Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Did Ray Comfort Challenge the Blessed Virgin on Purpose Here?

Notice the date, it's 8 Dec, which is the feast of the Immaculate Conception:

Think Catholicism Is Biblical? Wait Till You Watch This…
Living Waters | 8 Dec. 2023

0:13 I do not have to be angry to state the truth, Sir.

If you experience anger from Catholics out in the field, it might be because kind of a habit of projection gets under the skin of some, shall we say, less sheltered Catholics and who get, very understandably, fed up with it.

1:06 Catholicism doesn't say that it was wrong of them to repent.

Catholicism clearly does not say that act makes them apostates from Catholicism.

But that was the trailer, between those two moments there will have been some kind of speech by yourself, and it may have been inaccurate, and that inaccuracy may filter more to viewers who were not moved to repentance, perhaps since they were not called out, perhaps because they had already repented, and whatnot, and especially Protestant viewers, who inaccurately considers a video like that as a witness against Catholicism.

1:58 Oh, you turn off comments because so many comments were stating the truth?


Or was it perhaps some other problem? One or two Catholics who had commented actually managed to get challenged by a Protestant and then engage them in a debate?

Perhaps one or two Protestants were even willing to do a Tiber swim?

2:04 "we don't want to be responsible for people believing false doctrine, so we turned the comments off"

That's taking a very wide view of where your responsibilities go.

Perhaps Cain had a similar view prior to the sacrifice. Big brothers sometimes have a tendency to exaggerate how much they need to take responsibility for kid brothers, and Cain's words to God could be meant so as to be fairly restated as "Didn't you tell me, I wasn't responsible for him? Can't you make up your mind?"

You have admitted to changing the rules in the middle of the game (giving a video with comments free, and then changing to comments off when the outcome didn't suit you), and you pretend it was a case of responsibility?

Perhaps your first responsibility was the wager "we will allow them to say 'Peter started the Church in Rome, Jesus started the Church on him' and then we'll debunk them big time and get converts from Catholicism..." and THEN it didn't work out, you changed it to "we won't allow them to argue ... sorry, meant claim Jesus started the Catholic Church on Peter, because that is seducing, sorry, meant could seduce people to believe false doctrine" ...

When did God or Christ make you lot responsible for what other people believe, to raise you as judges over someone else's false doctrine?

When Jesus made Peter the first Baptist Pastor and Novatian guaranteed Baptist Continuity, according to Ruckman, except he didn't according to normal history viewed through normal sources?

If Jesus made Peter a Baptist Pastor, and there was NOT a Baptist continuity, you fail, you allow Christianity to be false, Christ to not have made or kept or been able to keep His promise in Matthew 28:20.

If Jesus made Peter a Baptist Pastor and there WAS a Baptist continuity, now through Novatian, again through Donatus, a third time through Tondrakians and a fourth time through Paulicians, you have so far failed to show that there is any unity of doctrine among these except two points, each of which is insufficient for your purpose : 1) Jesus is the Savious (Catholics believe that too); 2) the true God did not found the Catholic Church (Jews and Muslims believe that too).

But if Jesus did not make Peter a Baptist Pastor, but rather the first Pope, what do you wait for before you do like the Bereans and check out, systematically, Catholic claim after Catholic claim and looking if they match what you already know as the words of Scripture?

2:39 Bryan Mercier (my dear competitor as Catholic Apologist) is somewhat off.

We do not need to keep the ten commandments just also after Justification, but especially after Justification.

Ephesians 2 has three verses that are very much to the point, verses 8 to 10.

1) the source of salvation is God's work
2) not ours
3) but the outcome He wants is God's work and our work.

2:57 ha ha ha ha ... just after I mention Ephesians 2:8--10, you do the classic Protestant quotemine and quote Ephesians 2:8,9!

You purposefully leave out the very next verse, which is a pretty obvious support of Catholic doctrine on the point (pretty much like Protestants who don't want to admit Jesus made Peter Pope will quote Matthew 16:16-18, and argue "you see, the rock was Jesus, not Peter" but leave out verse 19 which reads Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom -- you know, what you could find on the T-Shirt of Bryan Mercier! -- unmistakably to Peter, not to Himself, not to all Apostles in general, but to Peter!)

3:13 Not to obtain Justification, especially first time around, correct.

As evidence of Salvation? Perhaps to some extent. But also to keep salvation so that his name be not blotted out from the book of Life.

Ephesians 2:10 clearly says keeping saved involves doing good works.

This makes Justification the starting point of keeping the ten commandments.

3:45 Oh, the correct term for the Church Jesus founded is "Christian" and not "Catholic"?

Why then to you point your finger to Acts 11:26 which says the first times they hadn't been called Christians:

And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.
[Acts of Apostles 11:26]

Know what other name comes from precisely Antioch? If you guessed Catholic, you are right.

St. Ignatius of Antioch calls the Church which has 4 canonic Gospels and most books of the NT (probably no local Church had all of them back then) along with the OT "Catholic" ... the name Christian is to distinguish from Jews who reject Christ, the name Catholic to distinguish from heretics who reject the Gospel of Matthew and the OT or even accept the "Gospel of Thomas".

No comments: