🙏 I know understand about Apostolic Fathers. I can defend my faith now. Thank you sir. You are a great teacher .💒

@kiwihans100

Жыл бұрын

How can the 'church fathers' help you 'defend your faith'? Were they inspired apostles? Surely as Jude said, verse 3 "The faith was delivered once for all time through the apostles". This was written in 55AD. The church fathers came years later and introduced so many of their own ideas based not on the bible but greek philosophy! Its true!

Too good, thankyou for this great talk

You are doing an amazing job. My 20 years of confusion and doubts are clarified after going through your wonderful research and revelation. Amazing work, please keep it up.

@ellisspear

Жыл бұрын

Well said. I can not believe what I didn't know. !!!

Great presentation. The history is fascinating for me. now, I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and would argue that we are like all the mainstream Protestants. For example, we don't hold to once saved always saved. We do believe in the baptism of infants for the remission of sins. we do hold to the true presence of Christ in the Holy supper. in Divine mystery, we know that the body and blood are truly in the Bread and Wine. Christ in say this represents my body, he said this is my body. and of course, Lutheran would argue that in James 2 verse 24, James is simply saying that when one has Faith, good works will be a natural byproduct of a person who holds faith. this is exactly why faith, without works, is no faith at all. so comma I would posit there that there are some Lutheran answers to the good questions that you have. and I would absolutely extend that we are indeed brothers in Christ. Very great presentation. Very good information. God bless ✝️

@DigMySpanky

Ай бұрын

LCMS is so close to being capital C Catholic. I pray that we are united soon. God bless.

Thank You! Very interesting. Greetings from Switzerland

This guy does a good job. He is well spoken and knows his stuff. Getting people to listen well that is another issue

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

Read irenaeus and polycarp a few successive times setting aside your blinders...and pay close attention. Very different than catholicism friend.

@peaveawwii1

9 жыл бұрын

jesusstudentbrett Not true. Everyone of the Church Fathers helped develop Catholic doctrine and they all believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, The Liturgy, and the authority of the Bishop long before the Cannon became to be. The Protestants however waited 1500 years to develop there heretical believes and now have 10000s of denominations that cannot agree on the basic teachings of Christ. Christ did not come here to establish 10000 different variations on this teachins. There is only One God one Savior one Church. End of Story. Every Protestant Church I have ever been to takes something away from what Christ taught. They never add a thing. They always want to do the least and expect to receive the most. They say one cannot lose their salvation if the believe and how they live does not matter. They are critical judgmental and hateful of those who have structure discipline and consistency in worship. They say things like You do not need to confess sins to a Priest. you do not need Liturgy, The Eucharist is a symbol. The Blesside Mother was just a woman. The Communion of Saints is a joke. They have rewritten and edited a new incomplete Bible and claim that is all a person needs. The priesthood Bishops and Pope are not necessary or have any authority, and the list goes on and on and on. It has gotten to the point where in many cases all you have to do is accept Jesus and somehow you get a free ticket to heaven. If this were true none of the Apostles made it to heaven nor did any of the Christians prior to Luther. This is a heretical teachings. What did Protestants do before people knew how to read or when a Bible cost more than a church building. I guess salvation was limited to the rich and powerful. Is that what Christ wanted? If so Protestants have done an excellent job in evangelizing the super rich and members of the elite.

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

Allen Lichner First let me say, do not misunderstand or think I defend the Protestants in their FAITH ONLY garbage, nor do I see Catholics have it like it was before Constantine. As for one church, you are right... but the inspired word is not German, Spanish nor English, it is Koine Greek. The word translated as Church is EKKLESIA which the preposition EK is used often in the NT meaning OUT OF and the participle KLESIA comes from the verb that means CALLED.... so Church = those people CALLED OUT OF the world. James 4 says that Friendship with the WORLD is hostility toward God. This is not discouraging evangelism since Jesus ate and drank with sinners in the world. The early church would not let anyone that was not baptized in the Name of Christ nor living as He taught, to share in the Eucharist. They did not hang out together either, just reached out to them to come out of the kingdom of this world (Satan is ruler) through REPENTANCE and turning from evil... these citizens become part of the Kingdom of God and are not OF THIS WORLD.. which Jesus said if the World hates you, know that it hated me first. The EKKLESIA (Church) is what 1 John 2 describes: "15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" * There is only one body, but it is not a membership nor an organization, but the Father looks down and sees the hearts of those who have repented of living to please their flesh as Paul taught, and living to please Him. This is the real Church. They could attend anywhere on the planet as long as they are striving to obey the King. Should it be that way? No... but Satan has done a body slam on truth... and God is reclaiming it in these last days. Love righteousness and turn many from evil... and watch and see the Catholic church, and protestants persecute you as Jesus said the world will do. You are right Allen in many things you say, but your context in how your present the facts has some errors. Having been repeatedly reading the 2nd century writings repeatedly since 2011. I can't count how many times I have studied them.. some more than others. This includes, up until Irenaeus' Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, chronologically I mean, not their order in the ANF 10 volume set, but not including Irenaeus' Against All Heresies; I haven't read that. I wonder if you can say you have read them, the whole writings more than once. I don't say that to demean nor disrespect, nor boast, but to make an emphatic point. These Guys DID NOT preach what Catholicism does today. Did they believe in something beyond a SYMBOL for the Eucharist, you betcha... and so do I. I like how Ignatius said it near 105 AD, "the medicine of immortality". Or Justin Martyr's description they use a word called TRANSMUTATION... that since I like 2nd grader in Koine Greek, getting pretty comfortable... I do see the Greek of his first apology to convey there is a CHANGE (mutation) of some sort, but I am not sure if it is the change in us or the change of wine and water, which is what they used, just as John 19 says water and blood spewed from Jesus' side like fountains of living water, and bread without yeast (sin)... and only those that as ADULTS as Justin Martyr explains in the First Apology, having of their own free choice and knowledge agree to live by the teachings of Christ step down into the water and are thrice immersed, one dip for each Name of the Father, Lord of the Universe, and Jesus Christ the Son and Holy Spirit etc. When Justin describes Christianity, He starts quoting living by the Sermon on the Mount, radically, and the daily devotion the brothers and sister in Christ have toward one another, not like the Catholics today, although wonderful people I know, nor like Protestants, whom I love also, that just live their lives, and show up at the appointed times for their religious duty. Sacraments, alone, will not save anyone. Faith alone, will not save anyone. Only some radically devoted, living to do good zealously, loving and using wealth to help those in need, evangelizing to help people turn from sin and all fleshly pleasures and walk with the Spirit of God in adherence to purity and charity, obeying all Jesus taught, and the apostles... will enter the Kingdom of God foretold and spoke of by so many OT prophecies would come through the Anointed One (Christ, Messiah)... King Jesus... coming soon to establish His 1000 year reign here.

@peaveawwii1

9 жыл бұрын

jesusstudentbrett Wow. Finally someone who can make a solid statement. I only began reading the Church Fathers about a few years ago and was floored by them. This reading is what lead me to understand that the RCC is the real church. I say this because with the exception of the Eastern Church it is the only place that believes in the Eucharist. Whey you stated above"" These Guys DID NOT preach what Catholicism does today. Did they believe in something beyond a SYMBOL for the Eucharist, you betcha... and so do I" Help me on this because I am struggling. I too believe the Eucharist is something more than a symbol but find it difficult to believe some of what the Catholics teach. When the Church Fathers mentioned above believed something beyond a symbol was going on what were they talking about? It has been very difficult to find a good interpretation of their writings. The books I have read are all by Catholic authors and therefore have a Catholic tone to them. If these guys were doing something other than what the Catholics do today what was it? I am pretty sure it is not what the mega churches in the United States do. It would be nice to understand what the Early Church was about. I think they were correct. It seems that every church is lacking something in their teachings today. You named some of the writings you read. Could you please recommend some authors with good translations?

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

.

On the subject of relics, even before Polycarp, pieces of cloth that had touched Paul's skin were used to cure the sick. This we know from the bible. So it's no surprise that early Christians kept clothngs, bones etc. from the martyrs as something precious.and powerful.

@confused353

9 жыл бұрын

Clareau Peter & Paul were indeed "true apostles". True apostles were attested to by God with amazing signs, wonders and extraordinary miracles so that people would know that they had the prophetic word made more clear. 2 Corinthians 12:12 "The signs of a TRUE apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." From scripture it is true that we do find that amazing miracles were associated with even the handkerchiefs of Paul & the shadow of Peter. ALL the sick were healed of ALL their diseases. There is no evidence however that the bones of martyrs had the same power associated with the true apostles. Polycarps bones may have been taken purely out of respect to be buried in a place of honour to await the return of Christ and the bodily resurrection which the early Christians believed was imminent. (Christianity changed the way in which men buried their dead; they began to bury them lying down in the grave awaiting the resurrection.) The early christians vigorously opposed the pagan practice of cremation which symbolised total annihilation "by reducing the corpse to ashes". This is why they would have been keen to at least take Polycarps bones for burial. The persecutors of the early christians would "order the bodies of the martyrs to be cremated and the ashes to be scattered as a sign of contempt for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the Christians maintained that this placed no obstacle in the way of God's almighty power. Against this background, we may perhaps understand a little better why miraculous preservation from fiery torments crops up so frequently in the legends of the martyrs". "The early Christians ran great risks in order to snatch the bodies of the martyrs from destruction and carry them off for a proper burial"(quotes from John Russell, "Cremation"; uk apologetics; ) Chapter VIII, "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" says nothing of the bones having any intrinsic power of their own; although the martyrdom of Polycarp was a powerful testimony of the faith of this believer and worth noting. Polycarp, we are told was not in the habit of removing his sandals. Why was this? Perhaps because he rejected the attention of those who wished to touch his skin, as being in error & inappropriate. Perhaps like Peter he rejected any attention that rightly belonged to Christ alone, proclaiming as Peter did to Cornelius; "Stand up, I too am just a man".

@hilarykurungtiem8102

7 жыл бұрын

neither did he teach Once save, always save. or like wise no mention of scripture so scripture was not in use.! Just reasoning the way you reason.

@aaronadams8166

2 жыл бұрын

🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

Is it possible to get the slide presentation?

would love to see pictures of these guys....do we have any available

@shellbach3053

3 жыл бұрын

How

@E.C.2

3 жыл бұрын

Paintings...

well done, thank you!

Where in Revelation does John call Rome the "belly of the beast" as mentioned in this video at 24:30?

I listen to Gnostic lectures, they said that Jesus and Apostle Paul were Gnostics and the church they founded was the "Gnostic Catholic Church" so they claim that the Catholic Church from Rome simply stole the title "Catholic" and the proof is that Catholic means "Universal" which is a Gnostic word because Gnosticism study all religions unlike The Rome Catholic Church that is an Orthodox church.. any thoughts on this subject???

I enjoyed this presentation, it may be one sided, but I've enjoyed it

I sincerely want to know where in Polycarp's letter to the Philipians does he quote the book of Tobit? as mentioned here in 29:48?

@robertopacheco2997

Жыл бұрын

Tobit 4:10 and 12:9

However, thank you for your lecture. It does clarify how the RCC got to some of their beliefs.

@CarlosVelasquez-ns6xr

2 жыл бұрын

Yes it does, that's the greatness of this lecture. 🙏.

Totally absent in the early church Fathers practices was cups, classes, and instrumental music.

@denisebraganza

7 жыл бұрын

Robbins they did not walk around with bibles either. Your comments please since cannon of the bible was formulated by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century. The apostles and the early church fathers however did celebrate the Eucharist called it "love feast". Do you??

@richardpeterson9653

6 жыл бұрын

Denise Braganza Sarcasm doesn't translate into the internet very well. Which is what I think the original post is! Their is another comment that starts off the same way.

@CarlosVelasquez-ns6xr

2 жыл бұрын

Mark Robbins , don't forget they didn't have Bibles, for some reason you know it but you didn't mention it

Simon the Magus was in the movie, The Robe, starring Tony Curtis. The angels did not catch Simon when he jumped off the tower.

Decalogue: Sabbath was Saturday. Sunday because of a Pope decree?

Why wasn't the Church at Antioch included in the seven letters to the seven angels of the seven churches do you think?

Oh. Nevermind. I asked that in response to the last video and before I started this one. You give the answer straightaway. My bad. Lol. Wasn't under his jurisdiction I suppose. :D

What!?!?!??? I've gotta read these books

I question a lot when it comes to “church fathers”. I have a fairly different view on all of this.

Happy feast day of Πολύκαρπος ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΣΜΥΡΝΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΙΕΡΟΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ (Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and Holy Martyr)

Excellent ! Very well done. Thank you.

so where did the popes(the origins) come from and what are authority do they have... secondly are you saying polycarp was 82 because he said he served jesus for that long or do you have another reason..

@johnb4632

7 жыл бұрын

Josh Jeggs; Where did the pope get his authority. When Jesus singled out Peter of all the disciples. Not to diminish the other apostles but Peter was given the keys to heaven. Told the rest of the apostles and of course including Peter the sins you forgive; they will be forgiven; the sins you retain; they will be retained. Peter represents the Pope which became the bishop of Rome. Jesus said; wherever a bishop is; is where my church is. Now which church do you think demonstrates this.

@joshjeggs

7 жыл бұрын

How do we know what was given to peter... specifically "the keys of heaven" was passed down to other popes.

@johnb4632

7 жыл бұрын

Josh Jeggs; Peter represents the Pope because he was singled out to be the leader. Matthew 16 16-20 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . 19And I will give to thee the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Isaiah 22:22 22And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

@joshjeggs

7 жыл бұрын

I have never seen that passage in Isaiah... so thanks for that. But my question was how we know the keys of heaven was passed on to the next pope. in other words, how do we know peter represents all popes. singling him out as a leader does not seem to show how other popes also get the keys to the kingdom heaven.

@johnb4632

7 жыл бұрын

Josh Jeggs; What church in the world claims to have the keys to heaven. The Roman Catholic church is the only church that claims itself in direct seccession of the original apostles to the laying of hands of the Bishops.

at 33:31 Chp 6 of Polycarps letter is quoted and the word priest is used, but in Polycarps letter he doesn't use the word priest, he instead used presbyters, which simply means overseers. Not dodging as he claims, it simply says presbyters not priests.

@benboulet1724

Жыл бұрын

Priest is the English word equivalent of Presbyter

@robertopacheco2997

Жыл бұрын

No, overseer is episkopos. You can translate presbyter as elder, but those elders acted as priests. This development was already happening in NT times. Do a search and see that the apostles were sometimes referred to as holding the office of the episcopate or bishop.

Did Polycarp or Irinaeus tought the next generations to worship virgins (the hundreds of them) or the saints (the tons of them)?? Did they learnt to worship virgins and saints from the apostles?? or paganism infiltrated christianism and established in the council of Efesus the worship of virgins and saints (400 years after Jesus)??... As a former catholic I invite you to read the bible and try to find one sigle instance where Paul, Peter, John, Juda, or Jacob mentioned in the new testament that it was fine to whorship virgins and saints.

@trexbisnar2541

3 ай бұрын

Did you worship Mary and the saints when you were Catholic? If you worship them, then you are an idolater. If you ask for their intercession and you say "pray for us", then you are a Christian. Never, in any dogmas or doctrines, decrees, and books officially published by the Catholic Church that the Church permitted worshipping Mary and the saints. When you attend mass, the entrance song invites people to go to Church and worship God, the 2nd part is greeting the Church, the 3rd part is the penitential act or asking for forgiveness "Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us." then the next part is the glorifying God "Glory to God in the Highest and peace to God's people on earth." Catholics never worshipped Mary and the saints. We only ask for their intercession.

🔥🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

You have much good information, but you often give questionable information about what we non Catholics believe. The pentateuch was used by the Early church why the protestants changed to the Maseritic text. I have both Bibles. I don't know why changed. I personally prefer the Pentateuch.

I’m going through my thoughts 💭 was

@eamonnwright5557

4 жыл бұрын

I’m gonna I

I'm st polycarp..I'm an angel

Consecrated to the Episcopate. Priests are ordained.

Irenaeus was the first to use the term “Apostolic Tradition” as a basis for authority. He taught that it was the apostle’s tradition that Jesus died as an old man no younger than fifty years old. Today no one believes this tradition because scripture teaches that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry and the ministry lasted three years, making Jesus thirty-three when he died. Irenaeus got it wrong. How could he have gotten this wrong when he was only one person removed from the Apostle John? It doesn’t give me great assurance in the veracity of later “Apostolic Traditions” knowing this.

@alisterrebelo9013

10 ай бұрын

Quote us the text which says this.

It’s an apples and oranges comparison being made when one compares the Roman Catholic Church with Protestantism as being “forty thousand denominations”. Protestantism isn’t a church, its a reform movement. A fair comparison would be to compare as church with a church. Compare the unity of The Roman Catholic Church with the unity of the Anglican Church or with the Baptist church or the Russian Orthodox Church or the Coptic church ect. There is unity in the Roman Catholic Church as their is unity in any particular church. Each of these churches have their own statement of faith. The denominations that fall under the umbrella term Protestant are united in the Five Solas of the Reformation and would affirm the orthodox beliefs in the Apostles Creed.

The early church fathers' basically merely defines those intellectual men forecful enough to dominate within the congrgations of early christians, in the main, simple, sincere people (like Jesus disciples). Strongly influenced by greek philosophy which formed their education, their writings contain multiple explanations of deep spiritual matters humans can ony guess at. They were mostly preocupied with the 'Logos' ( the Word ) claiming that it was the 'reason & mind of God' e.t.c rather than a merely title that John chose to call Jesus Christ the Son of God. The 'Word' is only mentioned very few times and only in John's gospel. nowhere in Matt, Mark or Luke. Absent from Paul, Peter & James epistle and onyl mentioned once in Rev where it clearly applies to a PERSON. The apostles warn us constantly to be wary of all future ideas, claims & creeds of the 'leaders' & bishops' not only after the demise of the apostles but even while they were alive" ( Please see Acts 20:28-30. 1 Tim 4:1. 2 Peter 2: chapter two.) Matt 7:15-23. 1 John 4:1. 2 John 7. 3 John 9. Rev 2:15. Faith must be based on the Holy bible alone!

Well if you claim to be called of the Lord Jesus Christ then let's see the works that are supposed to follow you.

Where does Scripture tell us tradition is equal to God's word?

@leelansford1043

5 жыл бұрын

Does this help?: 2 Thess 2:15

@trexbisnar2541

3 ай бұрын

Tradition is also God's word and work, only not written. John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." Also, the Bible does not show any evidence that it is the ONLY source of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 "...so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth."

15:52, the primary heresies of the early church.

So why are both the Catholic and the Prostestant breaking one of the 10 commandment regarding the Sabbat?... And I could go on.

@avnrulz

9 жыл бұрын

Part One explains why we celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday from Christ's resurrection. As to working on the Sabbath day, we Catholics have confession.

@AndersErichsen-rr7vs

9 жыл бұрын

But the Sabbath IS NOT on the first day of the week. It was establish by Elohim at the beginning of Creation around 6014 years ago at the last day of the week. This is breaking his Commandment - and a manmade law to celebrate it on Sunday, The first day of the week... Regarding my own studies as to when Yeshua was raised - looks like it was the Sabbath. The grave was found EMPTY Sunday, not saying this was the day he was raised. But that's another big topic - and another manmade pagan tradition regarding the days. Either way - we go to the front of our Bible and read - that he blessed and made holy, the 7 day of the week. NOT, I repeat not the 1 day of the week. And the only command of the 10 he put the word REMEMBER in front - was the Sabbath day. Like we would screw up - and make our own manmade law about this - like we would be that stupid...

@777teamoati

9 жыл бұрын

so anders if u believe this to b true, then u must also still observe circumcision instead of Baptism?

@avnrulz

9 жыл бұрын

Anders Erichsen HE said, remember, keep holy the Sabbath Day. Did HE say which day was the Sabbath Day?

@AndersErichsen-rr7vs

9 жыл бұрын

Yes - he did say it was the 7 day of the week and not the first. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God BLESSED the SEVENTH DAY, and SANCTIFIED IT: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen 2:2-3)

Polycarp was a Israelite

@16 heresy

The Asian churches didnt celebrate Easter, they celebrated Passover

I was recently struggling with the question as to which is the true church? Is it RC, Orthodox West,East or Oriental,Protestant,Evangelical 1, 2 or 3. Then, I think the Lord helped my understanding. To ask which is God true church is a complete misunderstanding of Christ's mission.That we can see men and women gathering and preaching,sharing,praying etc is undeniable as we are all flesh and blood in physical spaces.But Christ has said that his kingdom is not outward (what is to be seen)but is within (secret in the heart). It is not with human observation. He also told Nicodemus that except one is converted he cannot see nor participate in this heavenly kingdom. So the church is not necessarily noticed outwardly by its "organized" presence in the world but by its spiritual impressions upon it. Except for sinning nothing of the natural order of the Christian changes except his heart. So it is possible to have Catholics,Protestant, Orthodox and not one being Christians. Much like Jesus found many Jews but not sons of Abraham. Within these organized groups and quite often without you'll find ordinary people whose only claim to Christ is a secret conversion of FAITH in their hearts. Not a historical connection to religion, traditions or any such notions. In a word not withstanding ones affiliation with professed Christian organization you're not a Christian unless you meet Christ personally put faith into him and walking in obedience despite the many religious pressures around you. We fail to realize that the Bible is really a prototype of believers in every time period.

@ddzl6209

3 жыл бұрын

Struggling to understand the truth one has to be honest first not having presupposition mindset of what one already believed .

Peter did not die in rome...peter was never in rome

@nickwalker6547

3 жыл бұрын

If your going to post on these videos at least put some proof text out there……its like watching you type i like corn flakes…..or like a five year old saying nuh uh…… every time you disagree.lol

@dieselcowboy777

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickwalker6547 the very first time that it was ever mentioned that peter was in rome was 200 years later by ireneaus who more than likely made a mistake.... But Catholicism wants to run with it like it was an infallible proof.... That is one of the problems with catholics....they act like whatever these bishops said was infallible which isn't true.....

@nickwalker6547

3 жыл бұрын

Soooo….u think peter was in Babylon? It was a ghost town during that time.

@nickwalker6547

3 жыл бұрын

Also… where did peter get taken where he did not want to go? Why so doubtful about where peter and paul were martyred?…… unless them being in Rome weakens your argument against Catholicism. If you were wanting to spread the gospel what better place than rome….the center of the world at that point. Js

They were not Catholics they were Christians. They did not follow or practice Easter, Christmas or all Catholic practices. They followed the feast of the Lord. They did not worship in buildings with idols nor pray to Mary. They obeyed the ten commandments instead of changing them like the Catholic church did. Catholicism is the amalgamation of dagon worship and Diana and pan. It's called the "Roman Catholic church" for that reason. The Romans took on many God's as they expanded

@nicholasr82

5 жыл бұрын

@@Kitiwake well wether you call it that or not that's what it's always been called since inception. Funny how you never addressed my main points. Idiot.

@thebiblestudyhelper9389

5 жыл бұрын

"feast of the Lord" ? So you mean that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross isn't good enough for you? So every year you eat a goat from the yard for atonement of sin ? Does the word abomination mean anything to you ? Do kid yourself if you eat a Seder meal it is a sacrifice for sin . This is why the Bible says "observance of the law is the rejection of Grace " . If you need a goat from the yard to cover your sin ; eat up .

@dieselcowboy777

4 жыл бұрын

@@nicholasr82 no the christian church started in Jerusalem and was not called catholic or the roman catholic church

@nicholasr82

4 жыл бұрын

dieselcowboy777 what are you talking about? You should read comments properly.

@dieselcowboy777

4 жыл бұрын

@@nicholasr82 must have posted on the wrong comment...my bad

The five fold ministry is not a hierarchical priesthood.....the new testament does not have a hierarchical priesthood..... God didn't put any man over another man....the only man over another man is the Lord Jesus christ

Ireneaus never said that you liar....he never said you have to go to rome

Deacons and bishops. Priest is Old Testament Levite priesthood not necessary in the New Testament. The word bishop pastor elder same word same Greek word

@PVCGunita

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, the literal word isn't the same, but the functions that of the priest in OT and the bishop/pastor/elder in NT is the same, both biblical and historical.

Why do you study a book someone wrote about Irenaeus and Polycarp? Why not read over and over again their own works without being influenced or biased? I began studying Volume 1 of the ANF over and over again in 2011. In addition, Irenaeus' amazing writing Demonstration on Apostolic Preaching. I can tell you, there is little resemblance to Catholicism nor Protestantism. Are the components in common? Sure but that is like comparing Sears tower to my house? Do they both have wood? Paint? Bathrooms? Carpet? Etc? Yes...but that aint this here...follow? Polycarp wrote a short letter to Philippian Church. Read it setting your desire to find Catholicism and just listen to the words closely.

@SpiritualJones

9 жыл бұрын

+jesusstudentbrett I would respectfully disagree. When I was an evangelical Protestant I first encountered the Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, after reading them I knew that Protestantism was out but I wanted nothing to do with Catholicism, I was passionately anti-Catholic but I found that the teachings (Sacraments, Liturgy, early Mariology, Apostolic Succession, the Bishop of Rome etc.) were all there. I was definitely biased, in the opposite way, but their writing played a huge part in my conversion and my coming into communion with the Catholic Church. I'm curious, since I just finished reading St. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians: What is found therein that would cause one to look away from Catholicism, or that isn't Catholic?

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

SpiritualJones Having not grown up Catholic, but protestant, I see the purity of Christianity, the love they have for each other, the devotion to honoring God with their lives and laying it down for others, the pursuit of virtue, not the stepping into a wooden box of confession with a priest, for they had no priests but just an EPISKPON and PRESBYTERS.. translate those to English as you choose... it is just words, leaders and shepherds of God's people, having become mature in the teachings of Jesus and then held up as a light on a hill for the others to imitate and see what it looks like to mature in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. There was no Pope or hierarchy, the 2nd century were independent assemblies scattered that loved the others, and would lay their lives down for the others, but no hierarchical legislation. Doing street open air preaching and evangelism, most former religious people I meet that are now Atheists are former Catholics. The outward is there sometimes at least, but the inner life is dead in most cases. Most Catholics have no desire to study and know scripture, which is to know God and Christ. It is so sad to me. Similarly, most protestants with their Faith alone nonsense is just a sinner wanting fire insurance to live carnally and have a get out of jail free card. So many are deceived and missing the kingdom of God that the Old Testament foretold was coming in Christ, the seed of David and Abraham, and begotten of Yahweh evident in Psalms 2. The king, priest for us, Prophet, Judge coming soon of us all based on our actions, and ruler of mankind coming to establish the Kingdom on the new earth. Justin Martyr's 1st and 2nd apologies do a great job a describing what it looked like. Second Clement does a great job too. If you look through the passages, can you pull out some common elements so that one could, if they ignored the spirit of early Christianity say "ah ha! here are these elements or components that are what we believe"? absolutely... you can do that. Many people could take a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and find some pieces that seem to fit together and form a little picture and then talk people into believing that that is what the puzzle is about... with tons of remaining pieces. This is what modern Christianity has done. The biggest problem I think with modern Catholicism is, because they sometimes are more benevolent than most protestants, one of Jesus' goals, is the IDOLATRY. I am going to post a link that I invite you to listen from a early church historian, that you may already be familiar with: David Bercot. Listen, if you will, to the early church quotes that show the icons and veneration to Saints as opposed to whom the NT teaches who is Christ, is not what they practiced. God bless my friend.

@innergest

8 жыл бұрын

+jesusstudentbrett I'm sorry to tell you sir...although you seem to be very passionate on your comments in this video...personally, these never made me sway me to be anti-catholic. Instead, your comments are making me more Catholic. If your purpose is to let me see your view point, I'm sorry to tell you, you miserably failed.

@jesusstudentbrett

8 жыл бұрын

Mark Marquito ; ) The Christ was prophesied to come and usher in the kingdom of God. He spoke of an EKKLESIA (meaning CALLED OUT OF is the meaning in Greek). It is not an organization with a name like Catholic or Luthern or any other name... it is people who come out of the ways of this world, purify themselves obeying Christ and what he taught. May God help you.

@innergest

8 жыл бұрын

jesusstudentbrett EKKLESIA = CALLED OUT OF...yes, I agree. But how can you be so sure that it doesn't refer to an organization? Are you objective enough and have taken into consideration other's scholarly take on this? Otherwise, it can only be an opinion...and you can not blame anybody to have a healthy doubt to an opinion. As for my opininion, I can not help but picture yourself to be an anti-religion spreading your own gospel.

Totally absent from Pre-Nicene Church Fathers are Indulgences; prayers for the dead; prayer through images of Jesus; eating fish on Fridays; services having to be in Latin; or that causing pain can have some sort of benefit in one's life. Practices such as these were all Roman Catholic additions; post-Nicene. NEVER mentioned by the pre-nicene Church Fathers are:- Mary or saints having unlimited store of merit; praying to Mary or saints; veneration of Mary; Papal devotion to Mary; Visions of Mary; sinless state or bodily assumption of Mary; Mary as co-mediator/redeemer/Queen of Heaven or intercessor. All post Nicene additions. In other words none of these things come from the "teachings of the Apostles" of which the church is to be devoted. (Acts 2:42)

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

He speaks the truth here. Wake up folks. Read these guys without a commentary.

@SpiritualJones

9 жыл бұрын

+confused353 Without addressing each objection that you raise, I will point out that the line of Apostolic Succession was and remains unbroken, there is no logical basis for concluding that the Church fell into error following the Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, it would be necessary to demonstrate how any of the things you listed (merit of Mary and the Saints, the bodily Assumption of Mary etc.) violate or contradict Apostolic Teaching, whether found in Sacred Scripture, or in the preaching and teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. In short, by merit of Apostolic succession these things are the "teachings of the Apostles". Where does Scripture state, or where do the Apostolic Fathers state that all matters of Sacred Tradition are revealed in Scripture or within the Apostolic Fathers? Besides all the Marian doctrines and devotions that you rail against are completely logical, reasonable and beautiful, in light of Mary's intimacy with Christ and with the Most Holy Trinity as a whole. In the spirit of fair discourse, I would ask you: Into which Church were you baptized, if not the Holy Catholic Church and who is your Bishop?

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

SpiritualJones Apostolic Succession, a word you won't find stated in this way in the early writings nor the NT, but contextually, its meaning is speaking of passing and protecting the Faith once for all passed to the Holy People (Jude 1). It is not talking about people. They protected the faith and truths they had been taught. We study by studying the 2nd century thoroughly and then move out on the time line that change begins in the 4th century and really takes off with lots of new teachings (definition of heresy) in the 5th century AD via Augustine of Hippo.

@jesusstudentbrett

9 жыл бұрын

SpiritualJones You asked into what Church I was baptized? Well looking at the inspired Greek for those words, EKKLESIA means CALLED OUT OF. EK = OUT OF and KLESIA = CALLED. So as the NT teaches, the disciples (students/learners of the teacher) are CALLED OUT OF the world, as we see frequent warnings in the epistles to not go back to being a part of the world and its idolatries as we once lived, those who no longer live to please our fleshly desires but live to please the Spirit of God received at baptism when as Justin Martyr says in First Apology (150 AD) happens when a person by choice and knowledge (babies can't do this) they promise to live by the wonderful teachings of Jesus and repentant can escape their sins, they fast for one or two days, and then are brought to the water for remission of former sins (not sins you were born into as Augustine introduced that heresy). Baptizo means I IMMERSE... i go down and come up... dipping... So what Church (CALLED OUT OF) was I baptized into? I don't see the NT say we get baptized into the CALLED OUT OF the world assembly.... i see it say we are baptized into Christ. 1 Peter 3:20-21 says WATER is the antitype of baptism, which as Acts 2 says Christ went DOWN and then back UP from Hades for three days, which Luke 16 says was FIRE and suffering, the waters is the antitype, and we share in that burial, death (go down) and resurrection (back up) by faith with Jesus (Romans 6:1-6) and then live a life dead to ourselves, having come out of the world, and now it says in Romans 6 are by choice a slave to God, serving Him and others doing righteousness and becoming Holy (Romans 6:22) offers the promise of Eternal Life. Let's back up to see this confirmed in Paul's description of the coming Judgment that He is warning the Christians about in Rome: Romans 2:5-10 He says those who persevere... persevere in doing good works who seek honor, glory and immortality, God will give eternal life. This is what Romans 6:22 is saying. But to those who are self-seeking (don't repent) and reject the truth but follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. I was baptized according to my Lord's command in Matthew 28:18-20 Make students of all nations (gotta be one first) and then immerse them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then obey all that Jesus commanded.

@SpiritualJones

9 жыл бұрын

jesusstudentbrett Firstly, St. Justin, in the quote you referenced, is clearly speaking of an adult who has made a decision to become a Christian: this is not a teaching meant to prohibit infant baptism, as he references one who was raised in wickedness. Furthermore, Peter states in Acts (2:38,39) that the promise belongs to his audience and their children, i.e. entire households (as we find demonstrated elsewhere in the New Testament). Add to this the comparison made between circumcision and baptism in the Sacred Scriptures and the assent of St. Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus etc. and you can clearly see that infant baptism was a definite practice of the Church from the outset. It is interesting to note, as well, that St. Polycarp states (Martyrdom of Polycarp) that he has faithfully served his King 86 years...This means his entire life= he was a Christian all 86 years of his life. St. Augustine introduced no heresy...if you're referring to the doctrine of original sin, this is nothing new to the time of Augustine, there is much scriptural evidence available to support the doctrine of original sin. I can go on about that if you wish but I don't want to make this post too long. A few other things: You seem to imply that baptism is by immersion and immersion only, it is clearly demonstrated in the Didache that baptism by the pouring of water was a practice of the nascent Church. Immersion can be said to be preferable but in some places and at certain times it just isn't feasible. To the main point: I asked into what Church were you baptized, meaning that there is a definite distinct People of God, a Body of Christ physically present in the world, over which Bishops preside with authority. The Apostles and their successors and disciples did not speak of a vague assembly, without hierarchy. St. Ignatius speaks of a Catholic Church, Bishops (it is necessary for a Christian to be in harmony with his bishop (Epistle to the Magnesians)). Our Lord is clear in Matt. 18:17, there is a definite, visible, definable, orthodox Church? Again: What Church were you baptized into? Or. The question might better be stated as: Who is your Bishop?

The early Church father's were not catholics..! What on Gods green earth. Go back to Gods ways and study the bible and read for yourself and adapt his ways to your life. GOD IS NOT RELIGION.

@DigMySpanky

Ай бұрын

Ah yes, the easier softer way. I don't need religion! Just God! It's hilarious how you say that after saying "study the bible" 😂😂😂

Mariology

@bradbrown2168

4 жыл бұрын

Mariology is not inspired Holy scripture. Eve as a virgin? And Adam knew his wife”. Why does Mary say Jesus is her Savior if she is without sin? What is the authority to say the words of Polycarp, and Iraneus carried the same theological formations as the Gospels and NT letters? Is this known as Holy tradition? Which is the interpretive lens for knowing the faith? Just trying to see how RC comes to its conclusions.

@AveChristusRex

4 жыл бұрын

Eve was as yet a virgin when the fallen angel deceived her, as was Mary when Gabriel preached the gospel to her. That's how typology works. Just like how St. Paul parallels Adam with Christ, even though Adam was a sinner, precisely because before Adam fell-this is what Christ is coming to restore and do right, and not fall, but bring about Redemption from the fall, just as Eve began on the right path and so did Mary. The new creation. How _wasn't_ Mary freed from sin if God gifted her with the immaculate conception?? It's either Mary was freed from the endless cycle of sin, or Jesus was saved. And obviously it wasn't Jesus; and obviously Jesus didn't take sinful flesh but pure flesh from Mary, being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, which he took from Mary, but which had no sin involved. The Church Fathers have no authority in and of themselves. If they're spoken of as an authority on doctrine, it's insofar only as they represent the faithful of that time, and the perennial adherence to the once for all delivered faith. Scripture is only understood in light of that ancient faith, not contrary to it. This is the mark of heresy-not that a person disagrees with you, but whether your interpretation is against the faith, and not possibly orthodox therefore. The faith isn't tested against Scripture, as they both come from the same source: interpretations of Scripture and/or new and thus false doctrines are rejected if they contradict either (to disagree with either is to disagree with both, too, both coming from the same source, the apostles).

The apostle Paul quotesseveral philosophers living in Greece but he doesn’t believe it’s inspired scripture. People in the early church quoting the apocrypha doesn’t mean it’s inspired scripture. It’s history not infallible scripture. Being Catholic does not mean Roman Catholic and how you interpret the communion and the Lords supper is not the same way you’re going to Address good history. Believing that Jesus is present in the Brad that the Lord‘s communion is a pagan concept found in pagan deities become the vegetables they’re offering to the god. Ireneaus were simply wrong but he wasn’t about history

@PVCGunita

6 жыл бұрын

Sir, may I ask how would you interpret John 6:25-58, as well as the Last Supper?

Using The term catholic like Polycarp does does not imply the Catholic Church. It was not Catholic church until post Constantine. As a Baptist pastor I can see in Catholic but I’m definitely not Roman Catholic

@PVCGunita

6 жыл бұрын

Sir, can you define some points as to why? How is the Roman Catholic (or even Orthodox) is not like the Early Church?

Tradition is irrelevant and not part of inspiration or Gods direction 3 seconds in and he is wrong

26:12, Protestant erroneous understanding of the beginning of Catholicism.

What? They were not celebrating Easter. Early Christians were keeping Passover.

So you just claim the early teachers as catholics? Where's the evidence that they were catholic?

@dieselcowboy777

3 жыл бұрын

They also claim men were popes too....the word pope was never even used for 1000 years... Catholicism is just a fairy tale they made up as time passed....claiming some false idea that these men were popes

@HiddenTreasuresEnt

3 жыл бұрын

@@dieselcowboy777 You're 💯 percent correct

There is no mariolatry in revelation 12 either.....that is false catholic teaching

Sad truth is alllllll the organized protestant denominations have done the exact same thing the congregation of Rome did: They organized and went right back to religion with men as their head. We are all guilty and shall all perish except we REPENT.

this guy completely doesn't understand gnosticism. it started with St Thomas and his gospel. some gnostics believe christ was a real physical person and son of god and some don't. the one true underlying thing gnostics believe is the message of christ is the knowledge and truth through him is salvation and no priest is needed but rather the kingdom of heaven is within you already.

You my friend are dead wrong. On so many things. The Catholic Church does not represent biblical Christianity and there’s no connection to the apostolic pastors by succession like Catholics want you to believe. The Greek Orthodox church does the same thing and they don’t even agree with Catholics. They have their own succession

@PVCGunita

6 жыл бұрын

Sir, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics believe apostolic succession, and both accepts each other's validity of it. In addition, I don't see how the Church does not represent biblical Christianity?

@leelansford1043

5 жыл бұрын

You are in great err. You need to read Church history.

@Jesus.purple

5 жыл бұрын

The Catholic Church is the Beast and seat of Satan!

Yea the catholic church still has gnosticism in it

@alisterrebelo9013

10 ай бұрын

And you're full of dung. See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims.

And the majority of Christian churches were non trinitarians....and ireneaus never spoke of non trinitarians as being heresy because he and the apostles were non trinitarians.....not trinitarians

@brianclark528

Ай бұрын

Lol. 😂

@DigMySpanky

Ай бұрын

Lmaoooooo

It's difficult to extrapolate the factual details of these great men of the faith from this talk due to the repetitive attempts to claim Roman Catholic "ownership" of them. There's no doubt that this teacher is passionate that all Christians should join his group, as if Roman Catholics all agree on everything (which they don't). If the intent of this talk is to be an apology for Roman Catholicism, then I have no issues here. But if the intent was to teach on these men from history, there is far too much Catholic salesmanship here.

@dimlight911

6 жыл бұрын

Mike Leiter he is passionate about the authority within the church that has been passed down throughout the ages.. hence the Roman Catholic Church.. i guess its a historic lesson and a catholic apologetic lesson

They did not consider themselves Catholic!

The early Church fathers barely mention Mary and never as the queen of heaven, never as mediator, never as someone to pray to. Never as someone who is special other than being the human parent of Jesus.

Works of the catholic church proves it is apostate and wicked and evil.... Your works testify who your father is.....Catholicisms wotks have been completely wicked and evil for 1700 years proving it is false....showing the liars at the nicene council were not apostolic fathers

Every one that’s interested in church history please research why the Catholic Church does not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ anymore because they did !!!

@margwinell9088

3 жыл бұрын

Read the Didache.

Mary was indeed integral to the process of Salvation by her "Yes" i.e "Be it into me according to Thy Will" BUT she was not our savior in ANY way. Catholics, however, worship Mary on the same level with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now THIS IS HERESY.

@ddzl6209

3 жыл бұрын

Mary is not ordinary woman, she is the woman of Genesis who's seed is to crush the serpent's head, she is the ark of new covenant and will be called 'blessed one' for generations as per scripture. Protestants out of hatred for catholics may choose to ignore it but more than two billion people around the globe venerate her, even Muslims give her high regard in quran. The bottom line is the satanic theology of sola scriptura started by Martin Luther choose to downplay the importance of Mary in the salvation process.

@d.d.domaine2653

3 жыл бұрын

@@ddzl6209 I do not doubt neither do i challenge the importance of Mary in the whole drama of salvation through Jesus Christ. BUT The Catholic Church's Mariolatry is Idolatry to the highest degree. They believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix and was even part of Jesus' Passion. NOW THAT IS BLASPHEMY! Apostle Paul does not even mention Mary in his epistles. Indeed neither does Peter or even John who lived with her till she died! Catholics worship they know not what and are just like the Samaritans in Jesus' time!

@ddzl6209

3 жыл бұрын

That is your wild imagination that catholics worship Mary because it is the catholics who martyred resisting pagan idolatry for centuries, out of hatred for catholics you may say anything against Mary but insulting her will be against the scripture . Anyway may devil take care of heretics

@d.d.domaine2653

3 жыл бұрын

@@ddzl6209 You really have NO IDEA what you're saying! May God open your eyes through His Holy Spirit! AMEN

@ddzl6209

3 жыл бұрын

@@d.d.domaine2653 it is you who don't know about the the Christianity, catholicism is not religion of book like yours, it is the religion of Jesus Christ established by Himself almost four hundred years before the Bible was compiled and the Bible is just part of its tradition

At 4 minute point I find it amusing he says Ignatius called the church Catholic. The guy didn't speak English...he spoke Greek and called it a Greek word that you don't translate...you transliterate. The word we derive Catholic from just means there was one church. Hey that is what the NT says except using different Greek words. Open your eyes folks. Listen close to these 2nd century writer's describing Christianity. The NEVER suggest the faith evolves nor made allowances for 4th and 5th century changes to be introduced under Augustine and others. The NT uses a Greek word we get our word Heresy from...this means ...new... false teaching.

@PokeTeeHee

8 жыл бұрын

Literally, in the very last video the guy in this series went over several possible definitions of catholic and what Ignatius meant. He does not need to go into detail in this video as he already did in the previous lecture. I will not comment on any other part of your comment, but yes he does say catholic and did define in the previous video ( about an hour in and the video was on Ignatius). Also I find it funny that you accuse this guy of being a transliterate, but then in a different comment below you say "they had no priests but just an EPISKPON and PRESBYTERS.. translate those to English as you choose...". Then you indicate that these are "leaders and shepherds of God's people" which is what any Catholic would believe a priest is (and priest is the english for PRESBYTER so...?). You dance around the word priest, yet get mad when this guy say catholic. That makes you sound a lot like a hypocrite. Just don't be so harsh, bro.

Polycarp goes to Rome not to see the pope....cause there was no pope at that time. He goes to Rome as it was the seat of the false worship. He goes to do battle hoping that if he wins the battle Christianity would be saved from its idolatry.

The early Pentecostal fathers knew the catholic trinitarians were liars or not jews or not circumcised in the heart because they were not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.... Being baptized in the trinity of titles will never produce a born again Christian or it will never circumcise the heart

@nickwalker6547

3 жыл бұрын

Lol. What page is that on……..

@dieselcowboy777

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickwalker6547 the scripture that says they found those calling themselves apostles but found they were liars..... That's how they found that these men were liars and not apostles.... Because they didn't baptize in the name of Jesus Christ..... Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ produces Pentecostal wheat.....water baptism in the trinity of titles produces denominational illegitimate hybrid tares

@nickwalker6547

2 жыл бұрын

@@dieselcowboy777 help me out here bud….im lost…i dont even know what we are talking about

@nickwalker6547

2 жыл бұрын

@@dieselcowboy777 so god let people babtize the wrong way for over a thousand years? I have searched and if im wrong show me sonthing but i havent read anyone baptizing in jesus name only in history.

@dieselcowboy777

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickwalker6547 the apostles in the book of acts always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...and that's the the way most baptized for almost 300 years.... It wasn't until the many antichrists that went out in the 1st century who wrote the didache garbage ....that began to corrupt the minds of the people

Church Fathers should lead to Orthodoxy, not Roman papacy

They were NOT catholic