What do you think? Any Truth in this?

When he professed KJV onlyism I was getting ready for some ignorant arguments and he didn't disappoint. I watched for about 5 minutes but I'm sure the rest of the video was him making the same weak arguments that have already been addressed millions of times.

He said everything that God wants us to know is in the Bible but there are two huge problems with this. The first is that even the Bible rejects this assertion. Saint Paul says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) The second problem is that the Bible didn't fall out of thin air, it was a product of the same Church which he is dismissing. If the Catholic Church is wrong then why accept our book which we declared infallible? We may have gotten some things right but if the Church is not infallible then we could have gotten things wrong. It's hard to base your beliefs on a book which may or may not contain the truth.

Even if we were to accept that the Bible was infallible without the Church being infallible, who determines if you are interpreting it correctly. Saint Paul said the Pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church, not the Bible. Thousands of people who all claim to be led by the holy spirit have interpreted the same Bible and same verses in completely different directions so this is a very weak basis for belief.

Also to claim Constantine started the Church is blatantly anti-historical. People hundreds of years before Constantine were already identifying the Church as the Catholic Church and there were 30 Popes before Constantine even became emperor. The structure of the Church was already in place long before Constantine.

This is simply what I glossed after 5 minutes of watching. I don't have the time to write a whole book deconstructing the weak arguments he probably presented over the subsequent 60 minutes remaining.

I think we shouldn't seek out things that undermine faith, not because men like the one in the video have good arguments against the Church, but because faith is one of our three most precious gifts from God, and we should not expose it to any attacks without good reason. I watched some of the video to be able to comment on it, and I can assure you it should not be making you think. The presenter loses all credibility the moment he espouses KJV-onlyism. He refutes himself, because he says the Bible contains everything he needs to know. Except the Bible doesn't tell him what the canon of the Bible is, or what an acceptable translation of the Bible is. This is the hypocrisy of many kinds of Protestantism, where they go beyond the Bible (which is necessary) while claiming to only believe what is explicitly in the Bible and nothing more. Also, his history and his arguments against the petrine office are very poor and often attacking strawmen. I did not watch any more.

antletems said:

What do you think of what this guy is saying about Catholicism? Any shred of truth in it? If not, why or if yes, why?

It is making me think. You have to watch the whole video to get a feel for what he is saying.

Click to expand...

I only watched the first three minutes. I am Orthodox, not a Roman Catholic, but that doesn't matter. We may disagree on what the "True Church" is, but at least we agree there is, in fact, a "True Church". Here were a few ironies from just the first 3 minutes:

1. He identified very clearly that he utilizes the 1611 Authorized Version of the King James Bible. The 1611 Authorized Version included the Deuterocanonical books.
2. In citing 2 Timothy 3:15 he is quoting teaching about Scripture from a book that was not itself a part of Scripture when the teaching was given. How did 2 Timothy get into Scripture in the first place?
3. He quotes 2 Timothy 3:15, but not 1 Timothy 3:15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

he starts out referencing two of his previous videos titled "why I am not a Calvinist" and "why I am not a Pentecostal"
if he takes the same tone with those two groups as he does with Catholicism, then he is a very divisive figure
nothing wrong with being divisive, Jesus was divisive too
but not everyone is divisive in a constructive and holy way
in reality, this makes "Protestantism" much smaller then what we tend to think of it
we tend to think along the lines of "Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant" when thinking about Christianity
when in reality, Protestantism is made up of many groups that are incompatible with each other
I am not going to quote a huge number of denominations and pretend like that accurately represents Protestantism, because many of those denominations are united, or are at least able to work together on a basic level (like the Episcopalian church is united with the Anglican church, or Wesleyan church has a very closed shared history and shared theology with the Church Of The Nazarene)
but how he starts out DOES show that there are some serious and deep (some might say intrinsic) divisions among what is commonly lumped together under the catch all term "Protestantism"

I will review the video more

Why even open that door........?
SMH

antletems said:

Thanks people for taking the time to view it. I have watched a couple more of his videos but i am not an expert on the Bible even though i do try to read it at times. He does seem to put up some convincing arguments which worries me.

Some things he said have made me thing

Peter was not the 'Rock'..........But, Peter means 'Rock!'............I often thought that could Jesus have been saying that he was going to build his church upon 'A strong faith' such as Peters? The Rock?

About Jesus saying that we shouldn't call anyone 'Father' but we do with the Pope and priests

About Mary having other children, they are named!

Other things too like what the Latin meant on the Popes 'hat' (Wrong name i know, sorry) and how it adds to 666

About no evidence at all that Peter went to Rome!

There quite a few points in that video that made me sit up and take notice!!
I do feel guilty thinking like that. I have been unhappy with the Catholic church for a long time. Just doesn't feel like the Church that Jesus would have wanted after all these years. Look at all the people they murdered over the centuries!!!

Any advice would be great as i truly love God and i want to serve him the best i can.

He did another good video about 7 Gospels. I dont think he was saying that there are actually 7 but was referring to certain phases in the OT and NT. But it was a good video. I liked the bit about Paul.

Click to expand...

you might want to think some more, rather than watching any more of his stuff.
seems to me that his motivation is to lead people away from the church entirely, rather than leading them to the Church.

I am about ready to board a flight, so I cant really write out a lengthy message.

To the OP:
Please take the time to do your own independent research on these matters. This man in the video is very untrustworthy. Many early Christian authors atest to Peter being in Rome for instance. Dont take this mans word blindly.

I watched the start of the video - that was enough.

Rhamiel said

he starts out referencing two of his previous videos titled "why I am not a Calvinist" and "why I am not a Pentecostal"

Click to expand...

Now I don't know this man at all , but if those 2 videos are anything like this my feeling is, that he's trashing everyone else's Church except his.

Frankly I wouldn't believe a word he says. I'm very strongly reminded of an old saying

they're aw oot o step but oor Robert

Click to expand...

Listen how many times he references himself and what he personally chooses to believe in the first few minutes.

This is just the exaltation of an individual and his opinion.

sorry I was not able to go more in depth into his video before
I was kind of crunched for time and could not watch all of it

have you heard the term "quote mining"
it is when you make an argument by attacking an opponent by taking a small number of quotes out of context.
he presents the catholic and orthodox doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" as a straw man.
he does not try to take it from a Catholic POV and glosses over the understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ....
even more disturbing, he says "you can be saved through the Scriptures"
that almost sounds like he is replacing Christ with the Bible
I do not want to do the same thing that he is doing, taking one quote out of context..... but it does show a bit of intellectual sloppiness on his part.

he claims that the Catholic Church started A.D. 325 and that Constantine started the Catholic Church
that is silly
He should read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers,
St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp
all directly taught by the Apostles, all choose to be martyrs rather then denouncing our Lord Jesus Christ.
Does this PROVE that they were correct? no.... I mean I guess not?
but it is a weighty piece of evidence for the Catholic view of the faith
Even if you do not want to start with Apostolic Fathers, there are MANY leaders of the Church who showed that the faith goes back through the ages. Justin Martyr died in the year A.D. 165, not sure if he is technically seen as an Apostolic Father, but he was 65 when he died.
just read about the ante-Nicene Fathers, there are a ton of them
he also claims that Constantine forced people to become Christian
Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians, he made it a legal religion, and he was baptized on his death bed
paganism was not outlawed under Constantine, if he can not even get historical facts right, why should we listen to him on the more complex matters of philosophy and theology?


Then he talks about Jesus and Peter and the Rock
I have basically heard three explanations on this
Peter is called the Rock
Peters faith is called the Rock
Jesus is called the Rock
this kind of shows the weakness of Scripture alone, everyone has their own interpretation
it is about being the brightest, making the best arguments, winning over the most people
it is not about humbling accepting the faith that men like Polycarp and Clement died to preserve

oh wow, this just broke my train of thought, (i am listening to parts of the video and then writing a response, this is going to take forever)
he says "to say that Peter is the rock is to steal glory from Jesus Christ, is it not?"
have you EVER heard a Catholic say "Peter is the Rock in the exact same way that Jesus is the Rock"
neither Jesus NOR Peter are actual rocks
in both cases these are metaphors
words, especially metaphors, can be used in different ways for different people
like Zephaniah 3:17 describes God as a mighty warrior
Judges 6:12, an angel of the Lord calls Gideon a mighty warrior
is the angel saying that Gideon is God? or that he is as mighty as God? is this "stealing glory from God"?
NO, of course not
this man refuses to even look at these teachings from Catholic perspective
he claims to be Bible alone, but he is using a script that was written decades before he was even born

edit-----------
about the Church being started by Constantine, I would ask him "what doctrines were made up in A.D.325 that would constitute you saying that this was the creation of a New Church/ New Religion that were not present in A.D. 270
that is a gulf of 55 years, quit a bit of time for such a young religion.

antletems said:

Thanks people for taking the time to view it. I have watched a couple more of his videos but i am not an expert on the Bible even though i do try to read it at times. He does seem to put up some convincing arguments which worries me.

Click to expand...

antletems said:

Peter was not the 'Rock'..........But, Peter means 'Rock!'............I often thought that could Jesus have been saying that he was going to build his church upon 'A strong faith' such as Peters? The Rock?

Click to expand...

At least two Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church - John Chrysostom and Augustine - agree with your view that the Lord was referring to Peter's confession of faith and not Peter himself as what He was going to build his Church on. See Chrysostom's Homily 54 on Matthew and Augustine's Homily 10 on the First Epistle of John.

antletems said:

About Jesus saying that we shouldn't call anyone 'Father' but we do with the Pope and priests

Click to expand...

Ahem:
I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
(1 Corinthians 4:14–16)

He might also have considered Honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2). Should one honor one's father and mother, but not call them father and mother? As in ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son’ (Luke 15:21)?

I believe the consensus of the Church Fathers regarding Matthew 23:9 was that we should acknowledge who is our Father in the highest sense (see, e.g., Chrysostom's Homily 72 on Matthew) over our earthly fathers, whether biological or spiritual.

antletems said:

About Mary having other children, they are named!

Click to expand...

Not even Luther or Calvin maintained that the Virgin had other children with Joseph.

The views of the Church Fathers are very clear. If one chooses to depart from the teaching of the early Church, that is certainly their prerogative. The ever-virginity of the Virgin Mary was vigorously defended by St. Jerome against Helvidius in The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary. Jerome held that those identified as "brothers and sisters" were, in fact, cousins. St. Epiphanius of Salamis held the view that the brothers and sisters were children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, which is the traditional view within Eastern Orthodoxy.

In any case, denial of the perpetual Virginity of Mary is a modern innovation which not even found in the early Reformation, let alone the early Church.

antletems said:

Other things too like what the Latin meant on the Popes 'hat' (Wrong name i know, sorry) and how it adds to 666

Click to expand...

Was every child born on June 6, 2006, the antichrist?

antletems said:

About no evidence at all that Peter went to Rome!

Click to expand...

Tertullian and Eusebius both provide accounts of Peter's martyrdom in Rome, so he was there at least for that event.

What might be disputed is whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome. The Apostolic Constitutions and Eusebius state that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, and Irenaeus states that the Apostles "committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." On the other hand, Tertullian, Jerome, and John Chrysostom seem to state that Peter was the first bishop.

oh my, I am only 10 minuets in, and I want to pull my hair out.

"who built the Church? well Roman Catholics will tell Peter built the Church"
what roman catholic says that?!?!?!?!
he is setting up a straw man

he even quotes the part Ephesians 2:20 which says the Church is built "on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets"
but he just glosses over that by saying there were many apostles
yes, that is true
but it also shows that the idea of Christ building His Church with apostles as "rock" or "foundation" does NOT take away from the glory of God, because it is still HIS Church.

he also tries to put St. Paul above St. Peter

he should read deeper into Catholic theology
many theologians view the prescience of Saint Peter and Saint Paul as the reason for the great importance given to Rome

even in the liturgy, Peter and Paul are mentioned together in liturgical prayer
he says the Church "started with Jews and changed over to Gentiles"
this is not a reasonable understanding, the Church is for both
he says "those who are saved today in the Church are Gentiles, not Jews"
this is a VERY anglo-centric view
what does he think about Jews who become Christians? lol would he tell them to become Catholic because Peter is for the Jews?

he points out that Paul went to Rome, the Catholics never deny this, we take great pride that Rome was blessed with both Peter and Paul
Peter writes from "Babylon" in his epistle 1 Peter, this is commonly understood to be talking symbolically about Rome, the center of the pagan empire that is oppressing Israel, the comparison makes sense, even to this day you will hear people call whatever worldly power they dislike "babylon" listen to a reggae song

he points out that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles
I do not think this is so much denoting different ranks or authority
more like just different ministries
Peter was a Jewish fisherman from Israel, he had been with Jesus from the start, he was more of a "man of the people"
Paul was "Saul of Tarsus", two things about this, he was from what is now Turkey, he was educated, he was a Roman Citizen, all of these things meant that he would be better at reaching out to Gentiles

his view of history is so flawed
Constantine started a State Religion that forced people to be a part of it?

none of that ever happened

he speaks with confidence, and he throws a ton of information at you

I would love to see him talk with one well educated Catholic on one fairly narrowly defined issue
he would fold like a cheap card table
if he can not jump from topic to topic never giving one single issue the depth it deserves
if he can not just get away with throwing piles of information on you, some of it good, some of it correct but not relevant, some of it his own opinion presented as fact, and some of it just flat out factually incorrect

if you take away these tricks from him
he arguments loose whatever glimmer of attractiveness that they once possessed

The guy sounds like he does the plot lines for Jack Chick

Rhamiel said:

he points out that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles

Click to expand...

I have heard other YouTube evangelists go so far as to say that the four Gospels were only written for the Jews, and that non-Jews need only pay attention to the writings of Paul. A sort of semi-Marcionism.