A Pharisee’s Test for Catholics, Protestants, Mormons & Muslims
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лис 2024
- In Acts 5, when the Apostles are on trial before the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel (the same Gamaliel that St. Paul studied under) provided a simple test to determine if a religion really came from God or not. So what was his test, and what does it mean for the credibility and legitimacy of Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, and Islam?
As a Protestant believer, it increasingly didn't sit right with me that Jesus, The Way, The Truth, and The Life, who just before His Passion prayed for His Church that we would be one, sanctified in Truth and yet today we have to settle to "agree to disagree" on "secondary issues" as though we can't possibly know the Way or the Truth. Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and yet I was to believe that the likes of Luther or Calvin had "restored" it? It was desperately holding on to that promise of Jesus that He brought me kicking and screaming to the door of His Catholic Church and now that I'm here, I can't imagine ever leaving! Praise Jesus!!!
Literally in the same boat as you. I'm sure many others as well. I've been a reformed Baptist for most of my time as a Christian. I was very anti catholic. Over the past 6 months or so I've really been drawn to the Catholic faith and have been studying the catechism and other things. It wasn't really until I watched Joe's last couple of videos over unity and truth that I determined I can no longer be Protestant. How mysterious and great is our God and His works!
Amen! Same as me!
Same. Haven't converted yet because I live with my parents who are anti-Catholic
@@josh39684I’m so sorry you’re experiencing that. I can wholeheartedly say you’ll not regret it though.
I too was brought up Catholic but went toward Evangelical, but I always retained that Catholic bond. Now with my whole family are steadfast Catholic and am very interested in bringing our Orthodox brothers back. We must be united.
Former lifelong Protestant here. I converted this Easter. I love this podcast. It’s positive and edifying. I’m too young in the faith for the doom, gloom and heresy podcasts. You build faith and knowledge and I appreciate it.
And, please, stay away from those. They really only exist because division sells. Just keep your eyes on Christ and His promise. God bless you!
Fellow catechumin here this Easter. Congratulations!
Former Protestant here, confirmed into the Church this Easter 2024 as well!
I feel like a broken record, but I was also confirmed this Easter and I am happier than ever! Congrats!
Me too!
Joe Hesch is my favorite Catholic apologist. I always like the video topics and style of presentation. God Bless.
Me too!
honestly this is the best video I have ever listened to that supports RCC. Im a cradle Catholic (went to Catholic school taught by pre Vat II formed nuns and priess), left the Church in my 20's and became an Evangelical (Calvary Chapel) for 30 years. I knew nothing about Church history other then I was told the RCC was corrupt and Luther fixed all the problems in the Reformation. I became very anti Catholic. Imagine my shock when 3 years ago I felt drawn to Catholism. I thought I was under demonic attack. It couldn't be from God surely. I visited an FSSP Latin Mass, and Ive been there ever since. Cant believe I went all those without the Eucharist!
This is why I love your videos, Joe. The speech by Gamaliel has been around for 2,000 years, but I've never heard it applied to so many other groups so effectively. God bless you.
You are wrong!
Gamaliel speech does apply only to the catholic church!! Nobody else since that time!!
I’m so glad to see converts to the CC on here sharing their stories. Welcome home!!! We just had kids in our church receive the sacrament of confirmation. Please pray for all teachers and defenders of the faith, especially priests. Thank you Joe for your work. All praise, honor and glory to God!!!
I have never heard the Gamaliel argument before, it's brilliant!
Joe Heschmeyer always had these good arguments, nobody’s heard of before.
Read your bible Acts5:38-39
Yea he was a big time rabbi. Saul was his "A" student.
Thank you for all your teaching videos! May Mother Mary continue to bless and protect you and the Holy Spirit continue to teach you! 🙏
@mark7428
Psalm 45!
The Virgin in heaven to the right of the King!
He exalts her for all generations!!
Noble men ask her favor!!!!
I like to ask Rod Bennet’s question: “Which of those church fathers would you let come teach in your evangelical church?”
Assuming they have any knowledge at all (which would probably be very little), they would probably say (St.) Augustine of Hippo. Of course, if he actually came to their church they would probably be upset about the things he would say.
@@conservativecatholic9030Especially if Augustine insisted on using what they call the “Apocrypha”
@@christopherponsford8385 there would be other problems, but that would certainly be one of them.
@@conservativecatholic9030 what other problems?
@@christopherponsford8385 off of the top of my head, I think they would have a problem when he comes in doing Catholic liturgy, especially that of a bishop. That would definitely cause scandal.
But here are a few other topics they wouldn’t like; Baptism, Eucharist, Church authority, Mary, Sola Fide, contraception and apostolic succession. I’d imagine it would be very difficult for him to preach in a non-denominational church and not trip over at least one of those barriers.
Joe,
Love listening to your videos! So happy that you are using this platform to teach and spread the Word. It’s been a joy knowing you and seeing your development and growth over the past ten years. God has certainly blessed you, your family and us who have benefitted from your ministry. So lucky to know you and live in the same town and catch your live presentations! 😊
Thank you! 🙂
This is womderful teaching. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Chrurch. Worthy of several listening!l
(Adelaide, South Australia) Thank you.
Both thumbs up for this clear and logical reasoning in determining which religion/sect caries out God's will rather than our particular preferences.
Thank you Joe! This is a PERFECT theological presentation.
The Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD! He leads, protects, cares for and defends her for 2000 years, she will ever be destroyed, Acts 5:38-39!
One of our best! Thanks joe
This is an excellent explanation - never heard the issues so clearly expressed. Thank you.
Happy Easter Sir, the New Saint Paul, LOL God bless you for your ministry.
In his book 3 of Against Heresies, written around 170 AD, St. Irenaeus stated that all churches should listen to the church of Rome due to its authority. He also mentioned that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and listed the first twelve bishops of Rome, starting with Peter. It is a fact that Protestantism can only be traced back to Luther and no further. That is significant
protestant wouldn't even agree with the premises of "trace back to Luther" can you steal man the protestant position and view of the church?
@carsonthorell3509 I don't think you can steelman the Protestant position. The evidence is overwhelming Catholic and Orthodox. The only way Protestantism works is universalism. Protestantism is built on truth relativism
@@josh39684 stealmaning is a mental exercise of good faith, not a proof or endorsement. Do you understand the best arguments from the protestant position.
@carsonthorell3509 I'm not a Catholic grown-up protestant but just completed a research paper on church history and Catholic dogma. Here's the table of contents:
Purpose of this Book: 6
Introduction: 7
Catholicism: An Overview 9
Part 1: History of Catholicism 12
The Genesis of the Catholic Church: A Historical Exploration of its 1st Century Origins 12
The Catholic Church in the 2nd Century: Doctrinal Synods, Universal Identity, and Structural Alignment 14
Dynamics of Authority: The Catholic Church in the 3rd Century and its Growing Role in Doctrinal Affairs 16
The Triumph of Christianity: The 4th Century's Transformative Journey under Constantine and the Council of Nicaea 18
Dynamics of Faith: The 5th Century Unraveling and Unity - Councils, Schisms, and the Rise of Monasticism 20
Monastic Flourishing and Cultural Shifts: Christianity in the 6th Century 22
Faith in Flux: Christianity in the Shifting Sands of the 7th Century 24
Charlemagne, Ecclesiastical Schisms, and Cultural Resurgence: Christianity in the 8th Century 25
Christian Expansion, Papal Alliances, and Scriptural Innovations: Unveiling the Flourishing of the 9th Century 28
Christian Flourishing and Ecclesiastical Parting: Dynamics of the 10th Century 30
Ecclesiastical Rupture, Papal Reforms, and Parish Dynamics: The Transformative 11th Century 32
Ecclesiastical Resolutions, Inquisitorial Shadows, and the Dawn of Learning: Dynamics of the 12th Century 34
Renaissance, Reforms, and Saints: The Multifaceted 13th Century in Christian History 36
Ecclesiastical Turmoil and Theological Transformations: Navigating the Challenges of the 14th Century in Christianity 38
Ecclesiastical Stagnation and Renaissance Splendor: Navigating the Complexities of the 15th Century in Christianity 39
Religious Transformations and Schism in the 16th Century 42
Faith and Enlightenment: Dynamics of the 17th Century in Christianity 43
Adapting Faith in an Age of Enlightenment: The Complexities of 18th Century Christianity 45
Navigating Waves of Immigration and Political Transformations: Catholicism in the 19th Century 47
Evolution and Transformation: The 20th Century Journey of the Catholic Church 49
Navigating Challenges and Global Dynamics: The 21st Century Journey of the Catholic Church 51
Part 2: Historical Examination and Origins of The Church 57
The Great Apostasy: Fact or Fiction? 58
Challenging the "Trail of Blood": Examining Historical Absences 61
Constantine and the Catholic Church: Understanding Constantine's Role 68
"Founding the Faith: Tracing Jesus Christ's Role in the Origins of the Catholic Church” 72
Part 3: Sacred Roots of the Catholic Priesthood 77
"Sacred Roots Revealed: Investigating the Biblical Foundations of Catholic Priesthood” 78
“Is the Catholic Confessional Biblical? Unraveling its Foundations” 84
"Assessing the Scriptural Foundation of Priests Administering Penance” 90
"The Origin and Significance of the Title 'Father' for Catholic Priests" 96
Part 4: The Mass, Eucharist, and Baptism 102
The Continuous Sacrifice: Understanding the Catholic Mass 102
"The Enduring Significance of the Real Presence in Christian History" 108
"The Importance and Significance of Baptism in Christian Faith” 125
"Exploring the Biblical Grounds for Baptismal Regeneration” 128
"Exploring Infant Baptism: A Biblical Examination" 133
The Sign of the Cross in Catholic Tradition 135
Part 5: Examining Historical & Biblical Foundations 147
"Sacred Continuity: Tracing the Historical and Biblical Foundations of the Catholic Church” 148
Catholic Indulgences: Examining Their Biblical Basis or Profit Motive. 154
“Harmony of Faith: Exploring the Interplay of Scripture and Traditions in Early Christianity” 162
Sacraments and Scripture: Unveiling the Biblical Foundations of Catholic Rituals 165
Part 6: Rome & The Papacy 169
"The Historical Influence and Authority of the Church of Rome” 169
"Discovering the Papacy: Exploring Beliefs and History - An Overview” 177
Peter as the First Pope: Unveiling Historical and Biblical Foundations 186
The Unbroken Chain: Apostolic Succession Unveiled 191
Historical Roots of Papal Infallibility in the Catholic Church 196
"Exploring the Pope's Titles: 'Holy Father' and 'Vicar of Christ' through History and Scripture” 204
The Papacy Unshaken: Why Bad Popes Don’t Disprove the Papacy 212
Part 7: Marian Doctrine & Devotion 215
"Mary's Enduring Legacy: A Journey Through Christian Devotion Across Time and Tradition" 215
Unveiling the Doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception: Understanding the Belief in Her Sinlessness 231
"Mary: The New Covenant's Ark - Unveiling Her Role through Church Teachings, History, Bible Connections, and Theology” 240
"Mary as the Queen of Heaven: Tracing the Historical, Theological, and Cultural Foundations in Christian Tradition" 246
"'The Perpetual Virginity of Mary': Exploring History, Theology, Ancient Greek, Jewish Culture, and Early Christian Beliefs" 251
"The Assumption of Mary: A Comprehensive Analysis of Biblical, Historical, and Theological Foundations” 264
"Mary, Mother of God: Unveiling Historical Foundations and Theological Significance" 268
"Mary, the Queen Mother: Bridging Ancient Jewish Customs to Christian Intercession" 271
"Courage and Faith: Timeless Wisdom and Parallels between Esther, Mary, and Hannah” 277
Part 8: "Catholic Insights: Soul, Rosary, Intercession, Purgatory, Temporal Consequences" 279
"The Rosary: Unveiling Biblical Roots, Historical Continuity, and Spiritual Harmony" 280
"Rosary: A Timeless Journey of Faith and Resilience” 285
The Battle of Lepanto: A Historical Analysis of the Catholic Rosary's Role 290
Unveiling the Afterlife: Biblical Insights and Early Christian Perspectives on Soul Consciousness 295
"Intercessory Prayers to Saints: Exploring Catholic and Orthodox Traditions" 300
The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Belief: Unveiling Connections 307
Exploring Christian Theology: Temporal Punishment for Sins 315
Part 9: History of the Compilation of Scripture 323
"Forging the Scriptures: Navigating the Complex Path to Bible Compilation” 323
"Canon Controversies: Unraveling the Development of the Christian Bible" 329
"Unraveling the Council of Javneh: Historical Reality or Myth?” 334
The Septuagint: A Bridge Between Early Christianity and Judaism 337
Part 10: Theological Examination 344
Calvinism's TULIP Doctrine: A Contrast to Early Church Teachings 344
The Intersection of Protestantism and Nominalism 353
Exploring Eternal Security: Once Saved, Always Saved? 359
Unveiling the Potential Heresy of the Protestant Doctrine of "Faith Alone": A Comprehensive Examination with a Focus on Gnostic Associations 364
The Case Against "Sola Scriptura 369
"The Interplay of Faith and Works: A Catholic Perspective on Salvation” 379
"Losing Salvation?: Catholic Perspectives on Assurance, Perseverance, and Trust in God" 385
Part 11: Councils, Schisms, Holy Wars, and Transformations from Reformation to Pope Francis 395
“In-Depth Exploration of the Catholic Church's 21 Ecumenical Councils” 395
"The Great Schism: Exploring Perspectives from Catholic and Orthodox Views” 413
"The Complex Realities of Holy Wars: Unraveling the Threads of Crusades, Inquisition, and Reconquista in European History” 419
Reformation Truths: Martin Luther and the Catholic Church” 426
"Divine Strife: Unraveling the Transformative Holy Wars of the Protestant Reformation Era" 437
Unveiling Queen Mary I's Reign: Religious Strife, Political Maneuvers, and Royal Convictions 443
"Transformations and Continuities: A Journey through the Catholic Church from the Counter-Reformation to Pope Francis" 451
Part 11: Catholic Exegesis of Biblical Passages 460
The Catholic Interpretation of Romans 3:24: Emphasizing the Gracious Nature of Justification 460
Interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9: Perspectives from Catholic and Protestant Traditions 463
"The Rich Depth of Catholic Interpretation: Unveiling Insights into 2 Timothy 3:16-17 through Greek Language" 467
Part 13: Contemporary Issues 471
“Comparative Analysis of Reported Abuse in Catholic and Protestant Churches” 472
Analysis of Abuse in Catholic and Public Schools 479
Understanding Catholic Doctrine on Marriage and Divorce 482
"The Role and Contributions of Women in the Catholic Church: A Detailed Exploration" 485
“Unity in Diversity: A Call for Christian Denominations to Return to the Catholic Church” 492
How to Live a Christian and Holier Life According to the Catholic Church 497
Why Be Catholic and Not Just Christian? 499
Final Conclusion 504
Epilogue: The Life and Legacy of St. Irenaeus of Lyons 505
@@josh39684 Sorry but I can't operate at the level that your comment requires. I see your dedication by your list of work and research. Your last comment was too overwhelming for me.
Dude I love the intro music! Banger 🔥🔥🔥
You've provided the intellectual framework for my go-to reply "Christ is not a liar."
Excellent video. So clear and easy to understand and see the Truth of the Catholic Church
To be fair, there was division in the Church even in NT or apostolic times. But just because some break off from the main body does not mean that the main body has died or scattered.
@CatholicDefender-bp7my My point was that division and schism has never been an exception. It's been there from the beginning and all throughout. Joe really didn't take this historical fact seriously. Yes, the degree of schism and division multiplied after sola Scriptura and modern communication technology, but we do a disservice to our position not to acknowledge this historic fact and take it into account when arguing for Gamaliel's test.
Thanks brother very good pod cast. Enjoyed your insight!
This was a most excellent episode! Thank you!
He is Truly Risen!
Christ is risen! 🙏☦️♥️
He is risen indeed!
Alleluia!
I'm glad Joe is able to boil it down to the core: all these groups are not rebuking the Catholic Church, but God himself.
1 Samuel 8:7 The LORD said: Listen to whatever the people say. You are not the one they are rejecting. They are rejecting me as their king.
Rome calls God a liar.
@@mikekayanderson408prove it.
This was an excellent presentation by Joe, one of the best if not the best on the man made divisions in the Church that Jesus Christ started and gave the Keys to St. Peter. There is one True Church, not 400.
the muslims and mormons both rely upon some kind of undocumented proof that the early Church was corrupted and then they have miraculously received some kind of divine (likely luciferian) revelation that is a total contradiction to the documented TRUE Church teachings. when asked for any proof of the revisionism of the Gospels they offer none as none exists. The most common excuse is that Constantine created the Catholic Church according to his whims, and when asked for proof they also claim that the Romans destroyed all previous writings. With no documentation, a kind of dog ate my homework excuse.
The protestants on the other hand, as Joe points out, have no real unified belief system, primarily they are united against the Church and the authority given to Peter. Joe clearly points out that they believe that the Bible alone is sufficient for the people to understand, if that were so easy why do the protestants have ministers that teach them all of these contradictory beliefs?
@@mikekayanderson408Nope, not even close.
Rome has completely changed Scripture which is God breathed. It contradicts what God has said for its own teachings. It twists God’s Words.
Rome has totally massacred what God has said about Justification and Salvation for starters. K @@kennethbergstrom3383
An excellent way to start the day!
Excellent video. This articulated very well the issue I had as a Protestant, if the Holy Spirit is the Paraclete and he guiding the Church into all truth, then how does Great Apostasy happen and how is a Reformation needed?
should I call you the Scott Hahn of apologetics? Always articulate, clear, and almost undisputably precise in presentation. Thanks, Joe
I think Scott Hahn is the Scott Hahn of apologetics. Joe is definitely up there with the best of them.
It is very easy to see through Joes dishonesty. He doesn't want to share Christ with devoted christian believers, first thing he likes to do is lump us in with; mormons, a fantasist cult and islam, a satanic false religion. Look at catholic comments on Gavin Ortland videos. Many catholics see us as brothers in Christ and are kind in comparison to the divisive videos Joe puts out.
By Joe'standard disagreement in the rcc means you are not in the rcc. Say goodbye to mel gibson, trent horn disagrees with bergoglio, vigano, iron boy, not to mention most church fathers.
Love the shirt, Joe! I own the same one. Seriously, love the videos, you are always keeping me sharp in my faith. I particularly loved the video on "Worship". This one was just as edifying. Thank you for your work.
Cool shirt club!
33:25 To be clear. In practise they said "Scripture is all we need, and obviously also to reject the Catholic reading of it!"
Sounds a bit like "we need clear maths, but must deny 2 + 2 make 4!"
No matter how clear your other epistemic principles are, if rejection of the right answer is one of them, you are bound to make the task overwhelming.
You are a great man sir, keep up the amazing work 🥹
Fantastic! Loved this! ❤️💙
First.
Christ is risen
He is risen indeed, alleluia
And second?
Excellent precise explanation of what you’ve said in your video,I just hope that other people can understand what you’ve said yeah 👍 👌
I love when one of the Sanhedrin "gets it," like Joseph of Arimithea or Gamaliel! 😎👍🏻
The Holy Spirit led Gamaliel to deliver his speech!
I wonder if there is a list of Protestant denominations that don’t exist anymore. 🤔
I'd want to know that too
It's not exhaustive, but Useful Charts did a series of videos on his 'Christian Denominations Family Tree' chart that is pretty thorough. There's a 3 hour compilation video.
@@John_Fisher That video was so fascinating, highly recommend
Second. He is risen indeed ❤
Well done Joe! Makes perfect sense!!
Joe, I frequently hear you compare mormonism, protestantism, and Islam against catholicism when making these apologetic points, but I would be very interested to hear about how Orthodox Christians would fit in this argument (and many others). Or, for that matter, does the prayer for a unified Church not apply to the various flavors of Catholicism, and if not, for what reason? I'm genuinely curious, and I figure if someone could lay it out, it would be you.
God bless you, Joe!
@CatholicDefender-bp7my But they are different, right? Is it just a matter of liturgy?
Question: How does this apply with the first schism that the Church experienced? How is the first division between East and West different from the division of Sunnis and Shias, for example, who argued about how overall authority is succeeded? Isn't it kinda the same with East and West, with the East saying that the pope is just first among equals and the West saying that the pope is granted with infallibility in Church matters? Been bugging me since I've watched the video, which I really found helpful in the apologetic and polemic senses.
Answer: It is very different because it happened differently. The West and East churches had cultural tension before the schism. Those compounded with religious differences and petty provocations, many saw filioque(not sure of spelling) as the final straw.
Sunni might be seen as many Orthodox schools of law united yet far from perfect, and Shia as a group persecuted for political reasons into religious deviation
Explanation: In Islam, we had a civil war of the people who knew the Prophet well. Pre-Islamic tribal allegiances influences were largely to blame. The victor who survived an assassination where the other did not was a tyrant. He and many in his Monarchy hunted dissidents. Due to constant fatalities and purges, the scholarship of the dissidents was compromised and took a focus on martyrdom and suffering. Their descendents slowly became the Shia, which is ironic as many of their beliefs was not held by the men they claim they are based on. This process is indirectly why the Shia are so split compared to Sunnis. The oppressors were not Sunni as the distinction did not exist yet. Most of the people hated or disliked the tyrants but the tribes were too powerful eventually the abbasid revolution happened and in many ways they became the same as the tyrants. At this point Sunni scholars are too prideful to admit we have a history of bad rulers, and Shia are to arrogant to accept doctrinal problem with splitting from the main body of muslims entirely. Us Sunni are to blame for pushing them away as well. Ideally we should accept them with their beliefs and listen, and Shia should join us and listen. Politics and drama led to doctrine deviance in both, but Sunni to a lesser degree.
The main problem splitting these groups is Pride and arrogance. We should be many united instead of one divided.
That was a brilliant treatise. It demonstrates the conclusion I came to many years ago that only Catholics are Christians. Without a valid priesthood and Eucharist there is nothing that can be called Christian.
Priesthood is not needed after Jesus' death & resurrection
@@Maranatha99 not your call
@@michaelogrady232 I'm not deciding anything. Pls, read the book of Hebrews.
The idea that many people have that the Pharisees are dismissible because they are Pharisees is weird and modern. St. Paul remained a Pharisee his whole life! Being a Pharisee is not in and of itself bad. Pharisee really shouldn’t be used as a slur.
The Pharisees were not illegitimate authorities. Christ commands his disciples in the Gospels to follow their teachings (but not the hypocritical actions some of them displayed). The Pharisees laid hands in succession from Moses all the way down to the time of Christ. Even today, the Pope is the successor to the Pharisaical line through St. Paul.
People forget that a huge portion of the Pharisees were converts to Christianity.
Pharisee is understood often as the Jewish sect that was rival to the Sadducees et Al. In that sense, Paul remained a Jew but stopped being a Pharisee.
Pharisaical Judaism survived and outlasted the rest, it later evolved into Modern Judaism.
Pharisees are hypocrites
The Law of Moses (Written Torah) is not the same as the Traditions of the Elders (Oral Law).
Even among modern Jews, the rejection of rabbinical authority anf laws is a very heated topic.
Obey Moses = obey the Torah.
Traditions are fine, however they are not the same as the Torah.
@@houseofsofia6650 Christ doesn’t say “Obey Moses”. He says “Obey the Pharisees.” Both the oral and the written law was binding in the Old Covenant. The Pharisees were successors to Moses, as the New Testament records
@@crusaderACR St. Paul contradicts what you are saying. He continued to claim membership in the Pharisaical sect his entire life as recorded in the New Testament. The Book of Acts records Pharisees participating as full members of the church at the Council of Jerusalem. The gospels record many Pharisees converting to faith in Christ and yet licitly remaining Pharisees.
Rabbinical Judaism is the evolution of the tradition of only the Pharisees that rejected Christ. Christianity is indebted in many ways to the Pharisees (such as St. Paul) who did not reject Christ.
40000 protestant churches and counting
Not true. More like 4,000
@@onesneak7668literally every baptist church has its own elders that sets that churches beliefs and once they die a new set of elders does the same. So when you look at how many Baptist churches there are and that they all interpret scripture differently … even though they all call themselves Baptist they are obviously separate denominations within that group.
That’s why the count is in the tens of thousands as it happens within each major denomination
@@enderwiggen3638I agree with you. Officially there's 64 Baptist denoms, realistically.....who knows? Many, many more.
@You.Just.Lost.TheGame Catholics are united in doctrine which is in the CCC
Whereas there a protestants … some are okay with infant baptism… some are not. Some believe Christ is God … some do not. Some believe Jesus was fully human and fully divine … some do not. There are many more differences but I don’t even care to list them. And these are not small differences in belief either they are major teachings with a chasm that cannot be crossed or bridged.
@@onesneak7668 4000, 14000, 24000, 40000 ... really no different.
This is such a fascinating lens with which to look at the Abrahamic religions.
Saint Gamaliel, pray for us.
There's something more on the prophecy of the Church in Isaiah 54. The woman described here is commonly referred to as personified Israel. But it seems to me that this woman, is more as the prefigured person of our Blessed Mother. This barren woman from the Annunciation and the other woman, desolate one, at the cross. Two distinct characters, but could be the same woman. One of Hagar (slave) or of Eve, another (free), the new Eve (bride of the new Adam). This can be the prefigured Mother of the Church and of the Church and of her descendants (embodied by John the beloved). If this exegesis is right, then Mary could be the bridge for unity of all believers in Christ. Whoever responds to the call of Christ "son, behold your mother" and brings her to his home, is in the Church that Christ established. I'm still looking at this whole chapter of Isaiah 54 and how it is closely linked to Galatians 4.
Brandt Pitre has an excellent book Jewish Roots of Mary where he goes into several typological examinations in the OT that parallel Mary in the NT. Might even be a UA-cam video of it by now
@@enderwiggen3638 I watched Dr. Pitre's Christ as the Bridegroom. His works ignited a spark and got me to look into the passage of Isaiah 54 when it was read last Easter Vigil. I will definitely review his works and his typologies. There must be a deeper wisdom on why we read this prophecy on Easter Vigil where we renew our baptismal vows. There's a lot more in the chapter of Isaiah 54 that closely matches Church doctrine on Mary, beginning with the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Also, linked with Pentecost, infallible teachings of Church, anathemas on heresies and so on...
@@abbeydaleabellanosa3450 Isaiah being written 700 years before Christ was born … the amount of typology from it in the NT gospel is truly miraculous. Almost every week the church liturgy shows the typology from the first reading to the gospel and more often than not it’s a reading from Isaiah.
USA council of Catholic bishops site has the weekly and daily readings. If you look at the ones on Sundays that are used in mass the first reading and the gospel are always related typologically with a psalm that matches the thematic message.
@@enderwiggen3638 I'm glad to know more about these things! Thanks a lot! I'm truly in awe of all these miraculous things in scriptures and how these treasures are found in the Catholic church. More reasons to be a Catholic, more reasons to attend mass, more reasons to grow in Christ through the Blessed Church!
God doesn't need your approval nor mine.
Thankyou Lord for Life.
God bless you
Heck Joe. Teach the Truth. Teach the history. Teach the facts.
There are some real hard heads out there in the world who would rather die in their errors than see the true Light which is Jesus Christ, True God, and True Man.
Joe you know it’s a good video when half these comments are Big mad.
"By virtue of her mission to shed on the whole world the radiance of the Gospel message, and to unify under one Spirit...Our hearts embrace also those brothers and communities not yet living with us in full communion; to them we are linked nonetheless by our profession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..." I believe that our profession is a better test of the unity that comes from the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13).
Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes (92),” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).
It's not meant to be read as saying these others are right. They aren't.
That quote is to define who qualifies as Christian, and thus a brother, even if in heresy. This is an old understanding.
Under the Donatist controversy, there was one saint who in a letter (iirc it's the same saint quoted in the video) opened up saying that when he prayed the Our Father, he included them in the "forgive us... Give us our bread... Etc".
After Arianism was over, their baptisms were recognized as valid. Million of other examples.
Truth in its fullness, though, is not with them.
God bless.
I think the word Mormon is considered a slang label for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
It’s the name of their book.
It technically is but their previous 2 presidents (Hinckley and Monson) promoted its usage. It wasn’t until the Nelson presidency that its usage has been discouraged.
Brilliant disposition, however, there are few additional expositions to be considered 1) why further divisions stopped happening in some of these succession based divisions 2) if Sola scriptura is a flawed position to take why sometimes it works and sometimes it does not, what are the dependencies.
As long as you note that although physical Jews exist, they do not have a coherent doctrine either, although there are tendencies in Talmud and Kabbalah. Hence, the Church always defined herself as spiritual Israel.
WONDERFUL CHANNEL, Thank you Joe Heshmeir!
I just Love the book by Jamie Blosser called:
"Positively Medieval, the Surprising Dynamic, Heroic Church of the Middle Ages. "
The Church is ALWAYS reforming and transforming....
From a tiny Mustard seed into the Largest of Shrubs ...able to nest ALL of the birds of the air within its branches.
The True "reformers" were people like:
St. Boniface, St. Columba, St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Willibrord, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, St. Gregory the Great, St. Alcuin of York, Charlemagne, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Gerard Groote, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Dominic de Guzman, St. Louis IX, St. Boethius, St. Wenceslaus, St. Thomas Becket, St. Joan of Arc, St. Bendict of Nursia, St. Odo of Cluny, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis and St. Clare of Assisi, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Meister Eckhart, Blessed Jan Van Ruysbruck, Julian of Norwich, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Anslem of Cantebury, St. Bonaventure, Aquinas, etc..
Judaism and Jewish peoples have changed wildly, so that Mark Twain quote doesn't exactly make sense, but it comes across as Anglo Philosemitism which is really a very wacky phenomenon. Harper's, though a bit less so than The Atlantic, is also a good historical testament to how deep the liberalism goes in the West particularly in the Anglosphere in New England
Yes, Judaism had to change drastically in 70AD with the destruction of the temple. The quote applies MUCH better to the Catholic Church.
@shamelesspopery where can we find the full letter from Flannery O’Conner to T.R. Spivey? Thanks.
The book is called The Habit of Being, and it's a collection of her letters. She and Spivey actually exchanged many letters, but the one from which I quoted is her letter dated "18 July 59." It's page 341 in this edition (www.amazon.com/Habit-Being-Letters-Flannery-OConnor/dp/0374521042/), which you can also check out online through the digital library at archive.org.
Roger that. Thanks again and thanks for the work you do. I look forward to digging more into her life and work.
Question: IF the early church teachings were ‘lost’ as many Protestant movements claim, how and where did they find these teachings?
I never heard anyone say lost as you do, but I believe your thinking of the wrong lost. To put it in perspective, if people used to smelt iron to make swords but now less people do today, we would call that art lost. Does it mean it just died out and is gone and we don’t know how to do it? No. It just means people don’t do it anymore.
Brilliant
Love you Joe.
I'm curious about how you address the Orthodox, including the non-Chalcedonian ones, with this line of argumentation.
Okay, but that James White clip was talking specifically about fundamentalists... Not exactly The best choice.
The authority and epistemological issues are the strongest arguments against Protestantism.
One of the many reasons Mormonism and such are in major error, is because their lack of truth. "Apostasy" literally means leaving religion. If the faith died after the disciples, then Jesus's appointed 12 failed. According to false claims, everyone in these churches in the letters of Paul, left the religion. The "apostates" did something extremely evil, and that is they compiled the new testament. Wowsers, what you learn if you follow Mormonism.
I think that is an oversimplified/skewed view of what LDS beliefs are. Typically the "great apostasy" described by the LDS tradition is that the authority to lead was lost after the death of the apostles. One question I have had is why was an apostle called to replace Judas, but never more after the rest died? Furthermore, an "Apostate" in many churches is viewed as someone who did something evil , but in the LDS faith, I would say it's more viewed as a tragedy of a lost soul and not always malicious. We believe God has a plan to redeem ALL if they repent and have faith.
We believe that God can work through imperfect people who strive to do good. Assuming you acknowledge that the old testament is important scripture, a similar scenario comes up there. While not necessarily compiled as we have it now, the scriptures of the old testament were used in Jesus' time. Even though by Jesus' own description, those leaders were not teaching the correct principles. So even incorrect leaders can preserve correct documents and scriptures.
thank you. Even if they believe that the authority was lost, then they should use correct language and words coincide with this. In fact, they could say that there was a "change in church authority" or something along that lines. The very fact that they use "apostasy", means a complete renouncing of the faith. This deception is made very clear in the 8th commandment of bearing false witness, wonderfully outlined in the catechism.
@@GarthDomokos I would disagree that it is deception. If the authority is lost and people still follow false authority, it is not the same faith anymore. So there is an actual apostasy in the sense of the true faith being lost.
I see where your going. For myself, the reason I see it as very deceptive, is precisely how Mormons introduce themselves when they present their opening statement. This for me is precisely where the deception starts, because again, in the 8th commandment commands one to speak the truth. These very young men bring no proof of evidence for their script, and have no actual schooling in church history. Again because it violates the 8th commandment, it warrants deception. They could lay a different claim to suit their ignorance of church history like "we were taught that there was a discontinuance in the lineage of the disciples, however we really don't have evidence for that, it's just our biased viewpoint." then at least they would be honest. Thanks for your reply, good stuff for discussion.
@@batboy12394They need to prove Authority is lost.
2 alleluias for the risen Christ
Joe Heschmeyer is so full of knowledge that his podcasts can't contain all his knowledge in just 15 minutes or less, he has to rant on for at least one hour each time.😂
@42:50 he gives one of the strongest reasons to stay in Catholicism….Jesus made Saint Peter the head of the disciples (pope), his seat was in Rome (Roman Catholic), which is still existing as the largest church, longest lasting institution…all while non catholic churches continue to come and go. Learn about the quick decline of Protestantism and the reduction of mormon stakes.
Theses are lies. The Roman church only came in about 5/6 centuries after the death of Christ. It has lasted a long time as it has ruled with an iron fist.
@@mikekayanderson408wrong. It was there at Pentecost. My suggestion is that you need to study church history pre reformation. The catholic church compiled the canon of the Bible. Then it was handcopied for centuries by monks, especially after the translation into Latin vulgate by Saint Jerome.
@@mikekayanderson408 I suggest reading 1st Clement for a counter example to your claim about the Roman church appearing 500+ years after the death of Christ... that would just be a start
@@mikekayanderson408 You sound like you value truth. I think you would be interested in reading about the “letter from Ignatius of Antioch”.
@@mikekayanderson408 So where was your faith tradition at the compilation and preservation of the Bible? Name your faith tradition's ancestors. Also, where was your faith tradition at the defense of Christianity against Islam in the 14th and 15th centuries - again, name your faith tradition's ancestors.
Is there any accounting for the dips and rises of faithfulness in ancient Israel? Think of before and after Josiah.
QUESTION:
Did Christ leave a “succession plan” for His church… or NOT?
If not, then did Christ desire several churches? John 17:21-23
If so, HOW did Jesus establish His one, unified church with successors? Matthew 16:18
It is clear to me Christ prayed for (unity) and established His way to do that (He replaced the Jewish Sanhedrin and High Priest) derived from the Old Testament “Seat of Moses” and Moses’ succession plan of levitical priests for himself and/or Aaron, who was the High Priest.
We, the One True and unified Church, call that the Magisterium which is led by the succession of High Priests in the Seat of Peter (AKA Shameless Popery or “Papacy”) and his succession of apostles through the Bishops.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate.”
The same encyclopedia admits that “one does not find in the New Testament any words of Christ indicating how the apostolic mandate was to be handed on.” It also confessed that “papal primacy was not clearly understood or explicitly professed in the Western [Latin] Church until the fifth century C.E.”
In a work known as Retractions, Augustine argued “that it was Jesus on whom the church, that is the Christian congregation was built, NOT Peter.”
@@sunnyjohnson992 Fair points; however, it’s NOT either/or, it’s BOTH/AND. Peter is the Rock upon which Christ will build His church because in the next verse, Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” You don’t just give such powerful keys to anyone. Peter is the Rock on earth.
AND YES, Christ is the Rock of all ages, in heaven, until he returns. We Catholics harmonize both and it works beautifully.
I ask genuinely, how then do you reconcile Hebrews 6:20 stating that Jesus became a high priest forever. There's only one high priest at a time, and as Jesus lives there is no succession of office from him.
The early Christians were very much Catholic. Protestants claim to follow Jesus, but their personal lord and savior is Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Ellen G. White, etc. with over 45,000 denominations and still growing. They don't even agree on one another on every level.
JESUS ESTABLISHED HIS CHURCH
Matthew 16:17-19 KJV
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
JESUS GAVE HIS APOSTLES AUTHORITY
John 20:22-23 KJV
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Luke 9:1 KJV
9 Then HE called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Matthew 10:1 KJV
10 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
All of the earliest Christians and early church fathers were Catholic through and through. Here are just some of the many quotes I can give. And I don't have to quote one sentence to try to rip it out of context and make it mean something that it doesn't. Again, you are being intellectually dishonest just to try to prove something you can't prove against all odds.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE CATHOLIC:
Augustine (393 A.D.) We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic, not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard. ... If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today. ... If the very order of the Episcopal order is to be considered, how much more, surely, truly, safely do we number them from Peter himself, to Whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquor it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anicletus, Anecletus by Averistus… …In this succession, not a Donatist Bishop can be found.
Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.): The Church is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description. ... And, if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens houses of the Lord, nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.
Lactantius (304-310 A.D.): [The Heretics], having lost the name of Christ, they have ceased to be Christians, and have put on human and foreign names. It is therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this the domicile of faith, this the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there, or whoever does not go out from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.
Pope Steven I (268 A.D.): And other heretics if they have parted themselves from the Church, can have nothing to do with its power and grace since all power and grace is settled in the Church, where presides presbyters [bishops] who possess both the power both of baptizing, and of imposing hands, and of ordaining.
Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.): There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another. ... While the bond of concord remains and the indivisible sacrament of the Catholic Church continues, each Bishop disposes and directs his own work, as one who must give an account of his admiration to the Lord.
Clement of Alexandria (202 A.D.): From what has been said then, it seems clear to me that the true Catholic Church, that which is really ancient is one. … We say therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin, and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith…those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew that before the foundation of the world, they would be just.
Tertullian (200 A.D.): Where was Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the papacy of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. ... But if you are near Italy, you have Rome - from where our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of our Lord, where Paul was crowned with a death like John’s.
Just wanted to put this out there. The LDS church has a Rome Italy temple!😮
I've been. Truly the presence of God is there.
@@TwisterTornado
Yep, temple there and I've been there, and the Christas with the 12 apostles behind is powerful.
God wouldn't be in a Mormon Temple.
@@tabandken8562 are you sure?
@@mikeb6826 Absolutely sure.
The argument of this video is the most powerful argument against belief in Christianity. Must more so, to my mind, than say the problem of evil. To me, this alone is pretty close to a slam dunk refutation of all Christianity, and in fact all theistic belief, in favor of atheism ... however depressing you may find that conclusion.
As is pointed out, it applies to other religions as well, but seems fully devastating for Christianity, considering the extraordinary amount of fragmentation, the depth of disagreement, and the bitterness of the many factions against each other. Furthering these problems, Christians also seem to be absolutely incorrigible in terms of their constant invention of new doctrines and heresies, such as the Rapture, often seemingly out of thin air, which immediately inspire, not opposition, but passionate and/or naive adherents.
It is almost impossible to ignore the elephant in the room: the church is obviously not being guided by the Holy Spirit, or any other divine force, but is simply "of man".
Yeah, that was pretty much what Jesus said in His own prayer in John 17.
I think I lost my argument... Saying that it was not possible for two Protestants to agree on one thing. There are, after all, some things that all Protestants align and agree on. Being Anti Catholic church and anti Pope and anti Christ when he was alive, Anti Our Lady, anti possibility of people becoming Saints and the possibility of asking for intercession.
“I’ll label the enemy as anti every good, that way I sound smart.” What’s next, gonna label Protestants as fascist? What Protestant is anti christ “when he was alive” or even now? “Anti our lady” because they don’t pray to her? My goodness, such a victim mentality.
There are sources that say Gamaliel was baptized by St. Peter and St. John along with his son and St. Nicodemus (also a Pharisee). Saints Paul, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamaliel, pray for us.
Im a protestant, I would argue that the church did not "die out". In fact I still think some Catholics that rely wholly on Jesus christ for their salvation and do not trust in their own good works will go to heaven. Calvin said Roman Catholic church is not the one true church but there are many true churches within it. I have been really enjoying studying church history. Just like Israel turned away from God and God brought them back several times. I see the church as doing the same thing. The church started selling salvation and God brought the church back to him. I actually think the reformation had a positive impact on the Roman Catholics too. They no longer sell indulgences for example.
@@josemoody1743 I'm saying its not blatantly selling the gospel.
The first test I think is weak for that reason. But the second one which emphasizes a scattering is solid. Many heresies have yet to "die out," but they are all in perpetual schism. The authority and truth arguments Jesus gave and his Apostles fail with "many true churches," along with the call to avoid those who cause schism and division.
Watch his pod on reformation and selling indulgence. Eye opener.
No Catholic Trusts their own works for Salvation.
In Sweden the statistics for the Church of Sweden which is nominally Lutheran (although Luther himself would rotate in his grave at the notion of female priests/bishops and same-sex marriage) don't look so good. 1.65 million members have left the church in the last 20 years. That's about 40 000 to 96 000 members actively chosing to leave every year. Or 120 - 250 people each day. That's a lot of people when you consider Sweden has about 10 million inhabitants. Baptisms and confirmations down by half since 1970. It's a dying church. And church weddings? Down by 65 % since 1970. Attendance at Sunday services has gone down 65% since 1990. In Stockholm the number of Catholics have increased 20 % the last 20 years. The RCC is now larger than the Pentecoastal church proper.
🤍
Only Saint Joseph can create simple wooden statues/sculptures, to symbolize poverty and humility.
And so believers will then make them in simple stone and marble.
Never misses.
There is one book modern Catholics could read that would clear all this up, bet you can't guess what it is ;) Love and prayers for all that call on our Savior!
Ecclesiologically superb 🙏😇
Joe may i know what bible translation you are using and you would recommend? Thank you.
Plainly, Jesus gave a successor. Reading John's gospel, chapter 14, he says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you FOREVER- the SPIRIT of TRUTH..."
In Mt. 16, Jesus said of Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you BIND on earth
will be BOUND in heaven, and whatever you LOOSE on earth will be LOOSED in heaven.” So, in Acts 2, Peter plainly says,
"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord
our God will call.” In Luke 24, Jesus re-affirms, "Behold, I send the PROMISE of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of
Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” So, in Acts 2, it reads "And they were all filled with the HOLY SPIRIT
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." In Acts19, Paul asks the followers in Ephesus,
“Did you receive the HOLY SPIRIT when you believed?” The Spirit is the perpetual successor to Jesus. Not Peter, not John,
not Paul, not ANY pope, not ANY man - the HOLY SPIRIT of God. ANYONE teaching otherwise is a false teacher, according
to the founder of Christianity!
❤
The Bible clearly says about Jesus at Hebrews 7:24: “But because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has NO SUCCESSORS.”
@@sunnyjohnson992 This is how Reformed theology "dismisses" the words of Jesus and the commands He gave to His apostles. Reformed theology is like a little brick "one-liner" thrown onto the "interstate" of Jesus' many commandments.
They think that little "brick" can stop the power and the authority of Heaven's truck traffic. This is how Reformed theology dismisses the Holy Spirit, the baptism in Jesus' name, the gifts given to the Body of Christ, the commandments to forsake your life and money and fame and success, the requirement to love one another, the warning to observe your own life, lest you fall from the place where grace has seated you. No, Reformed thinking, just like the Catholic teaching before it, is "man" intruding other men's thoughts into the Kingdom of God. There is a "Last day" coming, and it will hold "surprises" for the superficial among us.
4:32 _"and asceticism died"_
Reminds me of fasting twice a week. In the times of the Gospel, Pharisees were not totally unlikely to fast twice a week. Probably Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Thursday. Hence the Didaché tells Christians to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays instead. This seems absolutely to no more be a thing among Jews.
The only thing all Protestants agree on is that they protest the Catholic Church. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” God has no enemies from His perspective; only children. It’s His children who see their Father as the enemy. God loves us; love Him back. ❤️🔥
Quoting Wikipedia:
1. Ecclesiastical tradition claims that Gamaliel had embraced the Christian faith and his tolerant attitude toward early Christians is explained by this. According to Photios I of Constantinople, he was baptised by Saint Peter and John the Apostle, together with his son Abibon (Abibo, Abibas, Abibus) and Nicodemus. [Paton James Gloag, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Acts of the Apostles, Volume 1, page 191, citing Photius, Cod. 171 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1870).]
2. The Eastern Orthodox Church venerates Gamaliel as a saint, and he is commemorated on August 2, the date when tradition holds that his relics were found, along with those of Stephen the Protomartyr, Abibon (Gamaliel's son), and Nicodemus. [ Russian Orthodox Christian Menaion Calendar (referenced Aug 14, 2020)]
3. The traditional liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church celebrates the same feast day of the finding of the relics on August 3. It is said that in the fifth century, by a miracle, his body had been discovered and taken to Pisa Cathedral. ["Gamaliel the Elder", Catholic Encyclopedia]
Jimmy Akin has a good article on this
Did it include the possibility that Gamaliel was the originating author of the Letter To The Hebrews?
@@annakimborahpaThe letters to the Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Judea. Although the letter doesn’t specifically identify the writer, evidence suggests that it was Paul. The writing is in his style. Also, Paul sends greetings from Italy and he mentions Timothy, who was with him in Rome. It was completed in 61 C.E.
1. I don't doubt that Paul was involved in the Letter to the Hebrews.
2. Consider this possibility from the youtube video "Valtorta's visions clarify authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews: both St Paul & Rabbi Gamaliel."
3. Paul had been a student of Gamaliel's.
The problem with this reasoning is… “How do you define a Jew?” Genetics? If so? How much pure blood? Religion? Many Jews are not religious. Culture?
to contemplatingchrist - question - where do protestant’s do there so called baptising? Question - and what are the”baptised”into?
4:09 It's even a matter of Judaism and Christianity competing about what side Gamaliel died on.
Some Christians, I think Orientals, have considered Gamaliel converted before he died.
Jews who have some of his tractates in the Mishna are obviously not prone to agree.
Hello Mr.Heshmeyer great video! I’m a catholic and I always appreciate your work. I want to be sharp In my faith.
One thing I would love to see explored in a video like this is to charitably explore the opposing you. You voice what it is, but the default insinuation is that this is false. The notion that the Holy Spirit did inspire so many offshoots and branches.
What if He did? What if what the church calls schism is not truly schism, but a delineation from the things that don’t actually have much bearing in heaven. That is to say, what if this has not been a process of the church schism, but that it’s been a process of the Universal, unbroken church has been distilling the truly significant matters of faith. And that those things revealed by the Holy Spirit, commonly held by the majority, things like the trinity, and performing baptism (regardless on our belief about it ) and scripture, and that Jesus Christ died on the Cross and rose again and is Fully Man and Fully God….
What if those who believe these things to be true are what the CHURCH really is? And so the idea of their having been a schism, is really just an illusion, rooted in hurt feelings and identity pride? “I’m catholic vs I’m Lutheran “
@jasonguerrera5476 You have put forward an interesting idea that the separations are inspired. My counter is: it is God's permitting Will which allows/allowed for them, not His ordaining Will.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand" -Jesus Christ Himself 1 Corinthians 14:33, " For God is not a God of confusion but of peace..." I understand what you're going at because a separation from how it is currently may not be wrong. For example after the reformation the Church decided it had enough of these Priests falling into error so they formed the seminary to ensure the better education of Priests/religious life members. So was the reformation the will of God? absolutely not, but did God guide the Church into a better state through the separation? Possibly.
Christ prays for the Church to be One. And they don’t just disagree on minor topics, but important ones like Once Saved Always Saved, divorce, Baptism, etc. Besides that, it makes more sense for God to want us to be One, to better show it’s from God, and to make sure people have some sort of authority to interpret the Bible, and also because it makes more sense for us to know even the “minor” points than not k or then.
Protestant separations are rarely of small things. If it was they wouldn't split, would they?
Also there are Protestants that deny the orthodox understanding of the Trinity (way more than you think) and whether Baptism is even necessary. So even your examples don't quite apply.
Those denying Christ's death and resurrection wouldn't be Protestant by virtue of the fact that they wouldn't even qualify as Christian. A Mormon and a Muslim would be more Christian than they, and these two aren't even Christian.
16:56 This is the single most damaging thing James White has ever said. I have no idea how he wiggled out of that one.
I don't think St. Optatus meant that Cephas meant Cathedra, I think he's comparing sturdy authority to being a sturdy rock
Imagine if there was a church that, alongside the Catholic Church, has been around since the death of Christ but instead of following the leadership of Peter, it followed James brother of Jesus. That would be the Christian equivalent of the Mormon or Muslim split.
The response I have heard from protestant pastor Gavin Ortland is that the church never really died, but that the people of God have needed continual renewal even since Old Testament times. He mentioned that many Jewish kings fell away and God punished the Israelites over and over again, and yet that doesn't mean that God's promises to Israel were broken.
Use your logic and reasoning. You've heard both sides. Which makes the most sense. God has given you an intellect and hopefully some discernment to navigate to the truth. Ave Maria
What such response only makes clearer and confirms strongly is Catholicism and Catholicism. Why? The falling of those kings did not make God choose another race to fullfil his initial plan etc. For instance, he did as a result NOT cause Christ to be born outside of the Jewish race, not even outside of the Davidic dynasty as promised of old. He did not write them another different ten commandments through another race, etc. protestants will always have a response; it is rather a question of the trustworthiness of the response
It's true that we need continual renewal, and it's true that there have been bad Catholics (including bad Catholic leaders), just as there were bad Israelites. But throughout the Old Testament, Israel remained not just a concept but an identifiable people. The standard Protestant redefinition of the Church turns it from what it is (the "convocation" or assembly of the People of God) into an invisible collection of the saved, known only to God. But the word "ekklesia" never means that anywhere in the Bible.
I find it odd that Gavin calls for continual renewal and reform but he constantly criticizes Catholics for “accretions”. To complain about the growth of our understanding of certain concepts in Christianity and then promote continual change through reforms seems blatantly hypocritical. It seems like he’s fine if Protestants make changes to the faith, but in his mind it’s not OK for Catholics to have fleshed out certain concepts (for example, Mary’s role in salvation history) over time.
@@waseemhermiz7565 I am doubtful of the Jesus' divinity, primarily due to the confusion in the church. I still like to listen to Christians talk about things, because it seems like they are the only people to take morals seriously.
When I had stronger faith, I was Eastern Orthodox. My reasoning was that you need a moral premise in order to come to a moral conclusion, so that it ought not to be possible for humans to make new moral doctrines without more revelation. Therefore, I rejected Catholic developments like the infallibility of the Pope and the special place of Mary. But it seemed to me that Protestants could make up anything that they wanted. I also liked that it seemed to me that the Eastern Orthodox church was more like a hospital, whereas the Catholic church seemed more like a courtroom.
Luke 18: 8b But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
Matthew 24: 8 Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. 15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. … 24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25 Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. …. 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. …
37 And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, 39 And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.
13:36 He may have also meant "survive with Jewish ethnicity intact" and on that one, I cite the Palestinians.
Don't get me wrong, they do not keep the kashroot, they do not have rabbis, and so on, but they historically descen from Jews, Samarians and Galilaeans.
The Christian and Muslim Palestinian populations surround some Oriental Jewish, Karaite and two Druz populations in purity.
It is by the way possible (according to DNA found on the Shroud) that Our Lord was genetically closest to Druz.
And the Apostles and the Church were of one accord.
"One Faith, One Baptism"
The errors of the Catholics began to creep in very early. It isn't that the teachings were lost but were built upon. The reformation was about clearing the excess, superstitions and ungodly rules of man. The Catholic Church today is not the same as the Catholic Church of the 1400s and 1500s not by a longshot. I'd go as far to say it's only a shell of its former self in terms of internal uniformity, near universal acceptance, not to mention the prestige once held. Yes there are lots of people who call themselves Catholics but it's because they don't read the Bible in its context that they are still mislead. The error I continue to see more and more is that Catholic apoligists tend to place the Church Fathers above the Apostles.
The “error” ? Clearing the excess , what by adding to excess and error? Predestination? 40,000 different sects with different dogma. ?Nestorian and Arian heresies creeping in along with Judaizing which seems be Getting bigger along with trying to demonize Paul and his theology? ;that comes from Islam and Judaizers.. so the reformation really straightened everything out?
U
In what way is it different than the 1500s ?
Because men are prideful thinking they know better than the Church God gave Authority to, the Church He guides to all Truth.
At the core of this teaching is the teaching of Gimaleal. A man who failed to recognize Jesus as the messiah and was part of the ruling order who condemned Jesus to death. Perspective is everything. As a Catholic who converted to protestantism, i recognize the traditions of men when i see them. Jesus taught that the Pharisees were wrong a lot. In the book of the revelation of John, Jesus addressed the 7 churches of Asia. He didn’t say ‘ travel to Rome to see how it should be done’
That would be an argument for Greek Orthodoxy rather than protestnatism. Like the fact that the churches in Revelation favour of eccumenical dialogie with Rome over protestant churches, they had unity with Rome for a signifi ant period of time, and it is possible to join these Churches without eneouncing a single Roman belief as attested to by reverts such as Michael Lofton, are scathing critisisms of protestantism.
Therefore I have to ask, why wouldn't you by that line of reasoning not be Eastern Orthodox if you truly held to thst argument?
@@pupp993 Sorry, I wasn't making a point in favour of Protestantism. Rather, I was making a point against Gimalealism. Christians follow the teaching of Jesus as presented by the apostles, in light of the teachings of the prophets of the old testament as attested to by the Holy Spirit. The teachings of Gimaleal fall under the category of traditions of men, something Rome is quite comfortable with doing. My comment about the 7 churches of Revelation is merely to point out that Jesus didn't point to the Church in Rome when defining good an otherwise church groups.
@@Condovideos-zo2riJesus wouldn't have to point to the Church of Rome when addressing these churches. He addressed these churches Himself who is head of all the Church! Anyhow, one of the churches Jesus addressed is Smyrna. Ignatius of Antioch also addressed Smyrna. There he calls out the Church by name calling it the Catholic Church. You left the True Church for a false one.