

There indeed comes a point where reason and evidence is not enough to convince one of the truth. At this point, it requires the grace of God and a movement of one's soul to see the obvious.

God bless you Trent.

How can they sell sola scriptura when they removed books from the Bible?

There is a reason why Mike winger will not debate or dialogue with Catholics. He does not want that smoke...

the condescending sarcastic tone of the guy is just revolting, he shows his true colors

@ToxicallyMasculinelol

2 жыл бұрын

yeah I feel so bad for the people in his flock who go shopping around for local churches, and all they find are these modernist Americanized protestant churches, where the pastors are constantly howling and mocking and gnashing their teeth. if that's all they see, it's no surprise that so many lose faith, and that the anger and invective rubs off on all who remain, whereupon we run into them on the internet, regurgitating anti-Catholic myths and calling us all sorts of bigoted slurs.

Hail Mary the Blessed Mother

I hope Mike Winger watches your videos.

So, he thinks ἐπισκιάσει/episkiasei is merelly something passing over the head of Mary and making a shadow over her in the process?? Even liberal catholics scholars, Lutheran and Presbyterian theologians recognize de Mary/Ark parallel, There are twelve points of contact of allusions to the Ark of the Covenant and Mary's visitation (literary, linguistic, topological) in 21 verses of Luke's Gospel, and it is there in the early church fathers too.

9:36 The Hebrew word used in Exodus 40:35 is "kacah" which means "clothe, clad self, conceal, envelope, overwhelm" -- which is different from Luke 1:35's "epi/OVER" ("will come upon/over you") and "episkiazo"/cast a shadow over". *To cast a shadow over something is not the same as enveloping to the point of concealment.* NOT THE SAME.

Typologies of Jesus in the Old Testament are either clearly stated in the New Testament or they are unmistakable, e.g., "...and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4 Not so with Marian typology. With Martian typology it's always a pretty far stretch. A case in point. When Bathsheba presents her son Adonijah's petition to her son King Solomon she says, “I am making one small request of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask, my mother, for I will not refuse you... " 1 Kings 2:20 Mariology apologists always end the quote precisely there. However, when we finish that reading we discover that the request made by the Queen Mother is extremely prejudicial to the King and, the King refuses the Queen Mother's request and in fact, has Adonijah executed. And this scripture is used to promote the Roman Catholic practice of presenting petitions (praying) to Mary. Really? Seriously? 🤔

@Thosewhocallmetim

4 ай бұрын

It's also used to smuggle in new theology. This is a point that somehow Trent overlooked in his response video. We don't use Christology to create new theology about Him. But since the Marian dogmas just aren't in the plain reading of the Word, they have to be "found" some other way, thereby these bad typologies.

7:22 Mike, *no one* obfuscates Greek more than protestants. *Nobody.*

It always amazes me how the non Greek explan Greek to the Greeks

@halleylujah247

2 жыл бұрын

Trent-"Gobly-de-greek" 😆

@mikederp9612

11 ай бұрын

I am sure Mike Winger would go to the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew I and say he doesnt understand the real greek translations.

**Please put the link to the source video into your description below the video.** ❤❤

I mean, do we gotta set up a gofundme to pay Mike to debate Trent? Let's start one so we can get this settled.

If only Mike would debate Trent, but he won't. If he is so sure about the Evangelical theology why doesn't he want to debate(rhetorical question)

@chrisvalenzuela7911

2 жыл бұрын

The typical excuses "I'm not a debater" "I'm not interested." Yet he loves to confirm his own not-biblical bias of sola scriptura with blatantly misrepresenting Catholicism. How someone can do that yet be completely unwilling to debate/dialogue with Catholics is pretty much cowardly, no matter how much they try to say they're not. Sometimes they'll go with this excuse: "I've had conversations with Catholics privately." I don't really have to explain how hilarious that is.

@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv

2 жыл бұрын

Mike gave up debates after trying his hand at it against a couple of people. Instead why not ask Trent to just invite him and vice versa to just do a public disscusion.

@antezulj4453

2 жыл бұрын

@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv I don't want to be aggressive, but you apparently don't watch neither of them ever, because Trent has done that, and many have done that, and Mike has declined

I would love to see a debate between you and mike. He’s a smart and faithful man, but I think he’s just misguided.

@colmwhateveryoulike3240

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. I like him and often find his studies useful in spite of disagreeing on several things. I think he's a good representative of the Protestant position on this and that a good conversation with Trent could be helpful.

@Veritas1234

2 жыл бұрын

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I don't know, as a Catholic I find him to be pretty offensive and he lacks charity.

@flearhcp

2 жыл бұрын

I think his charity is much better than other protestants that John Macarthur or Don blackwell whom I think is the worst .

@paulmualdeave5063

2 жыл бұрын

Debate has to have a basic honesty to it. I’m not sure Mike is honest enough to have a debate with. If he is as dishonest as James White it would be a fruitless exercise.

@mimi_j

2 жыл бұрын

He doesn’t want to though and unfortunately thanks to some of our own brethren who attacked him a few months ago instead of being good examples of Christ, he probably won’t anytime soon.

I’m waiting for Trent and Mike to have some actual interaction. That would be awesome and edifying

@basicin4mationvlog293

2 жыл бұрын

Nah don't expect it winger is to scared that Trent would examine his position.

@swoosh1mil

2 жыл бұрын

Pastor Mike would most likely loose many viewers and subscribers if he debated Mr. Horn. His level of Apologitics is not at the same level as Mr. Horn (not a put down, just a fact). And that IS an accurate representation...unlike Pastor Mike, who says he'll accurately represent Catholicism and then lies, misrepresents, generalizes, and over exaggerates Catholicism. Then he asks why Catholics get upset at him when he's just calling it like he sees it. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT...NOT CALL IT ACCORDING TO YOUR BIASES!!! I think many people overlook the fact that he makes that claim...to accurately represent....

@Mkvine

2 жыл бұрын

Trent has tried, Winger wasn’t willing to engage.

Thank you.

Why when protestants like him talk long enough they end up bringing something up that will invalidate things they've already said?

You take Mike's weakest argument and say it stands as typical of his other arguments in that video and then you take him out of context. At the start of the video Mike says that types (or weak types I can't remember but its still the same) cannot prove new doctrine and he explains how Catholics use these Mary types to prove Mariology. He doesn't mind using weak types for Jesus as long as they don't introduce new ideas about him, they are in tandem with already clear theology.

John the Baptist as a fetus lept not for Mary, but for his Lord, who was in Mary's womb.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

Right. But "lord/kurious" does not mean GOD/Theos. Sarah called Abraham her "lord/kurious" and she wasn't calling him "GOD" (see 1Peter 3:6). "Lord/kurios" simply means "one in authority; a husband, boss, master, governor, king, Messiah)

Just commenting on the early part of the video. I don't know that the New Testament references to the Flood or the parting of the Red Sea are necessarily divine typology, as much as references made to make a point or illustration.

Saved by the Bell. Lol. Great video!

Identification of Jesus’ attributes is logically prior to identifying typologies. For Mary, identification of typologies is logically prior to identification of her supposed attributes. Trent is correct is showing that mere typological evidences are weak. However, this only undermines Mariology. Even if all the typologies of Jesus were merely conjecture, this would not change any important theological truths about Him. We are given permission to find parallels in the OT because we know certain theological truths about Jesus. The same cannot be said about Marian dogma. If the typologies are weak, then, as a critical logical link in the argument, Marian dogma is weak.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, so very weak -- I mean if Mary was the Ark because Jesus indwelled her for 9 months -- are Believers now the Ark because Jesus indwells us for years (John 14:23) ???

@idankpoaugustine1983

Жыл бұрын

He already said that typologies are not proof. His only contention here is Winger's inconsistency.

@TheFsDguy

Жыл бұрын

@@idankpoaugustine1983 If Winger was consistent, then he would hold that Jesus’ typologies are likewise weak and cannot, in and of themselves, provide for His attributes. This is my point. Typologies cannot provide for this, and are only useful and interesting post-hoc.

Trent truly impresses me. Incredible skills. I invite anyone reading this to pray for him and Mike!

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

He has no Biblical skills -- here is just one example. He claims that Mary is the Ark because the Ark contained the "bread/rod/law" that represent Jesus. *But the most important part of the Ark that represented Jesus was the MERCY SEAT -- Jesus being the mercy of GOD toward a sinful world* (see Ephesians 2:4-9, Titus 3:5-6, 1Peter 2:9-10, etc). *And the Mercy Seat was NOT INSIDE THE ARK -- it was the lid/on top of the Ark.* So how can the Ark symbolize Mary carrying Jesus when the most important part of the Ark that represents Jesus was NOT INSIDE the Ark ??? *Everything about the OT Ark represented JESUS HIMSELF -- the wood* (Gal 3:13), *the gold* (Rev 1:15, Isaiah 48:10), *the two Angels* (John 20:12/Exodus 25:18-22), *the Mercy Seat* (Hebrews 8:12-13), *the Bread from Heaven* (John 6:34-35,47-48), *Aaron's Rod* (Eternal High Priest, Hebr 9:11-12, Hebr 5:8-10), *the Law Contract* (Matthew 5:17, 1Peter 2:22). *Jesus is the ARK of our New Covenant -- Jesus is the Mediator of our New Covenant* (Hebr 9:15) -- *Jesus' blood sealed our New Covenant* (Hebr 9:12-18) Everything in the OT is about JESUS, not Mary (John 5:39, Luke 24:44, etc) -- even Isaiah 7:14 is about the MESSIAH being birth by a virgin; its not about the virgin.

@JacksonD0716

Жыл бұрын

@@veritasmuy2407 Hey, it’s been a while! Hope you’re doing well. If you remember, we’ve had exchanges on a different video before about Mary (I had a different channel name then). Yes, Jesus represents the new ark. However, I’m confused as to why both Jesus and Mary, in their own ways, can’t both represent new Arks. These similes people make about Biblical figures/concepts don’t have to be mutually exclusive, as they’re not dogmatic statements, but rather clever observations. So while Jesus, in a way, represents a new ark, Mary also represents, in a way, the new ark. Mary doesn’t have to meticulously represent every single aspect of the old Ark in a painstakingly literal way for her to be referred to as an ark of the New Covenant. She bore Christ, the New Covenant, in her body; therefore it’s a clever comparison to refer to her as the new ark. These qualms that some have, at least to me, seem to have to do with the false assumption that honoring Mary somehow detracts from giving glory to God, which doesn’t make sense. Everything good about Mary comes from God, and points back to God. It’s just as nonsensical as someone saying, for example, admiring the beauty of a sunset (God’s creation) detracts from giving glory to God directly.

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

@@JacksonD0716 YOU: I’m confused as to why both Jesus and Mary, in their own ways, can’t both represent new Arks. -- *ME: Because the entire OT is focused on our REDEEMER -- our Savior -- JESUS CHRIST -- the Son of GOD -- see John 5:39, Luke 24:44, etc.* There is NOTHING in the OT that is focused on Mary -- even Isaiah 7:14 is about the Messiah/Redeemer being birthed by a virgin, it is NOT focused on the virgin. *It is a blasphemous SIN to give the glorious attributes that belong to GOD/Messiah ALONE* (sinless, immaculately conceived, redeemer, mediator, giver of graces, leader to Christ, Ark, crusher of Satan, etc). *to a mere female creature such as Mary -- see Romans 1:25-28* -- now you know why there is rampant homosexuality in the Roman hierarchy that teaches these heresies about Mary -- which were NEVER taught by the Original Church that KNEW Mary.

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

@@JacksonD0716 YOU: Everything good about Mary comes from God, and points back to God. -- *ME: Mary was a SINNER* (John 2:1-5, Luke 1:48) -- *and Jesus was the SINLESS Son of GOD that saved Mankind by his horrendous death on a wooden cross* (Hebrews 4:15, Galatians 3:13). Are you seriously saying that its okay to give this female creature some of the glorious attributes that belong to JESUS ALONE ???? That is blasphemy. So yes, it is terribly wrong for you to call Mary the Ark or co-redeemer or mediator or crusher of Satan, etc.

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

@@JacksonD0716 YOU: It’s just as nonsensical as someone saying, for example, admiring the beauty of a sunset (God’s creation) detracts from giving glory to God directly. -- *ME: But when one looks upon the beauty of Creation, one does not venerate and make statues and repetitively chant the mantra of Creation (Deut **4:16**-19) -- we thank GOD directly for His Creation.* Whereas, Romans make statues of a female creature (Deut 4:16) and venerate, serve, etc this female creature -- NOT God.

Good dictionaries provide definitions that reflect important examples of its literary usage.

Ok, so as a protestant considering Catholicism, here is what I need answers to. 1. Regarding classical theism, how strong of a classical theism must one affirm, Aquinas's is too strong for me? 2. Catholics put such an emphasis on Aquinas in general and I'm at odds with most of what he has to say, mainly His Thomistic metaphysics. So is this something necessary for Catholicism? Who are some good Catholic thinkers that are not Thomists? I have a hard time distinguishing general classical theism from Thomistic classical theism. 3. I also find Aquinas's theology on predestination grotesque (its pretty much Calvinism but maybe worse considering he thinks God leads people in and out of faith throughout their life, leaving some and keeping some). Is this the universal Catholic understanding of soteriological doctrine or is their room for true libertarian human freedom? Are there any Catholics in general who wholly separate themselves from Aquinas in general? 4. Must one affirm eternal conscious torment in the strictest sense or could someone adopt a view akin to CS Lewis version of hell that is also eternal? As far as I understand there is no room for annihilationism but there is room for universalism (which I think is false). 5. What must I affirm as infallible coming from the Pope? 6. Is there one divine Catholic interpretation of every verse of scripture or just certain parts of it? If some of these questions seem naïve I apologize but my study mainly has consisted of the historicity of the church and that is my main driver currently (I want to go where the truth leads) but these questions here are just some I cant seem to no where the line is drawn. Thanks in advance for any responses.

@josephnicastro5897

2 жыл бұрын

Hello I am a Catholic and will try to answer some of these questions for you. The Church recognizes Thomas Aquinas as a saint and mostly refer to his writings and books as good and helpful but perhaps there are some things that he wrote that are not quite in line with the true teachings of the Catholic Church. I’m not quite sure as I have never read any of his works, but I don’t think we need to put too much emphasis on what he taught but should rather look to official Church doctrine The pope is only infallible when he is proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine on faith or morals. Catholics follow the teaching of the Church with regard to biblical interpretation. I wouldn’t say that every verse has its own interpretation, but it is more like every section of verses that go together have their own interpretation so they can be viewed in context. Hope this helps and I would be happy yo answer any more questions!

@SnypedFTW

2 жыл бұрын

What you must absolutely believe to be a Catholic is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic church. The catechism is the teaching magisteriums official stance on things essential for a Catholic to believe. If you don't agree with Thomas Aquinas that's fine. As long as your views don't go against the Catechism of the Catholic church it is ok to hold whatever view you have. Not everything that comes out of a saints or popes mouth is dogmatic but what is dogmatic will be in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

@HosannaInExcelsis

2 жыл бұрын

@@SnypedFTW on number 3 I suggest you to read the work of Jacques Maritain or Marin Sola. They interpret St. Thomas in a very different way than the Banezians. Just like you, I find the Banezian interpretation repugnant, but I think Maritain and Marin Sola find a great balance between free-will and grace. A way to see St Thomas without the lenses of Agustinian predeternminism.

@davidjanbaz7728

2 жыл бұрын

Check out Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on KZread.

@lukebrasting5108

2 жыл бұрын

1. God's immutability is a dogma of the Christian faith taught by scripture, the fathers and the councils. Aquinas didn't invent anything new in that regard. 2. Catholics don't put that much of an emphasis on Aquinas. It sounds like you've been listening to Eastern Heterodox schismatics and allowed them to turn you against him. 3. No, his teaching on predestination isn't dogma. It's actually a point of contention in the Church. Research the Thomist vs Molinist controversy. 4. The Church doesn't actually have an in-depth doctrine on hell, although there are plenty of theological opinions and speculations. I think the only dogmatic teaching is that it exists and that the main torment is something called The Pain of Loss. The rest is just speculation, that's why some people in the Church can flirt with hopeful universalism. 5. Whatever he teaches to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals and in a manner that demands the assent of the faithful, usually at ecumenical councils or ex cathedra pronouncements, which are pretty rare. He can't just make something up, it has to be in scripture or part of sacred tradition. 6. No. The Church only claims infallibility in matters of interpretation when resolving a dispute (Mt.18:17) as to a particular scripture's meaning, for instance, the meaning and effect of water baptism. The Council of Trent declared that it's not just a symbol as some of the Reformers taught, but is the instrument used by God to pour out His regenerating and saving grace. It sounds like you're confused about what the Church officially teaches and how to tell the difference between dogma, doctrines, disciplines and theological opinion etc and what you are actually required to believe. You should check out a book called Teaching with Authority by Jimmy Akin, it explains everything. In the meantime, look into what the Solemn and Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is. This website has a good explanation. www.baptismofdesire.com

Is this an older video? Because it seemed to me that Mike laid off Catholic bashing after declining your debate offer

@ultimateoriginalgod

2 жыл бұрын

He didn't, but this is old

@takmaps

2 жыл бұрын

Yea he didn't

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:16 🤔 Trent criticizes Protestant double standard in evaluating Bible verses for doctrinal arguments. 01:14 📖 Typology explained as finding parallels between Old Testament events and New Testament figures. 02:49 🚫 Trent critiques Mike Winger for inconsistent use of typology in relation to Jesus and Mary. 03:58 🌊 Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant: parallels drawn between Mary and the Old Testament Ark. 07:33 ❌ Mike critiques Mary-Ark parallels, questions their validity based on textual differences. 09:26 📚 Scholarly viewpoints: Protestant scholars debate validity of Mary-Ark typology. 11:09 ✅ Trent argues for parallels between Jesus and the tabernacle, uses similar typological reasoning. 13:09 ❌ Trent demonstrates inconsistency in Mike's arguments against Mary-Ark typology. 15:28 🔄 Trent addresses Mike's objections to parallels between Mary and the Ark. 19:42 🔄 Trent highlights contradictions in Mike's stance on typology, undermining his own arguments. 21:08 🕊️ Jesus being a type of the tabernacle and ten commandments is presented, but Mike's harsh criticism of marian typology is applied to him. 21:34 🔦 Mike argues Jesus is a type of the lamp stand in the tabernacle due to his role as the "Light of the World." 22:18 🔨 Connection drawn between hammered work in the lamp stand and Jesus being beaten, paralleling Isaiah 53:5. 22:45 🛢️ Parallel between pure beaten olive oil for the lamp and Jesus sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. 23:44 🌟 Mike's typological argument for Jesus, although weak, is made with excitement, showing parallels between Old Testament and New Testament figures. 25:08 🔗 Connections between Old and New Testaments don't need a perfect one-to-one correspondence; they can be echoes in salvation history. 25:47 📚 Recommendations for further reading on marian typology and dogmas are provided. 26:00 🙏 The video concludes with gratitude for watching and encouragement for supporting content creation.

@veritasmuy2407

9 ай бұрын

Everything about the Ark inside and outside -- the wood, gold, Mercy Seat, two angels, presence of GOD, high priest rod, etc -- symbolized JESUS. The most important part of the Ark that represented JESUS and our New Covenant thru Jesus, was the MERCY SEAT -- Jesus being the mercy of God to a lost Mankind (1Peter 2:9-10, Titus 3:5-6, Ephesians 2:4-9, etc). And the Mercy Seat was NOT INSIDE the Ark -- so to say that "Mary is the Ark because the items that represented Jesus were INSIDE the Ark" is a false statement. Jesus is the Ark -- LOOK at the power of the Ark to destroy by plagues (1Samuel 5:9) and to destroy the idols/false religions (1Samuel 5:3-4). -- this is exactly what JESUS will do when he opens the Scroll and Revelation 15 & 16 happen.... JESUS is the Ark (John 5:39, Luke 24:44)

@veritasmuy2407

9 ай бұрын

YOU: Recommendations for further reading on marian typology *ME: There are no OT typologies of Mary -- even Isaiah 7:14 is about the MESSIAH being born of a virgin, its not about the virgin.* The Woman of Genesis 3:15 is the 12Tribes of Jacob/Israel who's SEED is the Jewish Messiah (Isaiah 65:9) -- that has ALREADY crushed/destroyed SATAN/Death by his death on a cross (Hebrews 2:14, Colossians 2:15). Jesus is the SEED of ISRAEL -- the Lion of the Tribe of Judah -- the offspring of King David -- Revelation 22:16.

Great videos I hardly ever comment I watch many of them though. I'm a little concerned I don't know if it's your camera or if you have a sunburn but you seem very red in this video just hope that you're okay is all may God bless you and your family keep up the good work 👉✝️☦️✝️

Why didn’t you mention the part about Uzzah dying because he touched the ark and that being the reason David would not accept it at first? Seems deceptive for you to leave that out. Jesus is the only way.

This is MY typology on Psalm‬ ‭45:9-17 (references and thoughts in parenthesis) 😊 “Kings' daughters were among thy HONORABLE women: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN (Rev. 12) in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; So shall the KING GREATLY DESIRE THY BEAUTY: for HE IS THY LORD; and worship thou him (only). And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift(Lk. 1:28); even the rich among the people shall ENTREAT THY FAVOUR (intercession). The king's daughter is all GLORIOUS WITHIN (immaculate): her clothing is of wrought gold. SHE shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins (religious women) her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace (heaven). Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children (mother of the christians) whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. I WILL make THY NAME to be REMEMBERED IN ALL GENERATIONS (Lk. 1:48) therefore shall the people PRAISE THEE FOR EVER AND EVER.” ‬

@RobertCooperBohn

2 жыл бұрын

@atgred What is beautiful is that the Church, in Her Holy Wisdom, has selected Psalm 45 for use in the Mass readings for the Solemnity of The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary this year - see below: 1st Reading Revelation 11:19A; 12:1-6A, 10AB Responsorial Psalm Psalms 45:10, 11, 12, 16 2nd Reading 1 Corinthians 15:20-27 Gospel Luke 1:39-56 I never get timed of the truth that the Holy Inspired Scriptures were born from and for the Holy Inspired Liturgy. The Church, with 2000 years of experience, has artfully joined pieces of the Sacred Text together to shine light on the Old and the New. God bless you for your insight in the Psalm about our Blessed Mother and God bless Jesus' One Catholic Church who lights the way for the world!

@Jenny-ni5bp

2 жыл бұрын

I believe that has to do with a literal wedding from one of the Kings of Israel, not Mary ! She is not the Queen of heaven, there is no Queen . One lord one faith one baptism . Scripture also says there’s only one mediator between God and man is it and that is Chris Jesus. The end!

@atgred

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jenny-ni5bp Well that is YOUR OWN interpretation. And of course you would not accept the interpretation that I have given because that means you should accept that the Catholic stance on Mary is right. And you would never accept that as you have already stated. God Bless!!

@Jenny-ni5bp

2 жыл бұрын

@@atgred it’s not in scripture even in apocrypha, it’s not biblical to think so . There’s nothing in scripture that says that Mary is the queen of heaven it only refers to Jesus as being kings of king in lord of lords nothing no where is it in scripture . when the woman blessed him saying blessed be the the woman who bore you he actually changed it to rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it so in actuality he diverted her blessing of her and said rather to those to hear the word of God and obey it because there is no queen of heaven. Also when the disciple said your mother and brothers are here to see you Jesus replies, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” He points to the disciples and says, “Here are my mother and my brothers. ... “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple.”

@atgred

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jenny-ni5bp Well you say it doesn’t say, I do say it does say. It is your interpretation against mine. You are not going to convince me and I am not here to convince you. You go tell Jesus, who is King, that His mother is not Queen. Go and may God Bless you!

Mary as the arc is the most defendable example, to move the needle in the debate you should defend the more difficult stands like the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary

If we want to really get picky on methodology of typology that Trent uses, we could start with the absurdity of making one to one parallels between Mary and Christ that completely ignore the Creator creature distinction.

I'm happy to hear Mr. Horn answer Protestants and others who misinterpret what Catholics believe. So I wish more priests would disprove Protestant heresies when they preach. The religiously indifferent ecumenism should have ended long ago. I'm tired of hearing Catholic ecumenists pander to non-Catholics when the ecumenists should urge non-Catholics to join the Catholic Church.

@duckymomo7935

2 жыл бұрын

How is it misrepresentation when these are literally the claims from Catholic sites and the Vatican?

@williammcenaney1331

2 жыл бұрын

@@duckymomo7935 I'll need to look up a specific example. For now, though, I'll give you an example that I've heard from other Protestants. Some Protestants tell me that I shouldn't call any man "father," including any Catholic priest. But those people need to rethink that criticism. To do that they may want to reread the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy, where God tells me to honor my father and my mother. When the Bible says "Call no man father" it means that we shouldn't call a human person a father in the sense we use that word in when we call God "Father." The people telling me to "call no man father" don't mind calling their male parents their fathers. It's not enough for anyone to merely repeat a sentence from the Bible when you need to get the sentence's meaning from the context. Many Protestants believe the Catholic Church teaches that we need to earn our salvation. It doesn't teach that, and it never has taught it. "Bill," they'll warn me, "works of the law can't save anyone." Who thought they could? No orthodox Catholic I've ever met. But the question is what works does the phrase "works of the law" stand for? In Matthew 7:21, you'll read: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." So salvation does depend on some works. The catch is that even when we're Christians, God can still require us to do some things for him. Some theologians teach that a work of the law is anything we do to try to obligate God to give us something in return. Other theologians believe that works of the law are the 613 ones the Mosaic Covenant made Ancient Jews do. Today, some Calvinists seem to think that after we accept Christ, that obligates God to take us to heaven no matter what we do here on earth after we become Christians. Suppose I murder someone after I answer an altar call. Some will insist that if I'd do that, I didn't become a Christian after all. But that reply is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. That fallacy is a mistake some people make to try to explain away evidence against what they believe. How sure can I be of my salvation if I keep doing things suggesting that though I accepted Christ, he didn't accept me? Do I need to accept him each time I commit a serious sin? Why I'm not going to try to force God to let me into Heaven when I already know that some people won't get to heaven for calling him "Lord." In 1 John 5 in the RSV, St. John distinguishes between mortal sins and non-mortal ones. Catholics believe that a mortal sin is a serious one that could send the sinner to hell, remove blessedness from his soul, or both.

@davidjanbaz7728

2 жыл бұрын

@@williammcenaney1331 All strawman arguments: true faith in Christ Aways produces good works by the Holy Spirit in you're life. We don't believe you can willfully sin you're whole life, if the Holy Spirit is in U and U are the Temple of God. God Preserves His Saints: we don't Preserver ourselves. It's not once saved always saved: you can do anything U like. The Holy Spirit changes you're hearts motivation. If not you're NOT saved.

@williammcenaney1331

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 Who are "we?" Have you talked with every Protestant, even the ones who told me about "once-saved-always-saved?" I doubt it. You seem to think all my arguments are straw men. But you haven't answered the one about the fourth commandment and calling men fathers. In Mark 14:21, Our Lord says that Judas would have been better off if he, Judas, hadn't been born. But Christ made him an Apostle. In the KJV, Acts 1:21 even implies that Judas was a bishop. If Judas would have been better of dying in the Womb, do you expect to see him in heaven? Do you believe Our Lord would have made a non-Christian, unsaved man a bishop? I don't. Since Christ is and was God the Son, he knew Judas would betray him. Judas didn't ask Christ to forgive him after the Savior rose from the dead. No, Judas killed himself by hanging.

@williammcenaney1331

2 жыл бұрын

You may want to watch Pastor Winger's KZread video called "Bad Catholic Theology" where he says Catholics think they're saved by works. In that video, he also mentions Purgatory. But he may have forgotten that each soul in Purgatory is getting ready for heaven. That's because the Book of Revelations teaches that nothing defiled can go there. What does that say about Luther's idea that even in heaven, we'll be depraved and that Christ's blood will hide our depravity from God the Father?

Do you go back and watch your videos? The mental gymnastics and blatant hypocrisy is impressive.

Mike took this one and for only one reason.

I have a question. Why do some people use Salve instead of Ave in the prayer Ave Maria? I am confused in which is correct.

@joelkelly4154

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/p2xop8mafq6ycbA.html

@halleylujah247

2 жыл бұрын

@@joelkelly4154 that is actually a good resource

@briansardinas1359

2 жыл бұрын

Keep the Ave. It was probably intended to draw attention to her role as the new Eve by inverting her name in Latin. Eva => Ave.

@intedominesperavi6036

2 жыл бұрын

@@briansardinas1359 "Ave" is simply the Latin word for "Hail"

@briansardinas1359

2 жыл бұрын

@@intedominesperavi6036 I understand that but Salve was more commonly used which pertains to the original question.

Winger is not serious about understanding what we are saying. He interprets us in the least charitable way and is trying to refute us based on… technicalities it seems like?

Thank you Trent for this informative rebuttal.

If there were no connection, Luke would not have been inspired to write the first chapter of his gospel that way. Denying the connection is to deny the gospel.

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

There is nothing in the writings of Luke that even suggests that "Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant". *Luke states that Mary will birth the SON SON SON of God, not GOD (Luke 1:35, Matthew 16:15-16, John 10:36, etc) -- and "son of God does not = GOD -- Adam was a son of God (Luke 3:38); Angels are sons of God (Job 1:6, 2:1, etc); Believers are sons of God (John 1:12-14, etc).* The OT Ark was a type/shadow/pattern of Savior Jesus -- everything inside and outside the Ark represented JESUS, not Mary. *Stop giving the glorious attributes that belong to GOD/Messiah ALONE, to a mere female creature -- God hates that -- see Romans 1:25-28*

Shout out to Trent for his charity in appreciating mike for his comparison of the light-olive thing, though it was indeed a very weak analogy.

Mike Winger is disingenuous. He bashes the Catholic Church constantly but won’t speak to a Catholic apologist.

@basicin4mationvlog293

2 жыл бұрын

He's dishonesty and scared. He wants only to be seen and smart not unless our apologist examine his position. That's the reason he doesn't want to talk to Catholic

@brutus896

2 жыл бұрын

@@basicin4mationvlog293 It's actually more embarrassing listening to a catholic Apologist doing mental gymnastics trying to defend man made teachings. 😅

@joselongo1601

2 жыл бұрын

@@brutus896 what video have you seen? 😂 on this one this doesn't happen.

@johnyang1420

2 жыл бұрын

@@brutus896 Jesus made traditions because Jesus started the Catholic church.

@johnvitelli3862

2 жыл бұрын

@@brutus896 remember the Bible is Catholic

I think that their both valid however one of them is about jesus and one is about mary so i think mike is more focused on what is about jesus which i agree with

@dannysipos

2 жыл бұрын

Cause its Jesus, God incarnate

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

@@dannysipos Are you saying that the PHYSICAL Jesus was GOD walking around on earth ?? That is NOT what the Angel said in Luke 1:35 or Peter said in Acts 10:38 and Matthew 16:15-16 or what Jesus said in John 10:36...... "son of God" does not = GOD.

@dannysipos

Жыл бұрын

@@veritasmuy2407 Jesus himself says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him.

@dannysipos

Жыл бұрын

@@veritasmuy2407 I'm not saying He is the Father but He is fully human and fully God.

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

@@dannysipos YOU: Jesus himself says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. -- *ME: Jesus also said that the Father/GOD is also "in us" or indwells in us -- see John 14:23. Jesus also said that it was GOD/Holy Spirit that INDWELLED Jesus that did the miracles* -- see John 14:10, Matthew 12:28, John 5:19,30 -- *and therefore Jesus said that any Believer also indwelled by the Holy Spirit/God could do the same miracles that Jesus did -- see John 14:10,12,16-17.* According to Peter, Jesus was a Man that was indwelled by GOD, and that it was GOD that indwelled Jesus that did the miracles (Acts 2:22, Acts 10:38). *Jesus was indwelled by the Holy Spirit/God at his water baptism -- see John 1:33-34, Matthew 3:13-16, Mark 1:4.* *ALL true Believers are indwelled by the FULLNESS of God/Father just like Jesus was -- see 1John **4:12**-13, Ephesians 3:19, John 1:16,* Colossians 1:19-20, Colossians 2:9, etc. *ALL true Believers are One Spirit with Almighty GOD -- 1Corinth **6:17**.* THAT is why we will be resurrected into Eternal Life just like Jesus was -- see Romans 8:9-11.

This guy is soooooo sharp..and humble😀That combination is rare..if it was me...ohoohoo..😄

I need a shirt that says “Gobbledy-Greek”.

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

No, you need a Greek-English Bible to understand exactly what the Original Church was saying in the NT -- which was originally written in GREEK.

I don’t agree with Mike Winger on many things, but it’s amazing you people believe what you do. Mary has absolutely nothing to do with your salvation, none at all. Neither does the pope, or any of the Saints, Mary, the pope, the Saints have never heard of one single prayer, ever. You are saved by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. John 4:16

@veritasmuy2407

2 жыл бұрын

John 3:15-18,36

@saintmoses5963

2 жыл бұрын

Who said Mary has anything to do with salvation did u even watch the video. We ask for intercessory prayer from the Saints and Mary. We don’t accept them as our lord and savior.

@longshanks5531

2 жыл бұрын

@@saintmoses5963 how can a saint and Mary even hear your prayers, it’s not found in scripture

@longshanks5531

2 жыл бұрын

@@saintmoses5963 also, why do you think you need to pray to Mary? It’s clearly not stated anywhere in scripture to pray to sauté or Mary, it robs Christ of his sovereignty. You are saved by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. Mary has nothing to do with your salvation

@saintmoses5963

2 жыл бұрын

@@longshanks5531 brother once again who said we need Mary for salvation?? Everyone agrees we can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ. Now let me answer how we ask the saint to intercede for us or pray to the father for us. It’s biblical. Catholics no more worship the saints in Heaven than any Christian worships another Christian still living on earth when we ask one and other to “pray for me” or “pray for us.” St. Paul exhorts the faithful to pray for each other and asks in due turn for others to pray for him (Rom 15:30, 2 Th 3:1, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 5:25). We are not adoring and worshipping the saints because the definition of “Prayer” in this instance is petitioning and asking

Mr. Horn (Dr? Do you have your PhD or is there another title I should use? I mean no disrespect.), I think the main difference between typology concerning Jesus and typology concerning Mary is that Jesus tells us in Luke 24 that the OT refers to him. Hebrews also makes clear connections between Jesus and the OT religious structures. There is no clear indication in the Bible that Mary is typologically represented in the Scriptures.

@mcspankey4810

2 жыл бұрын

The Ot doesn’t only have connections between our Lord but also includes the Church and the Queen of the New Israel. There’s no clear indication that the typology ends with Jesus

@chrismabe2661

2 жыл бұрын

@@mcspankey4810 that is a claim, but the question remains as to how we determine what is typological and what is not.

Mary being a typological fulfillment of the ark does not automatically lead to believing the Marion dogmas. This is like when Roman Catholics argue that because Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16, therefore the Papacy has to automatically be infallible. Both of these are big jumps that don’t have to be made. I appreciate Trent Horn saying that typology should not be the basis or proof for a doctrine. However, if we take away Cristological typology, we have tons of clear teaching about Christ from the apostles that leads us to the same truths. If we took away all of the supposed Marion typology, where would the explicit apostolic teaching be to lead us to these dogmas and the anathemas condemning anyone who won’t believe them? Thanks for reading!

Proof texting vs Reading the Bible in context

@duckymomo7935

2 жыл бұрын

This typology is divorcing of all context

I really like Mike Winger. He seems very genuine and he often has some very good insights into scripture. Even though I’m not Catholic (I am sympathetic to much of the church’s theology), I have noticed he seems blind to inconsistencies when he tries to refute Catholic teaching. In addition to Marian typology, I noticed he completely misses much of the significance of the communion/new covenant typology.

@phoult37

2 жыл бұрын

When one approaches the Bible with pre-conceived doctrine, it is easy to miss and/or dismiss significant and obvious typology.

@HauxYZ250

2 жыл бұрын

That might be the case but I’ve seen him tackle subjects in which he claims the biblical evidence made him change his position. I guess maybe he just has a special bias against Catholicism

@duckymomo7935

2 жыл бұрын

@@phoult37 forcing typology is eisegesis…

@zeroisnine

2 жыл бұрын

@@HauxYZ250 imo the main draw (emotionally) for Protestants is ownership and control, i.e. you own your bible and to a degree you get to control what it tells you. Even if he agreed with everything Catholics say, I think he, like many protestants, would not be Catholic. Because fundamentally, the allure is implicitly ownership over religion.

@HauxYZ250

2 жыл бұрын

@@zeroisnine I don’t think that’s entirely fair. When you psychoanalyze a position that broadly, I think you are disregarding the majority of thoughtful Protestants. It’s kind of analogous to the claim that “Christians believe that God exists because they want the comfort of heaven”. I believe the majority of thoughtful Christians (all denominations), love truth and have genuine problems with the Catholic tradition. Those problems may be unfounded for a number of reasons but I don’t think it’s because they want to “control” what the Bible tells them.

Apologies if this is throwing shade on Mike Winger, but he kinda freaks me out.

Here is my Protestant view on this topic; did any of the Apostle emphasise any of these Marian doctrines? If the answer is no, then I don't have much business with issues that are clearly absent in the foundation!

@veritasmuy2407

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the guys that KNEW Mary and wrote the NT for us didn't bother to write any of these "awesome facts" about Mary ???? Right, because the guys that KNEW Mary knew these things weren't true about Mary.

Yes we love Mary, but I think you should intently look on the GENRE of the book where Mary was mentioned, because it was only in the GOSPEL! WHY ARE YOU GUYS MAKING MARY A TOPIC IN THE GOSPEL ??? AS THE NEW ARK OF THE COVENANT ??? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THE GOSPEL IS CHRIST CENTERED ??? MEANING THERE IS NO OTHER TOPIC THERE EXCEPT CHRIST JESUS. MARY WAS MENTIONED JUST FROM THE NARRATION OF THE TOPIC OF THE GOSPEL, JESUS CHRIST !!! AND THERE IS ONLY ONE GOSPEL! Be sure your love for Mary will not make "Other Gospel" " But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a Gospel OTHER than the one we preached to you, let him be ETERNALLY CONDEMNED! (Gal. 1:8)" Peace...