What Jesus’ Radical Marriage Teaching Reveals About the Church
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 кві 2024
- Modern Christians tend to misunderstand two of Jesus' most radical teachings: his prohibition against divorce and remarriage, and his teaching about the Church. But what if this isn't just a coincidence? After all, the biblical texts explaining marriage tend to do so by comparing it to Christ's relationship with the Church, and vice versa. Does this explain why the Protestant Reformers broke with the earliest Christians (and the New Testament) on both of these doctrines? And also... does getting this wrong open the door to polygamy?
Thursdays are quickly becoming the best day of the work week.
Fr
Seriously! I cant wait for Thursdays now
Amen
That’s exactly what I think. I always look forward to joes podcast.
I love Joes demeanour as a Catholic apologist.
To say the Church is merely spiritual and invisible is to say Christ has no Spouse and that He/She has no body/flesh. It is ultimately a denial of the Incarnation.
Exactly. Protestantism is neo-Gnosticism
"The faith" is spiritual. Those who are "in the Spirit" are not of the flesh. Understanding Romans chapters 6 thru 8 is critical. Those who have been baptized into Christ are spiritual. It is incumbent on those who have put on Christ in baptism to get out of the flesh and into the Spirit. As Paul wrote:
Rom. 8:4 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Obviously, he's not saying that we cannot please God until we're dead. Paul's teaching is most certainly for the here-and-now. Therefore, being "in the Spirit" is a function of, first, having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and second, changing our hearts and minds.
If you change your mind without having the indwelling of the Spirit then you're stepping out on a limb, which is not there.
That said, the church exists as a spiritual entity, whether in heaven or on earth. Can we see it? Yes, but only if we have eyes to see. If we're looking at the flesh, we've completely missed God and His bride.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Spiritual does NOT mean non-physical or non-literal. Scriptural language about "the flesh" typically refers to sinful/fallen nature or the absence of the Spirit. It is not a Gnostic/Manichaean rejection of the flesh/body. The Incarnation and Redemption transform the flesh. The Incarnation and Redemption make it possible for the Church to have Christ's authority, for Christ's Incarnation to continue within the Church.
@@tonyl3762 - And, if my comments led you to believe that that was where I was going, I apologize. For example, I am n the Spirit but yet, I have a fleshly body. So, I'm well aware of the different ways in which the term is used in the New Testament.
For example, Paul told us that if we are in the Spirit then we cannot sin. This is probably the best reason to get out of the flesh. In other words, if you have the opinion that you are a sinner then you are operating "in the flesh".
"In the flesh" does not mean "engaging in overt sin". Most people who call themselves Christians are operating in the flesh - they aren't spiritually minded.
I've been kicked out of a number of churches for preaching this theology but it's right out of the New Testament. Two apostles of God teach us that we cannot sin if we are in the Spirit. Paul (in the Book of Galatians) and John in First John.
People would rather operate in the flesh because they understand that from a natural mind better than the natural mind can wrap its head around operating in the Spirit.
There is a TON of material supporting this theology - most of which is found in Romans and Galatians. It's too big to address here.
My point is, however, that the church exists. It's not a denomination. People who have eternal life have eternal life no matter their address - heaven or earth. So, we don't need a physical presence of something, which is essentially spiritual in nature. If that were the case then God would have to be a physical being.
This cuts through the "my denomination is the best (or correct) because it's the biggest" nonsense. We call that a "peeing contest", measuring the size of something in order to prove relevance. Jesus promised that "few there be that find it." Christianity will forever be relegated to minority status.
If every Christian dropped dead today, the church would still exist - in the heavenlies.
The question I need to ask is, "Is my doctrine the doctrine of Christ or some other teaching?" This is rubber-meets-the-road religion. We can quip back and forth all day long about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin but such discussion doesn't get me anywhere near the goal. "Am I in the Spirit?" If so, how do I know? If not, how do I get there? This is where the word of God - as taught by the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the first century - comes in. Where is that doctrine taught? In the pages of the New Testament, that's where.
If you believe that then you're on your way. If you don't then you're in the flesh and if you're in the flesh you cannot be in the Spirit and if you're not in the Spirit then you cannot please God (i.e. you're not saved).
That's the math and how it's put together.
Wow. Joe compacts about three or four college-level theology courses into a single one-hour video. Well done, Joe!
Growing up protestant this is all new to me. Awesome video
What an interesting way to demonstrate the inherent statolatry/statism behind Protestantism and the American version in particular. Though even Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII elevated the State over and against the Church. Most people are oblivious to the impact of Protestantism on Western politics.
Man, just when I think you've reached a new quantum energy level circling around the nucleus that is Christ and His Church...you find a way to tunnel your way up.
People often ask: "Why did Jesus have to die?" Answer: To break the OT covenant and establish a new one, just as a new marriage is contracted when one spouse dies. God does not let Israel die but chooses to die Himself. Not new to me but still profoundly insightful and moving.
Wow! This is amazing!😢 So very true indeed, and beautifully expressed. Thank you for sharing this thought. It's deep.
"....It is consummated"!!!
@@davido3026 Yep. "This is my body given for you" The marital/spousal language is all over the place in the gospels. What God has joined together in a one FLESH union, Christ and His Church, let no man separate. (I'm looking at you, Luther, Calvin, etc.)
Most of what you have written is correct, Tony. Jesus *fulfilled* the OT covenant through His spotless life, His death, and Resurrection...thus establishing the New Covenant in His dear blood. He came for the Jew first, and then the Gentile (Romans 1:16). As a Gentile, I am grafted, or adopted, into the Body of Christ through the power of the Gospel, which is founded on God's covenant with Abraham. God promised Abraham that his descendants would become a blessing to *all nations*, which was fulfilled in our Lord's sufferings and victory over death. A believing Jew who accepts that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah is part of the Body of Christ by right. There are more of them than you might think! I recommend Roy Shoeman's book, "Salvation is From the Jews". He is a Jewish Catholic convert. You can find his testimony on UA-cam, as well. Most of the Jews are rejecting Jesus, that's true, but only until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
Jesus had to die to sacrifice God's wrath
From your very first sentence. THIS is why I converted to Catholicism. This is the theme that has characterized my entire conversion. I’ve been trying really hard not to have monomania on the Body of Christ, but I can’t stop 😂
This also makes sense of why Luther ended up treading into endorsing bigamy and polygamy. Great episode!
Edit: Of course you covered this! Thanks!
Even when i was a Protestant i had a “shattered mirror” view of christianity. I felt like everyone probably had a piece or two of the mirror right where no one else did. I always felt like catholics had the right theology on marriage over everyone else. I didnt believe in divorce for any reason based on sola scriptura. True presence as well but thats besides the point
Jesus admits divorce in one instance: physical adultery, but I guess the RCC knows more than the Lord... (sorry about my sarcasm, by I am puzzled about the audacity of the RCC in this a many other topics(
I divorced because my husband was unfaithful. He would not repent, nor would he go to counseling about it. I believe in the indissoluble union of marriage, and that sleeping with an adulterous spouse is impermissible. Separation became necessary, and we are legally divorced. I have not heard any Catholic teaching on this specifically, but if two have become one, then it follows that the adulterous behavior of one spouse makes the entire marriage unclean. The marriage hasn't dissolved, of course, but it is no longer fit for the marriage bed. The faithful spouse must never touch the unfaithful spouse until he/she repents. Aside from the prospect of disease and emotional humiliation, it just isn't right until the marriage itself has been made clean again. I think of a marriage as a glass of pure water...not two glasses, but one. When there is adultery, all the water in the glass becomes filthy, or "adulterated". This affects both spouses, as they are one flesh...if one commits adultery, he/she makes the other adulterous, as well, if there are continued marital relations. The Lord and His Church can heal, reconcile, and purify, but both parties must be willing. Admittedly, as a new Catholic, I have not investigated whether annulment is a possibility.
As a divorced woman, I embraced the Lord's teaching about marriage while I was still a Protestant...even though most Protestant denominations allow endless divorce and remarriage almost willy-nilly. I embraced it because I read Jesus' teachings about it and decided that I will never remarry while I still have a living husband, though we be separated. The Lord has made me happily celibate, and I can testify that this promise is true: "For your Maker is your husband, The Lord of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth" (Isaiah 54:5). I cannot count the ways in which the Lord has tenderly cared for me in this time. St. Paul said that those who are divorced should remain single, or remarry their former spouse. He also said we are happier if we remain single (in his opinion). Paul was a wise Apostle!
The humility in your perspective is itself humbling. You must have so much grace to have handled such a terrible betrayal this way
You bring up a perspective that I hadn’t considered before, which is that marital relations must cease until the adulterous spouse repents and seeks forgiveness. This seems similar to the idea that Catholics in a state of mortal sin must refrain from receiving Communion until they repent and go to confession. This makes sense to me.
I will add that the guilty party in the marriage has committed a moral evil which then causes the innocent party to suffer a physical evil. I applaud your willingness to endure your physical evil in a heroic way.
This is one of the primary reasons I became Catholic.
It's really fascinating to me how most converts seem to cite of the sacraments as their primary reason for converting. For me it was confession. I don't see as many people mention the Catholic view on marriage
@@sivad1025 Confession was one of the reasons too, but Sacramental Marriage was high on the list as well. In short, when you dig into the shift away from Sacramental Marriage being the norm in the West, you start to see how we ended up with problems like no fault divorce and separating having children from Marriage, which is terribly devastating to the family: the foundation of society.
@@sivad1025 To quote a long passage of Chesterton:
Men and women enter by every conceivable gate, after every, conceivable process of slow intellectual examination, of shock, of vision, of moral trial and even of merely intellectual process. They enter through the action of expanded experience. Some obtain this through travel, some through a reading of history beyond their fellows, some through personal accidents of life. And not only are the avenues of approach to the Faith infinite in number (though all converging; as must be so, since truth is one and error infinitely divided), but the individual types in whom the process of conversion may be observed differ in every conceivable fashion. When you have predicated of one what emotion or what reasoning process brought him into the fold, and you attempt to apply your predicate exactly to another, you will find a misfit. The cynic enters, and so does the sentimentalist; and the fool enters and so does the wise man; the perpetual questioner and doubter and the man too easily accepting immediate authority--they each enter after his kind. You come across an entry into the Catholic Church undoubtedly due to the spectacle, admiration and imitation of some great character observed. Next day you come across an entry into the Catholic Church out of complete loneliness, and you are astonished to find the convert still ignorant of the great mass of the Catholic effect on character. And yet again, immediately after, you will find a totally different third type, the man who enters not from loneliness, nor from the effect of another mind, but who comes in out of contempt for the insufficiency or the evil by which he has been surrounded.
The Church is the natural home of the Human Spirit.
Writing a paper about marriage right now and it’s always nice to get some helpful tips from Shameless Popery!
Joe, your teachings on marriage have been excellent; mostly because as a revert to the faith, (after some many years in the LDS world) I have had to take a very hard look at what Jesus actually taught about marriage and sorely wish I knew these teachings decades ago. When being reconcilled to the church, the reframing of my thinking on many subjects has been transformational. Your channel has been very helpful in all of this "rebirth" if you will. Thank you and please keep up the good work.
Joe you are my favorite apologist. A humble, charitable lawyer. Who would have thought they existed.
There are many in the mother church!
Keith nester
Trent Horn
Scott hanks
John Henry Newman
Converted ptotestants!!!!
This was amazing, last 2 episodes 🔥
I agree Joe. Also note Hebrews 13:2-3, where the author seems to continue his chain of thought from the care for those (less fortunate) who are "in the body" to "Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers."
It was while watching the first part of this video a few days ago, that I just realized this was where it was all coming. There are no short cuts to following Jesus. I don't understand why people claim the graces and blessings associated with life in Jesus Christ, and yet reject the responsibilities and challenges and obedient sacrifices that necessarily go with being Christian. It's simply illogical and dishonest; like kindergarten Christianity. In truth, real Christianity is a call to higher things; that's why Christianity is rather unpopular to the culture in terms of practice; and why there are very few true believers today. Ironically, it's also why you instantly know a real Christian the moment you encounter one.😊
This is the most comprehensive and spot on analysis about this topic I've come across so far. I can't overstate how valuable your work has been towards and after my conversion to Catholicism a year ago! Thank you so much for the love and thought you put into those videos of yours. I'm constantly baffled by the way you unravel those complex and highly theological issues so elegantly, keeping it sophisticated and yet so easy to follow.
That said, I was wondering if one could even go so far as to say that the Reformation was ultimately laying the groundwork for a development which in our modern day culminated in the division even of body and sex. As according to Luther "no one is regarded as a Christian because of his body" but instead because of one's "spiritual" association to Christ, so transgender proponents pose that no one should be regarded as male or female solely because of their body, for it is simply what one believes to be that is making them one or the other or something completely different altogether.
Luther is hardly the first person to try to distinguish between body and spirit. The Greeks did it first. And the emergence of the transgender debate is far more complicated than this one philosophical concept.
I think it's more accurate to say that the Reformers set the stage for weak defense of sexual ethics. It blows my mind to see Anglicans freaking out about their church toying with gay marriage when their church is founded in the rejection of Christian sexual ethics.
@@wankerwackson6514 That's certainly right. The spirit of division of course wasn't first summoned by the likes of Luther, but it seems to me that while the church for the longest time has been one until the work of the Reformers, their influence in convergence with Renaissance thought established a pathway for ancient misconceptions to find a much broader acceptance in the Christian culture emerging from it.
The more I see passages Catholics use to support their theology the more irrefutable Catholicism seems to
I think many Protestants delving into the matter for the first time are surprised at the amount of Scriptural support for Catholic doctrine, at least as much as Protestants have for theirs.
I was very fortunate that God on my walk gave me an unbiased view of both sides, but there was no way Protestant views could ever answer my questions with scripture like Catholicism does
Catholics made a huge tactical error by leaning into the Magesterium to refute Protestantism and ceding sola scriptura to them. You can refute so much of Reformed Theology on Sola Scriptura grounds
What's more, the scriptures are a part of a whole history and tradition of the Church, of central importance being the written word of God to be sure. But the word of God is more than the written Word. When scripture is understood in its full historical context, it is very very Catholic.
Its another example of how perfectly consistsnt the Church is
The Holy spiritcdwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD. He protects, defends, takes care leads her to all truth!!! She will never becdesttoyed, Acts 5:38-39. That was 2000 years ago!
You’re kidding right?
Joe, the wisdom you share is priceless.
Also, these UA-cam comments remind me of how the Church needs a living authoritive teaching body because wow!! People’s interpretations are all over the place! Lol
I regard personal interpretation as pride, my way or the highway and the result is obvious, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-23
This is awesome, Joe. You're connecting dots most have overlooked for centuries. You legal mind is sharp as a razor (no disrespect to you beard)!
on point. Interesting how, an "intellectual guru" like Dr Garvin, would still find his way around this argument, given the commitment to Protestantism.
Literally my favorite day and the only channel I have notifications for Thursdays!
Inspired episode, Joe. One of your best. Plus, his one has a better chance of resonating with Protestants/Evangelicals who genuinely want to follow the words in the Bible. It is impossible for any open-minded person to believe the re-definitions of the clear passages you discuss. Sure, if someone is bent on spinning verses to try to justify the result they want, they can find ways to delude themselves into thinking their interpretation is Biblical. But short of that, there is no good faith way to avoid the plain meaning of Jesus’s own words.
So much wonderful content in this episode, and last week’s!!! It would be very helpful if you could address the current concept of nullification and remarriage, and how that fits into Jesus’ teaching.
Thank you, this gave me an excellent background on marriage and the Church. Keep up the good work reaching out to many Catholics.
Very insightful, Joe! If Jesus and the Church are ONE, and the Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ, divorcing oneself from the Church is divorcing from Christ!
LOL! Amazing Joe this is everything I learned in my Baltimore Catechism classes and why I have loved Jesus and His Catholic Church for my entire life. But you said in a concise and efficient way. Very effective. Perhaps all those who make such atrocious comments denying Jesus, His deposit of faith handed on to the Apostles and their successors in the Catholic Church, the church of the living God the pillar and bull work of truth just stop. Think outside your box. Then listen to this presentation 4 or 5 times and I mean listen and you will see with awe and wonder what Jesus left us in the Catholic Church. Our God is an awesome God.
Can you please talk about valid and invalid marriage in the Catholic Church? And how this relates to your topic and why this is allowed at times. Is it in place of divorce? We are new converts from Protestantism and would like to understand this topic better. Thanks for your teaching.
I am listening to the first video on this topic and see that you discuss there.
Marriage is the only Sacrament where the two getting married are the officiants before a church minister!!! They want their union to be blessed by God. They request it "IN FREEDOM, without any external or internal pressure."
That is the principle behind! If vice, external cause, or pression do exist just at the moment of getting married, it renders it invalid. If they request annulment later, the church tribunal willl investigate and establish validity and declare that marriage was void or not! The church never grants divorce. Henry Viii is a perfect example!!!
30% of Christianity was lost to the new anglicanism!!!
Thanks Joe, as always these words you bring are like a long cool drink on a hot day. May God continue to use you to bless His body.
This is pure gold.
Compelling insight in simplified & convincing presentation. Joe ❤
Great series, Joe. I wonder if you could do a piece on the Orthodox view of divorce/remarriage-something about how you get two redos, to put it unfairly and crassly-and when that developed since the early Church embraced Jesus’s stricter position.
Joe you do such a great job of giving meaningful ideas in a very comprehensive way. This is rapidly becoming one of my favorite channels. Appreciate you
I listened to this either right before or right after Trent’s discussion with the Other Paul - it seemed providential to have these two happening side by side, because while I see the nuances he presents, in my estimation, it still renders the mystical Body of Christ as a phantom.
Exactly, Christ has one church just as in a marriage there is one bride. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox need to unite once again for the sake of the world.
Hey Joe, I believe your thesis is correct and I agree on your point that if you get one wrong you will get the other wrong. When you posed the question if this explains why Protestant Reformers broke with the earliest Christians on both these doctrines? I can not help but think of St. Francis de Sales in his Catholic Controversy work. This is a sentence in the opening paragraph of his rebuttal if you will, On the Mission of the Church, Chapter 1. He says, "The office they claim was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ Our Lord; the affair they understood was to declare a formal divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church His Spouse; to arrange and conclude by words of present consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said they, and more seemly than the other." As Christians that opening paragraph alone should cause us all to sit up and take heed to what he is saying. I am a cradle Catholic who spent 23 years in an Evangelical church. The past year has been quite a journey as the Holy Spirit has been guiding me back to The Catholic Church, The Body of Christ, His Bride. Thank you Joe for all your incredible work as it has, and pray it will continue to be, a great blessing to all of us who truly, with a sincere heart and open mind want to know truth and be disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Beautiful
Awesome
Very, very well laid out and articulated discussion Joe!
Outstanding work. Thank you Joe.
Another great episode. So here's a question for a follow-up maybe. Jesus clearly teaches the sacramental nature of marriage, but why then, do we see the sacrament of marriage being "undone" when we get to heaven? (Matthew 22)
Just as there is no courage without fear, there is no obedience if you do not disagree.
its seems very popular for protestants to celebrate jewish holidays and celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday and dont honor the Lord on Sunday
And they are not jewish!!!! Lol
Can’t wait to watch this on my lunch!
I was a marriage permanence student for now 15 years, and i do think that Jesus simply gives the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, when he has his conversation with the pharisees in Matthew 19:3-12. It takes some digging, but you finally understand both why Moses made the ruling, and how Jesus could "annul" it. But the most important point to see is that there is no "exception" in Matthew 19:9, and neither do we find early christians seeing an "exception" there, and neither has the Church ever concocted an "exception".
Or has it? I had a conversation with a priest who seemed to say that if adultery happened, it could be taken as a demonstration that there had not been the intention to remain faithful, and therrefore the RCC would grant an annulment. On this point I feel confused about the RCC.
My understanding is that Jesus gave the Church authority (male apostles, not all disciples) to bind and loose. It's a good question. Write to catholic answers on their website or call into their live daily show.
Excellent answer! That is the truth!
There were unlawful marriages during christ time, therefore the Lord Jesus says, ".... unless the union is illegal."
Today there are also illegal marriages!!! The church with the authority to bind/ loose on earth and heaven can declare after exhaustive investigation the validity or not of a marriage. There is no divorce, the marriage did not have the conditions to get married when they did!!
A valid marriage cannot be dissolved.
If a marriage is determined to have NEVER been valid by the Church, that invalid marriage can be annulled. Because it was never a true marriage, ever.
Note the priest is saying adultery could be evidence in the hearing, he is not saying adultery would dissolve a valid marriage. It can’t. Nothing can.
Because the Catholic understanding of the sacrament is that the bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other (priest is there only as a witness) the bride's and groom's state of mind at the moment of making the vows is an essential element to determining if the sacrament actually took place. So I think what the other commenter said is accurate - adultery *could* be taken as evidence that on the wedding day the adulterer did not intend a true sacramental union to take place. Especially if it turns out that he/she was already committing adultery very shortly after the wedding. But if after 25 years of marriage a spouse commits adultery one time, it probably would not be taken as good evidence of their wedding-day intentions. People can change in bad ways as well as good ways... so it could be that on their wedding day they had the right intentions, and they lost faith or found marriage more difficult than they expected... but a personality change like that, taking place after the vows, has no impact on sacramentality.
This is gold!
Dude citing Doctor Gamble! 10/10 absolutely fantastic prof
Let me go ahead and add, even if you do take the translation of "porneia" as "fornication" to be proper (as I do), it still winds up meaning effectively the same thing: since extra-marital sex is called fornication if neither party is married, it would have to refer to sex that happened before the marriage, and would then mean you take a wife and expect her to be a virgin, you have the marriage and you then go and find out she's not, that marriage could be considered invalid in Jewish law because it was entered under false pretenses ("could be considered invalid" because the man still had the option to marry her, and then the marriage would be valid). That is, even if you're like me and you still like the "fornication" translation, it still only applies to invalid marriages.
Thank you.
Excellent video.
❤️
So basically in the same way that there is the analogy of faith, there is also the analogy of heresy.
I hate to split hairs but when you quote Acts 24:15 - "...according to the Way, which they call a sect..." it's actually verse 14.
Oops, good catch!
@@shamelesspopery No problem! Thank you for your work. I've never seen that connection between John 14:6 and Acts 24:14. Very interesting and solid argument.
Everything you said is very compelling. And I fully accept the Church's teachings as revealed by God. So this, of course, is included. But I anticipate an objection some may have. What would you say to someone who says it doesn't make sense for Jesus to set aside the law of Moses regarding divorce on the one hand, and have as an exception something based on the law of Moses (pornea)?
This question comes to mind not out of personal doubt. Despite this potential objection, it makes much more sense that Jesus was forbidding divorce outright except in cases where the union later becomes recognized as illicit from the start.
If you ever have the opportunity to invite Louise Perry on this podcast and discuss marriage please do.
Joe it would be interesting to look at Christ's body the Church today in light of His passion. Is the church entering the passion of Christ?
Great stuff Joe!
I can picture the objection from Calvinists that the notion of mortal sin causing us to be severed from Christ would be inconsistent with our view of the immorality and impossibility of divorce. Even though we individually are not the Church, we are members of Her, so how do we square that with the impossibility of Christ divorcing His Bride?
I'm not positive on Joe's response, but I would point to Mortal Sin being a Spiritual Death in scripture, not a Spiritual Divorce. My next point would be, if a spouse died and Jesus brought them back to life, would you both be free to marry since technically the marriage ended with death? or would the marriage covenant be active since death is no longer a barrier? I would contend that permanent death ends the covenant, but a temporary death resolved by resurrection does not end the covenant. Thus, our temporary spiritual death from mortal sin and then resolved by the forgiveness of our sins does not end the covenant with Jesus.
Further, Mortal(Deadly) Sin is not called Divorced (Separated) Sin. Could you call Venial (Pardonable) Sin a type of divorce? but only in the sense that it does not sever the covenant with Christ just like how divorce does not sever the marriage covenant, but it certainly makes it harder to fulfill your duty of the covenant which you are still bound to honor.
I believe the answer has to do with “mortal” sin being actual spiritual death… not just spiritual infidelity. It’s death by spiritual suicide- which is why the sacrament of reconciliation is required for mortal sins only. You’re being restored to spiritual life and fellowship.
I make a good case for celibacy after spousal death just in case God resurrects them before Judgement Day. Would not want to become an accidental polygamist XD.
Or maybe this is the reason there is a mourning period after spousal death before remarriage to avoid this specific possibility.
@@NJWEBER18 👍
@@NJWEBER18
"what God united, let not man cut asunder!
"Till death do us part, you said that before God"!!! Unless you said it at gun point!!!
That is your answer!!
I keep asking, is Joe Incarnation of St Paul? He is a gift from God!
America is the greatest European nation because of its constituent people, so it makes sense why people identified with that
I have a question. I was totally aligned with Jesus teaching on marriage, but then I read, 1 Corinthians 7: 12-16 and it resulted in confusion. Is this meaning that if they leave because of your faith? Or is it referencing that was a factor (among other things while being led astray)?
I'm just not following those verses in relation to Jesus teaching related to the Greek wor discussed in the podcast.
Question: what about couples who are pretty typical modern Americans, who were never entering into marriage with any idea that it was some kind of “covenant”… Since the church wouldn’t recognize their marriages as valid anyway… What about their divorces and remarriage?
Well, only 2:47 minutes into this video and I have to say that this exposition on pornia (or however you spell that word) was very insightful. Most translations I have seen render the word as fornication. This always troubled me, because it seemed like one could commit fornication as a way to get out of a valid marriage and have grounds for divorce, which didn't seem to fit the flow of ideas presented. Seems to me we don't have a succinct word in English to convey the idea of a marriage that was invalid, for if we did that word would be the preferred translation and that would make this passage clear. Further, and maybe you will cover this as the video proceeds, is what people called the Pauline exception, where he talks about the unbelieving spouse departing, and then you are not under obligation. I have read several different expositions on that verse from different sources. Though those sources were not catholic. I wonder about the kind of convoluted situations modern life offers. Like married 3 times and divorced, and then you become Catholic, for instance. Could that person enter into a valid Catholic Marriage with another Catholic? or even just someone who was never married but had serious long-term relationships? If, as Paul states, you become one flesh with a prostitute, doesn't the mere act of conjugal union create a DeFacto marriage? if so, then all of us would be bound to whomever that first person was with whom we had that kind of union, meaning someone who converts to Catholicism might therefore -32 girlfriends later, or whatever- not ever be free to form a valid Catholic marriage.
Joseph Smith: “But but, God commanded me to do it” 😢
One might say that we Catholics ate what we eat.
35:12 wow 🤯
What about annulments in the Catholic church?
The indisolubility reflects the marriage of Christ to his Church! Jesus can not abandon her!!! However, there are illegal unions today as there were in the time of christ!!! Only the authority to bind and loose on earth and heaven can establish validity and declare annulment!!!
The church lost 33% of christians with Henry Viii. The church can not grant divorce!!!
Jesus doesn't put away His wife but His wife can walk away from Him. There are lots of "women" out there claiming to be the bride of Christ but by their fruits ye shall know them.
If they are preaching contrary to the word of God then, even though they may claim to be the bride, they are not the bride.
Are Jehovah's Witnesses the bride? Are Baptists? Are Catholics? The bride is not a denomination. The bride is made of people who have come out of those denominations and been separated from those worldly institutions. That is the bride to whom Jesus is married.
I think it's important to realize that divorce and remarriage is never pronounced as "the unforgivable sin". That distinction is reserved for speaking against (i.e. trivializing by contradicting) the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus says whatever you have done to the least of these, my brethren, you have done to me, does this mean that the least of these have a presumptive membership in the body of Christ?
36:38 so did Protestants just make some forms of Gnosticism sacrosanct ?
Your explanation of the whole pornea thing sounds like an ancient version of the 2nd ammendment debate in that it was absolutely clear what it says and what it means but over time the "But I wanna" side of the debate has made arguments based off of blatantly misinterpreteding the words being used.
I honestly have no clue which sides you're comparing... this comment could be made 4 different ways lol
Yes, we are dead to the law , Jesus is now the head of the church. That’s why Jesus took all our sins upon himself. All we do is not for ourselves, but for love and respect for Jesus and God. Our belief is a personal relationship with God through his sacrifice. Remember laws are different than commandments.
🔥
Adam and Eve they both sinned, first with their action and then with their word, weak but not bad.
(Let's not forget that Adam chose to trust Eve in that delicate moment)
By opening a small door you can see those quotes from the Church Fathers either as a hammer of justice against wicked women or as a hard and difficult test of faith for pious women.
The woman is the second gift after the Garden, and it was man himself who crowned her (imagine a veil, a female symbol of dignity, royalty and then of sanctity).
With joy for God Adam tells Eve that through her man will be reborn and become immortal (Saint Joseph, Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ).
When they were kicked out they immediately embraced each other again, securing and comforting each other, and the Archangel Michael prophesied their salvation (the biblical rapture from Limbo).
Saint Adam and Saint Eve, parents of humanity together with Saint Joseph (the Chaste Heart) and Saint Mary (the Immaculate Heart), parents of Jesus Christ (the Sacred Heart and God Incarnate).
Joseph the Counselor of Heaven and Mary the Queen of Heaven.
It has always been this way for the sacred service of women in the Holy Church: the consecrated virgins and the nuns.
The ultimate divine reward is to receive Mary's veil and become her handmaid.
And reading the commentaries of my Catholic Bible Matthews verse on the exception for divorce is interpreted as sexual immorality
what do you believe about the lack of canonical forum and the delayed l feel declaration of nullity offered by the RCC?
The polygamy question led me to the Catholic Church. Bad protestant answers just led me to the conclusion it was a Catholic holdover belief in Charismaticism.
@19:00 approximately, you can't know one spouse without the other.
ITE AD IOSEPH >>>> Behold thy mother!!! Both help you understand each, if you end up touching on that, I'll be elated. If you don't, I'll still be elated lol
A lot of catholic didn't follow church and Jesus teaching in this Sacrament
I am divorced and annulled and he is living in sin
That is his problem! You give God thanks for setting you free!!
Jesus would not have attended the wedding at Cana if the wife could then divorce her husband and take his house/money/children.
Point of order: Let the record show that this "Levitical Covenant" is "The Law of Moses", a.k.a. the Old Covenant. The bible doesn't talk about a covenant that God has with just the Levites - that the Law applies globally. There are specific provisions contained in the Law that apply to that tribe but there is no separate "Levitical Covenant" as might be construed from the video.
I think it's because many of those laws are contained in the book of *Leviticus*
@@-GodIsMyJudge- - That may be but "the Law" is also known as "the Torah" or "the Pentateuch" (the first 5-books of the bible). The Old Covenant is larger than that, however. In the Gospel of John, Jesus cited a passage contained in the Psalms and called it, "your Law". So the Jews considered the writings of David and the other prophets as legally binding.
There is no separate covenant between God and the tribe of Levi, as far as I can tell. I may be wrong but I've never heard of anything like that preached before.
On May 3, the Lamb of God will be born in heaven and with the very "Black Friday" that will happen in America that day, the collapse of the world economic markets will begin.😵💫😮😳
If that doesn't happen on Friday, will you publicly admit to spreading false prophecies? Just asking.
Two Catholics get married in the church, one divorces in secular court then remarries, abandoning the other. What is the abandoned spouse supposed to do? The marriage has been consummated i.e. kids, house, pets, etc so please do not say annulment?
1 Corinthians 7:12-16
To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
Obligation of the spouse to pray for the conversion and salvation of the other and offer their life as atonement for the sins of both. This should be the case in marriage in general.
Search "the hidden Martyrs for marriage" at the catholic answers website for an in depth explanation (that does not involve annulment).
The one who abandoned the other has entered into adultery because he/she is still married to the first. His/her second marriage is therefore invalid unless the first can be confirmed null via annulment. Therefore, the annulment process is the objectively correct approach.
And by the way, the Catholic who got "remarried" did not do so in a Catholic Church without an annulment, so clearly this person is not a practicing Catholic.
Chastity
@AndrewAMD,
You are providing wrong information!
Once the church thru investigation establishes the marriage was valid, there will be no annulment!!! "Till death do us part " is until.one of the two dies!!!
1} Which Church, Joe ???
2}Where does the Bible say, the Catholic church is the Church Jesus Founded?...
A} Not applicable"...
3}Where is the Church that Jesus founded?
A} In Rev Chapter one".
4}Which province was that church established, in Rome?
A} No, not in Rome!
Where then?
A }In the Province of Asia. Rev 1:4.
5}What is the name of the Church that Jesus founded?
A} It has Seven names.
6} What are those names? See Rev 1:11
7} Who is Judging those 7 Churches each church by its name in Rev chapter one?
A} The founder of the church. The Lord Jesus Christ himself.
Who inspired the Book of Revelation.?
9} The answer is in Rev1:1. It says. The revelation of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 1:1. Says the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
*And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”* _Matthew 16:18-19_
Jesus says "MY CHURCH," not "churches." There is one church Jesus gave us that was built on Peter who died in Rome.
*[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority* _Iranaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2_
@@sivad1025 You don't have a clue what you're on about. That's right, Jesus did say Church, not Churches". One week is one week, and there are also seven days in one week. The Church Jesus founded is one Church, but has Seven names. Rev 1:11
Google this Video titled: "Full-blown Lucifer Worship in the Catholic Vatican"... Then let me know if you still believe that the pagan Catholic church is the Church that Jesus founded.
The reason Peter died in Rome was that he wouldn't submit to pagan worship and pagan traditions like the Catholic church did, Paul was also martyred in Rome for the same reasons as Peter,
The Collosium where true Christians were fed alive to the lions is also in Rome.
When Jesus returns he won't be returning in Rome, but in Jerusalem. Zacharia 14:4.
@@sivad1025 Everything you've written is a load of gibberish. The Catholic church's foundation isn't a rock, but lies!
@benjaminfalzon4622 Right, the various churches (plural) that are in communion with each other make up the one Church (singular). If two churches are not in communion with each other then either
1. There is no one unified church
2. At least one of those churches is in heresy
The Bible compells us to reject the first argument since Jesus founded one church against which hell will not prevail. And the second leaves us with the question: which church has the authority to excommunicate the other?
Peter and Paul both ended their lives at the Church of Rome and named successors there, Peter's being Linus. Hence, Rome became the church of Peter's successors with "preeminent authority" as Ireneaus tells us. Since Ireneaus gives the first (incomplete) canon of the Bible, we conclude that the papal supremacy is at least as old as the canon itself. It is absolutely incoherent to trust Ireneaus on the canon but ignore him on papal succession
@@sivad1025 A picture is worth a thousand words. Google that Video I recommended" Then read Revelation 17.
I was a Catholic, I've heard all that gibberish you're posting before. None of that gibberish is true. It's all made up of unholy men, and none of it is inspired by God.
Try this on for size: God is the God of the living not the dead.
Ask the question: "Does the church exist?"
Answer: "Yes."
If everyone on earth dies, does the church exist? Yes. Why? Because God is the God of the living and not the dead.
Can the church be wiped out and nobody breathing is part of that religion. Does the church exist? Yes. The church in heaven is the same as the church on earth. Whether we're breathing or not, we who are in Christ, are of His body.
So, where is the city on the hill? Where is the hill? You can indeed lose the population of the whole earth and the church would still exist. Peter and Paul are still living apostles of God. They need no successors - as if they were dead.
There goes the whole "Catholicism is the continuation of the church" argument. Neither Peter nor Paul were Catholics or Baptists or anything other than Christians - members of the church of Christ, the church of God.
Classic illogical Protestant thinking & not embarrassed to display it! Stay on topic, which is marriage, you’re all over the place!
You are making an argument based on a hypothetical that cannot happen (if the Bible is true). We are told when Christ returns, there will be people on Earth. After the 2nd coming, there will be people on the new Earth.
Hi, I was with you there right until the end, when you kind of took a left turn. Since this subject is OT, I will only reply very simply that if the Apostles were to 'teach all nations,' guided by Him who would be with them 'unto the end of the age,' then that necessitates there being successors to the Apostles. Surely Christ did not think these fishermen were going to reach all nations within the time frame of their remaining years on earth. Peace! ❤
@@Vaughndaleoulaw - You are correct. It is a hypothetical. But it illustrates that the church doesn't exist in this dimension only. There will always be a remnant. The bible makes that clear. Furthermore, Jesus told us that the church will never be a majority. The strait gate and the narrow way kind of relegates His people to minority status.
Statistics say that there are over a billion Christians alive on earth today. I don't think so. I believe Jesus, who said, "...few there be that find it."
That "city on a hill" was also an illustration and a metaphor - not an actual snapshot of what the church was going to look like. It's an ideal image of how His followers should comport themselves. The salt of the earth. The lamp under a bushel. These are parables of what should and shouldn't be. It's Him saying, "You want to be like this, don't you?" "You don't want to be like that, do you?" "You want to be a city on a hill not a lamp under a bushel or salt that has lost its savor, right?"
To concoct a theory of a great and popular movement out of these sayings is stretching these allegories past the breaking point. Jesus' followers will be relatively few. It's a promise. If you're in the majority, you're probably in the wrong.
@@rhwinner - I'm not sure you're clear on the function of an apostle. The apostles are the law givers. Once the law has been given, we don't need to keep giving it or invent new laws all the time (as if "truth" changes ever few generations).
The commandment to teach all nations is a general one - not just to the apostles. We see this played out in the Acts of the Apostles. While the 12 were holed up in Jerusalem, what was going on? The message spread to Antioch, Syria through the preaching of the rank-and-file.
Acts 8 shows that the message went to Samaria through the preaching of Philip - a deacon, not an apostle. An apostle came along later to lay hands on them to give them spiritual gifts but the message spread through the preaching of Philip.
So you can see that successors to the apostles are not necessary. The law has been given (it's in the pages of the New Testament) and the preaching of random Christians is effective.
The apostle Paul calls apostles "the foundation".
Eph. 2:20 - And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Once the foundation is laid, we don't lay more foundation, we just build on it. If there were successors to the apostles (which the New Testament never teaches) then we could assume that the foundation has not yet been finished.
And hasn't that been the goal of the Roman religion all along? "Keep spitting out more foundation!" Now Mary is our mediator, now instead of patron gods who hear our prayers, we have patron saints. The apostles knew nothing of these teachings. If we keep the apostles coming then we have to keep the revelation coming as well. As a result, the rank and file believer can never hope to know the whole counsel of God - never really know His word because it keeps changing.
Remember, there is an adversary who wants to keep us guessing and never knowing the will of God. Remember that his goal was always to separate people from the God who saved them.
This is a revelation by the Helper. It's up to you JOE to take it. You have gone through men's history and men's knowledge. The mistake you made is you went in too deep in men's knowledge that made you forget to seek the Helper or allow the Helper to guide you. That's why you are still defending a self proclaimed man made church system. If you know the truth, you will start defending Jesus rather than men knowledge authority. Be a worshipper in truth and spirit and know the lies of the enemy. There is no such truth to whether being a catholic or orthodox.Surrender to the Holy Spirit. My heart wants unity so this is what I found. Reading chronicles 1 :28. I found out that catholicism created a religion. Out of which many other rebellions came out of it and created more. On contrary to these we are led further away from the truth. Jesus is forever king of Israel'. In the eyes of truth there are the old ways and the new ways. Chronicles 28 revealed that Solomon built God's temple in regard to the revelation that the Helper revealed to David on how every detail the temple of God has to be built. In the new testament, God revealed His Temple in detail through Paul. In the old testament it was really a temple built for God because of the details given by the Helper. But in the new testament there are no details of a physical building church. So, the physical building church is only built for people to gather and serve the Lord. It is not a building built for God but for believers to gather. So be it Catholicism, orthodox, protestants all are nothing but a system built on men's knowledge for influential religious people created it. There is no such thing as one true apostolic church in a building. Most are seeking only men's knowledge so most of us ended up in the men's system and men's values. If we are really to allow the work of the Helper to bring us back to the truth, there is no religion in the eyes of God. No Judaism or Catholicism. Men created that. But Catholicism created a religion and separated itself completely from the root of truth. I see many men who are sound in men's knowledge not really preaching the truth but led astray by religion. Jesus is still gonna come for Israel and still they are His chosen people. Jesus is still forever king of Israel'. We are merely gentiles who have the privilege to become the children of God only when we believe in the son and be baptized. Israel they are already believers in the Father but He blinded them so that the rest of the world shall know the son first. Time will come when He will lift their blindness when all the world (gentiles) knows Him. But Catholicism due to creating a religion on its laws and rituals, many have Rebelled and we have stranded more, away from the truth. Allowing the Helper to really help, we can see how religion has separated us from the truth path of GOD and managed to create division. So conclusion, the new testament, Paul has revealed, the one true apostolic church in every detail. Jesus has said it too." Destroyed this temple and in three days I will raise it up. Comparing it with the old testament, it stands true. So to go by the wisdom of the Helper, the building churches be it and any denominations are merely built for people to come and gather. It is not the temple of God. For the temple of God has already been built by Solomon and the other one and the third remains a mystery. Also, due to religious belief, we have lots of men's knowledge raised higher than the truth of GOD. Catholicism religion has put the laws of venerated Mary. If we look really into the word of God, Jesus never vulnerates Mary. That's why the bible says even the elect is possible to be deceived. Many will go after their own itches ears doctrines and not to the sound doctrines of God. Means not many will listen anymore to the guidance of the Helper. So do not go after men-knowledge that makes us forget the real Helper. Yes it's good to have knowledge. How much more is when we have God's wisdom & understanding.
Shalom.
May we allow the Helper to work in us rather than self men based knowledge.
Joe and I would claim that the Helper told us and gave us confirmation that the Catholic church is ordained by God. You think the opposite. How do we determine which one of us is correctly listening to the Holy Spirit?
@@sivad1025 The message was for Joe brother. I was sure not to reply to you. But I was led to give this reply. The rest is up to you if you want to really know the ways of God, surrender urself, empty urself(let go of men belief). Indeed, the Helper does not reveal different things. He has already revealed the same thing to all. But owing to our men's traditions we tend to not listen to Him. Where did the Holy Spirit confirm the catholic church?. You are blinded by religion.
Who is Jesus?
Luke 18:38.
What is a temple?
Read 1 chronicles 28-29 for a detailed physical form of the temple.
The mistake we are all led astray it is because of the religion. It separate the ways of God from us and we are unable to see the truth any longer.
Revelation, Jesus will come and rule 1000 years still from Jerusalem. He will still gather all the scatter Jews.
The only difference in God eyes those who belongs to Him as a sheep from the goats. Those who worship Him in truth & Spirit. There is no religion. Especially no Catholicism, no Christianity, no protestant. No Judaism.
I will say this much. To conclude. Jesus never give details of a physical building church called catholic to be built. If you are aware of the new testament scriptures, we the gentiles are called to live in the new way in the spirit. If you read ur scriptures well, yll see the church that Jesus built is not a physical one. Read the scriptures as a whole. Lil knowledge is dangerous. Didn't Jesus said destroy this temple and I will raise it back in three days.
We should not be so proud that we forget we are just branches.
Order in the church is explained by Paul. Churches are built when we believers gathered together and we built God's building.
Today, the building we build and called church is not a temple for GOD. It is for us believers to come and gathered only. God does not dwell in it. And for you to say catholic is the church, you are foolish indeed. God never called a man-made building as church. Because You are born in the system of men that you are unable to see the whole truth. I was once like you. But when I seek, I seek genuinely the wisdom and understanding of God. Not just through men history or men self based theories and knowledge. Be led truly by the Helper. Indeed Joe is sound with men history. But he is a babe in the spirit and knows very Lil of the things of the spirit. I do not boost over this. Simply addressing the issue. Spiritual things, he can barely explain it for he is blinded by men religious traditions and defending a man made system over the solid foundation of the God of Israel.
Is Jesus the Forever king of Israel?
What did the new testament says about church?.
Can you define a church?Not by your men knowledge but by the word of God
Read Corinthians
@patriceagulu8315 He did. Our body
@patriceagulu8315 You are indeed blind. Do u read the Scriptures?Read & yll have ur answer.
@patriceagulu8315 No we talk over it & fix it. What's ur point ?
In fact, "sacrament" is a made up word. It's based on the word that Jerome used to obscure the meaning of the Greek word, "mysterion". Mysterion simply means "mystery" and is used many times in the bible.
Catholicism uses the word "sacrament" instead of "mystery" in order to obscure the teaching of the apostles (i.e. keep it a mystery). All mystery religions need to maintain mystery in order to perpetrate and perpetuate their error.
Sacrament is a made up word used to obscure God's word. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.
You are wrong. What do you mean in saying that "sacrament" is a "made-up word"? What other categories of words are there? In any case, Jerome didn't invent the word "sacrament" (as he didn't speak English), nor did he invent the Latin word sacramentum, which dates back centuries before him. For instance, the "legis actio sacramenti" or "legis actio per sacramentum," is one of the five legis actiones found in the Institutes Gaius (161 A.D.). "Sacramentum" in its theological usage of "Sacrament" dates back to Tertullian, the first major Christian writer to write in Latin. He uses it in Against Marcion (c. 208). [For comparison, St. Jerome wouldn't be born until the 340s).
This is kind of a pattern with you: you make bizarre false claims and insist you're right unless someone else takes the time to debunk your falsehoods. I appreciate your desire to grow in wisdom and knowledge, and to share the wisdom and knowledge that you think you already have, but if you don't know what you're talking about, everyone is better served by you asking questions instead of making false claims and asking to be debunked.
@@shamelesspopery - "Baptism" is a made up word. It's a transliteration of the Greek word "baptizo". If it were translated, the word would be "immerse" (or immersion). But in order for it to be MISunderstood, the religious world hides the definition in a made up word.
Sacrament is not a transliteration. It's a word that is not used in the New Testament at all. The only occurrence of the word "sacrament" in the whole Douay-Rheims Version of the bible is the Greek word "mysterion". All other versions of the bible translate that as "mystery". (See Eph. 5:32)
Sacrament is not a bible word and therefore has infinite application. We might as well use the word "slurpo". It can mean anything we want.
It's a trick, you see. It keeps the laity guessing. I can't look up the word in the bible because it's a novel word. Changing the language is classic totalitarianism. Look at the modern Communist Party in America. We don't know what a woman is anymore because the word has changed meaning.
Eucharist is another word that's not found in the bible. It literally means "giving thanks". - A verb. But look at how the Roman religion uses the word - as a noun. It changes the language in order to keep the laity flatfooted.
This is no conspiracy theory. This is Marxism 101.
@@GizmoFromPizmo "Eucharist ..literally means "giving thanks". - A verb."
Yes, we know. See CCC 1328, "It is called Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God."
"But look at how the Roman religion uses the word - as a noun."
Eucharist, like many words, can be used as both a noun and a verb. St. Ignatius of Antioch used it as a noun when he wrote in 107 AD, "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ."
@@lellachu1682 - Right. Eucharist is a Greek word derived from when Jesus gave thanks at the Passover supper. But it's a verb.
You cannot point to a piece of bread and say, "This is the Eucharist" because it doesn't make grammatical sense. In order for it to make sense, you have to transmutate that verb into a noun. It's alchemy on a linguistic level.
It's a magic trick, okay? Mystery religions all do this. Paul called it a "lying wonder". It's a "wonder" (as in miracles, signs, and wonders) but it's a lie. It's a slight-of-hand.
See what I mean?
@@GizmoFromPizmo Yes, as the Church says, Eucharist is an action, which is a verb. But we know grammatically that hundreds of words can be both a verb and a noun, so no, I don't see what you mean.
The teaching that says, "If it's not Catholic then it's not Christian", is a false dichotomy. The church is where Christ is king. She is the kingdom of God. Catholicism removes herself from that status through the mountain of false teaching she adheres to. The word of God trumps any organization that claims to be of Christ.
The very notion that "Peter was the first pope" is a strong indication that you are not dealing with an organization that fears God or His word. Jesus said, "Call NO MAN your father upon the earth.."
Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it". That's, at once, a promise and a litmus test. If the gates of hell have prevailed against an organization then it is obviously not the church of Christ. Who can honestly look at the mountain of erroneous teaching, the wealth and riches that she has amassed, and the blood soaked history of the Empire's religion and conclude that the gates of hell have not indeed prevailed against such a thing? The empirical evidence is on display for all the world to see.
Catholicism ≠ Christianity
Poor illogical rambling Protestantism that does your cause no good!
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Jesus said, "Call NO MAN your father upon the earth.."
This is a weak argument, as we see in Scripture the leaders of the early Church refer to themselves as father. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:15, "For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
The Holy Spirit dwells in the church since 33AD, he protects, takes care of, defends and leads her to all truth!
The Catholic church gave the world eirld the bible in 382AD, Google it!
The church predates the bible by 350 years!!! The Holy Spirit moves me today to tell you the Truth, 2000 years later!!!
Acts 5:38-39!!!!
@@lellachu1682 - I keep hearing that one. Jesus is not saying, "Don't call your dad, father." In the context of Matthew 23, Jesus is talking about religious titles that set one class of people above another. He said, "Don't do it."
We have a direct commandment against religious titles but if you look at the religious world, what do you see? Reverend This-and-that, right? But my bible says"
"Holy and reverend is HIS name" (Ps. 111:9b)
The spirit of the commandment prohibits religious titles in the kingdom of God. That's not a prohibition on being a preacher, teacher, bishop, deacon, apostle, etc. But it does prohibit using those offices as a way to carve out some kind of political superiority.
Jesus said don't call a man by the religious title of "father". It's a direct commandment. Then He says in the Gospel of John, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
I submit that those who use religious titles don't love Jesus (by definition) because they ignore the spirit and letter of His direct commandment.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Again, we see the early Church leaders in Scripture addressing each other as father. If we believe you, than we have to assume that John didn't love Jesus, as he used the title, "fathers."
"I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one." 1 John 2:13
Still, the official title of Catholic priests is Reverend. "Father" is used colloquially today, in the same way it was used by the Apostles.
One can only hope that fundamentalists are consistent and don't call anyone teacher or Mr. (mister/master), either.
1} If the Catholic Church was the church Jesus founded, then why didn't God choose a Roman Mary, instead of Jewish?
2} Why was Jesus born as a Jew, instead of a Roman?
3} Why did Jesus choose 12 Jewish disciples, instead of 12 Roman disciples?
4} Why didn't Jesus speak in Latin, like the pagans Romans of that day did?
5} Why did God inspire the Holy Bible to be written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but not Latin?
6} Why wasn't Jesus born in Rome, instead of Jerusalem?
7}Why is Jesus returning to Jerusalem instead of Rome, at his second coming? Zecharia 14:4.
All that the Romans did was Crucify Jesus and Martyred his disciples. So why would Jesus do a stupid thing such as establishing his Church in Rome?🤥
Benjamin,
I'm not coming from whatever framework (dispensationalism?) you are, so your questions don't make any sense to me. Saying that the Roman Catholic Church can't be true, because Mary is Jewish (like the Catholic Church claims) sounds to my ears like saying, "Protestantism is false because Luther has brown hair." I understand the words of the sentences, but the interior logic eludes me. Is your idea that Roman Catholicism is only for Latin speakers or ethnic Italians or something? Because the word "Catholic" ("universal") is all about how that's not true. The Church is for the whole world, and the capital of the world in the days of Jesus was indisputably Rome.
Additionally, you say that "all that the Romans did was Crucify Jesus and Martyred his disciples." More specifically, the Roman Empire persecuted "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (St. Irenaeus, c. 180), and it was in Rome that Peter and Paul were crowned with the crown of martyrdom. It's *precisely* for these reasons we should expect Rome to play a special role.
Similarly, recall Jesus' words in Matthew 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" If killing Jesus disqualifies a place, you would have to cross Israel off of your list, wouldn't you?
Additionally, the fact that there's some kind of special place for the Church in Rome is well established from the time of the Apostles and Christians in literally EVERY SUBSEQUENT CENTURY for the past two thousand years. But none of this has to do with being Italian, or being ethnically Roman or speaking Latin. To give a few examples:
- St. Paul to the Church in Rome: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." (Romans 1:8).
- St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John) on the Church in Rome: "the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father"
- St. Irenaeus (first person to tell us that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the four Gospels) on the Church in Rome: "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"
This is foretold in Daniel 2. The prophetic statue represents four successive conquerers of Israel: the Babylonian (head of gold), Medo-Persian (arms and shoulders), Greek (bronze thighs), and Roman (iron/clay) empires. And we're told that "a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay." That stone unformed by human hands is Jesus Christ and his Kingdom, the Church. The prophecy goes on to say that "the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." So we should expect the Kingdom of Christ to arise amidst (and during the reign of) the Roman Empire.
P.S. Your interpretation of Zechariah 14 as about Jesus literally returning to Jerusalem in His Second Coming isn't how the earliest Christians understood these prophecies. That's a much bigger conversation, but for now, maybe it's enough to say that if your argument against Catholicism regards reading a particular biblical verse outside of its historical context and traditional understanding, I'm not inclined to put much weight on that line of argumentation.
@@shamelesspopery The bottom line is. The Catholic Church was founded by Satan. And I can prove it". Google this video: "Full-blown Lucifer worship in the catholic Vatican".
Tell me why is the Satanic mass celebrated in the Vatican?
@@shamelesspopery Catholics don't understand the Scriptures, because the Catholic church faith isn't based on the word of God. The catholic faith only uses the scriptures to try and defend their false pagan doctrines.
@@shamelesspopery Rome was the empire of the Pagans not of Christianity.
Rome judged Jesus and crucified him, and Rome martyred Peter and Paul.
And numerous Christians who wouldn't worship the Roman Emperors.
The City of God on earth is Jerusalem, not Rome. But the present Jerusalem will be replaced by the New Jerusalem. Rev21:2
"I saw the Holy City the New Jerusalem, coming down from heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband". Rev 21:2
That's only one example, there are many more scriptures in the Holy Bible about Jerusalem, but there's absolutely nothing about Rome.
Man, I'm not 2-minutes into this video and I have to throw a flag. Jesus is not teaching a prohibition on dissolving a "Christian marriage".
1) There is no "Christianity" yet (see Acts 11:26)
2) There is no such thing as a "Christian marriage" (even in this kingdom age).
Jesus is teaching a matter of fact. "The sky is blue". It's not just blue for Christians and there is no such thing as a Christian sky. There is no separation between a "Christian" marriage or any other kind of marriage. A marriage is a marriage just like the sky is the same over both Christian and pagan.
So two men can be married to each other?
@@NevetsWC1134 - Read the whole passage. Context is king. Genesis establishes that the two to be joined are "male and female". Taking anything out of context gets us in trouble.
Yet, just before this, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus is clearly talking about Christianity when he says, "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
@@lellachu1682 - The church is the assembly. We apply this teaching to the modern assembly but prior to Jesus' resurrection, there was no "church of Christ". Jesus was a teacher of the Law. He wasn't introducing a foreign or novel entity here. He was teaching them what to do under the Law. Certainly the teaching has modern application but Jesus was not speaking only to post-resurrection people.
Psalm 22:22 - I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee.
This is David's prophecy about Christ to the Jews. The church is a generic term.
@@GizmoFromPizmo It doesn't change that Jesus was speaking about the New Covenant. As Mark wrote in his Gospel written after the Resurrection and the founding of Christianity, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
The Greek word "porneai" (πορνεία) is translated "fornication". Not all fornication is adultery. The word is used 30 times in the New Testament. This UA-camr's teaching conflates fornication with adultery in order to make his point. The point is not established in good scholarship. A definition is a definition. Adultery is a specific form of fornication.
You're wrong. He defends his use of the word in his prior video to this one using scripture to define it. Not men.
@@MasterKeyMagic - That's kind of my point. Man doesn't make this "joining", God does. When a man takes a wife, she is his wife and he, her husband. This is decreed by God without regard to who else on earth "sanctions" it. I'm married in the eyes of God when I "take a wife" and not because some third party grants it.
That's what Genesis teaches. And this is why there is no "wedding ceremony" described or prescribed anywhere in scriptures.
He explains it thoroughly in part 1 of this video series, posted last week
@@GizmoFromPizmo That has nothing to do with his correct use of the word
I don't think you listened to his whole video because Joe specifically says that porneai is not used in this context to mean adultery-- quite the contrary. In the proper context, porneai is meant to mean all unlawful marriages (like marrying a step-mother).