Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death (There May Be No Part 2)

Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Against Protestant Propaganda · Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death · A Catholic Wanted to Concede Too Much

The Pope’s Frightening Near Death Experience
Living Waters | 28 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UajiDoQ-oEo

No, he's not as Catholic as you can get, he's not Catholic and therefore not the Pope.

Or, at least up to the Near Death experience, not sure of latest updates.

In any case. He was a very good friend with the Anglican "bishop" (Anglicans don't have Apostolic succession, except some very few who got it from the Orthodox), Tony Palmer, and gave him the burial reserved for a Catholic bishop. If he had died first, he'd have been content for Palmer to bury him as an Anglican "bishop" ... that's a very far call from "as Catholic as you can get" ...

0:45 Jesus had people who could perform levirate for Him if He died without children.

Presumably one did, with someone designated as His widow, doesn't mean He was married to someone other than the Church and doesn't mean the person performing levirate was a son of the Virgin Mary.

But given the terms of the law, it makes sense if the nearest of kin to do that, like some would say sons of St. Joseph in the first marriage, some would say first cousins, children of a sister of the Blessed Virgin, would be called "brothers" and their full sibling sisters in analogy therewith His "sisters" ...

1:13 A baby can have the habitual virtue of faith infused by God.

1:31 What was the citation again?

O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet: blessed is the man that hopeth in him.
[Psalms 33:9]

If you ask me, that's a prophecy about the Eucharist. It is also a sin to partake of the Eucharist without Faith, Hope and Charity, so the second part of the verse is perfectly in harmony with this being a prophecy about the Eucharist.

1:43 Well, yes, the priests does this, namely says it's the Body of Christ, citing Christ's own words, participating in Christ's omnipotence for the purpose, in remembrance of His death on the Cross.

This is why he (acting in the person of Christ) makes Jesus present, separately both as body, where there was bread, and as blood, where there was wine. Now, Christ is risen, the whole living Christ is present, the blood, the soul, the divinity are present with the body in the Host, the body, the soul, the divinity are present with the blood in the chalice, but from the direct effect of the words ("ex vi verborum") it's the body present here, the blood present there, because they were also separated on Calvary.

And like the Mass contains the victim of that Sacrifice, it also contains the Sacrifice it commemorates. Every Mass does that. A particular Mass can commemorate something in the Gospel readings or the date, but every Mass is, as Mass, commemorating Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary. Once the priest is saying those words, the theme of the date is a secondary matter to that. That's why no actual Mass is celebrated on Good Friday.

1:49 No, it's not Communion, not the taking of the Sacrament, but the Consecration, in the words of Jesus, which the Apostles were told to do in remembrance of Him. "do this" doesn't refer to "do what I told you to do" but "do what I just did" ...

1:56 Jesus was with them, they were even so eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Arguing otherwise is to argue that He couldn't both be held by God in existence as Man, and be God, holding Himself into existence as God.

This kind of argument against the Real Presence is actually even an argument against the Incarnation.

If you want to go where Muslims go, up to you, I prefer going to Heaven. And believe what Jesus said.

3:02 She was already born again, through water and Spirit, when she was sth like 8 days old (if they followed the older custom).

3:49 If she's a LaVeyan Satanist, she is arguably sinning against the commandments of the first tablet.

Meanwhile, does your book* preach Geocentrism as an evidence for God?

Considering Romans 1, it should.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

What is both revealed from Heaven, a thing that's made and clearly seen since the creation of the world, and available back in the first century as proof of God?

It's not the flagellum of the bacterium. I do not doubt it proves God, but it was not available in the first century.

It's not the spiral galaxies that are "very far" ... first, as a Geocentric, I don't believe "parallax" should be called that, it's a misanalysed part of the proper movement performed by an angel, just as retrogrades for planets are proper movements performed by angels, so I don't believe in the distance. They are just smaller than the Spiral Nebula of Andromeda, not further off. But second ... supposing modern cosmology were correct, it was not known in the first century and images of those "very far" spiral "galaxies" were not available since the creation of the world either.

Before you object to anything ... do you believe in God, or do you believe in God?

Or, perhaps, don't you believe in God?

5:49 Purgatory in the Bible.

II Maccabees 12.46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

* Scientific Facts in the Bible
https://livingwaters.com/store/books/scientific-facts-in-the-bible-book/

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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlvr64wRz-A

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?

Nice.

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".

Disagreeing with Ray Comfort on Some Things

Why People HATE Tim Tebow's Faith, but Not Steph Curry's
Living Waters, 25 Dec. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAhGhF2wco

2:26 You definitely are not saved from an immediately previous state of sin by meriting it by feeding the poor.

Even when Jesus told St. Eustace "thy alms have pleased me" it wasn't the future saint earning this moment of conversion, it was one of the poor he had fed who prayed for him.

HOWEVER, once you are saved from sin, and constituted in righteousness, you very certainly keep your salvation by works, among these specifically mentioned not just here, but also in Matthew 25: FEEDING. THE. HUNGRY.

Note, I said "the hungry" and not "the poor" partly because Jesus Himself used that wording, and partly because as a poor I know what a hazzle it is to be overfed even if you aren't really hungry. Notably by people who a) think one is better off with food than with money one could spend on alcohol, and b) that they still even so are responsible for you.

3:15 Let's check. Mark 16.

14 At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature

Well, a bishop who refuses to preach to every creature (including salt and water, but forgetting no man) certainly is not obeying this.

The eleven were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.

You speak as if the same applied indistinctly to every priest, deacon, monk and even, as in my own case, layman.

3:26 Why are you making Lazarus a type of lost sinners, when clearly he came to the bosom of Abraham?

Abraham refused to raise him from the dead for the rich man's brothers (who were Pharisees), but Jesus did not refuse to raise him for the faith of his sisters.

And as Abraham had mentioned to the rich man, his brothers didn't convert and believe, but plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus too, instead.

3:40 The command that applies to all Christians equally is feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and so on.

3:50 Charles Spurgeon encouraged a kind of wish for peoples' salvation that amounted to bullying.

What does Jesus say about someone who sins? Check Matthew 18! Not Spurgeon, who's in Hell and can't help you, but the words of Jesus, Who is in Heaven and can help whoever can still be saved.

7:01 I would actually say, St. Paul in Roman's 1 was talking of St. Thomas Aquinas' first way, specially as spelled out in more detail in Contra Gentes, book II (I think) and chapter 13.

God turns the heavens from outside, so the heaven of fix stars is turning around us at a speed of full circle every 23 h 55 min.

There is no way Epicure could be right that the heavens turn themselves around us, simply by a whirlpool effect.

Then this transmits the daily movement inwards, down to Sun and Moon (which lag behind quite a bit, Sun taking 24 h and Moon 24 h 55 min) and even Equatorial Ocean currents and winds of passage.

7:11 Unlike Jews and Christians, Muslims don't have the Decalogue as a text given Moses by God on Sinai.

The Surah's are very preachy, but not concisely conveying a message and also not concisely telling a story.

8:13 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour is n. VIII, arguably.

I just checked the Council of Trent's Catechism on the command - it is also forbidden to bear false witness against oneself.

If I pretended I were alcoholic, as that would be an admission most dear to some who "care" about me, I would be bearing false witness against myself.

10:33 God gave Adam that choice. On behalf of his descendants.

If we can inherit original sin from Adam, we can also benefit from the choice of the Second Adam, Jesus, and be justified.

14:04 Would you mind sending me what it says about Roman Catholicism, ideally in text that can be copied, not in an image of the paper pages?

You can figure out* my email by:
3 initials
@-sign
the thing that in US you might add to a doctor's email.

I'm not a doctor, but both of my parents were, they are retired, and I don't use it to pretend I'm a doctor, just as a nod to them.

You see, I think I have some refutation to do, and if it can't save your soul, since you might not believe what I say, it might save some other soul. That's one reason I publish on the internet, apart from it being fun.

As for second column of the left of the two facing pages, I can answer that here.

It is not a direct disobedience of "the second commandment" ... Here is the Exodus 20 expression of the FIRST commandment:

2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Not adore or bow down refers mainly to "strange gods" in verse 3.

Notice that verse 4, where you pretend to start "second commandment" mentions things, not people, and least of all people who are in some way close to the true God.

Even so, in the OT, it was understood as prohibiting depiction of saints, but this is mainly because one could not back then depict the true God. It's now 2023 years since one can that, and so one can also depict His friends as well without those images overshading Him or His Cross.

14:07 sth - as you mentioned Biblical archaeology, have you integrated my equation Göbekli Tepe as Babel of Genesis 10 and 11, or not?

Miqqedem means FROM the East, not TO the South by East.

* Here on the blog I can give it, under a video, trying to give an email might get the comment deleted. It's hgl@dr.com, and it's my public correspondence email, as further told here:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

"Hat off" for Emeal ("E.Z.") Zwayne!

Jew Loses It When Christian Mentions Jesus!
17th Sept. 2022 | Living Waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdpe-oqAxBk

1:42 It so happens, and this is not "my truth" it is truth, if you are of specifically Palestinian descent, you are as much an Israelite as Ray Comfort.

Not true of all and any Arabs, for instance not Peninsula, Egyptian, Maghrebine, Lebanese, Iraqi, but it is true of Palestinians.

The main ingredient in the Palestinian population are those who lived in Roman Province Palestine when the Arabs arrived. And as a majority, they didn't so much live in cities and speak Greek as they lived like Beduins and spoke Aramaic - the main spoken language in the area 2000 years ago.

Muslim Palestinians exchanged Aramaic for Arabic within a few centuries from the Arabic or Muslim Conquest. Those who remained Christians continued speaking Christian Palestinian Aramaic to the time of the Countercrusade - that is the times of Saladin and Baybars.

4:36 Same with Catholicism : you have to study. At least in modern society.

The usual minimum for someone with a normal education level otherwise but no background in Catholicism is 1 year (perhaps 6 months some places).

In my case, it took 85 to 86 just to get started, 86 was a false start that was rebooted in early 87, I quit the boarding school and began university in september 87 and that final reboot took much of a year to May 22:nd 88 before I was a Catholic. And I had been thinking of conversion seriously since last week of 84, when I read the Christmas present written by Umberto Eco : Name of the Rose. Why then? Bc I got rid of a prejudice against the Inquisition. I had thought of Albigensians as Christians. Oh, no.

The typical fate of an Albigensian caught by the Inquisition was converting to Catholicism, which was his, or his parents' or grandparents' childhood religion. But even for those who burned, they didn't die for belief in the Bible, they didn't even believe all of Genesis 1:1 (the single first verse!).

5:42 Congratulations, belated, for your gramp's eleventy-first birthday!

Did he make a speech to friends with the surname Proudfoot?

7:07 So that they don't end up spending an eternity in Hell.

THE great concern for a certain Domingo de Guzmán (he's only one of five St. Dominic) who was a canon, that is a kind of "junior pastor" with his bishop as "main pastor" and asked his bishop, Diego of Osma, to get leave and start preaching to the poor Albigensians.

Spent hours every night praying and weeping in Church with the question "what will happen to the sinners?!"

Presumably meaning the one's he was going to meet that day : was he converting them to a life with Christ, or were they in for a hugely long and never ending torment?

8:23 It may be noted that Jews don't date Anno Domini. They are in the late 5000's after Creation, which is actually somewhat too short as a Biblical chronology, 2007 was their 5777.

So, a Jew would arguably and predictably respond that Our dear Lord split time for the Gentiles and add (what I don't agree with) "not for us!"

Let's see if that is the response ...

It wasn't.

11:20 "bore the wrath"

A view on Substitutional Atonement which I think is wrong. When Our dear Lord was baptised, there was a dove above His head, to signify or "make visible" the Holy Ghost and there was a voice "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased" - that did not change on Calvary.

Isaias 53, verses 4 to 6 and 10 say this: Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

Not a single mention of "wrath" here. Wounds and bruises, yes. Chastisement of our peace, yes. Our iniquity, yes. But it does not say the Father "was pouring out his wrath" on Him but that He was pleased with Him.

On a Catholic Calvary painting, we see the same three persons : the Holy Spirit, like a Dove, just over the Cross, and the Father, like an "older twin" holding His arms down to the cross beam where the Son is holding them up. And no angry expression on any of the faces.

One reason some pretend He "bore His wrath for us" is He said "why hast thou forsaken me?" - but He quoted a psalm which clearly signifies the Eucharist as fulfilment of and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand. He was too tired to recite all of it, but those words are there too.

12:25 Oh, a Jew who doesn't know the Old Testament!

Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith.
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:4]

And I will espouse thee to me in faith: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.
[Osee (Hosea) 2:20]

Just two out of 19 verses in the OT. One says, a just man is not just without faith, and another says Israel is not the bride of Adonai without faith. Which makes the Catholic Church, the bride with Faith, the New and True Israel.

13:53 A Jew who doesn't know the Old Testament! Mah Nishtana?!

I found 86 verses for "hell" in the OT, but that's arguably somewhat irrelevant, as that refers to Sheol, where even the good went before Jesus opened the pearly gates.

So, I changed the search. Everlasting fire definitely is about Hell in the usual Christian sense.

The sinners in Sion are afraid, trembling hath seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
[Isaias (Isaiah) 33:14]

17:35 I disagree with both.

In the OT, if you said "na, I don't really like the ways of Adonai, I think Astoreth is more fun" - and it wasn't a joke or (as here) a citation - you were fit for stoning penalty.

The juridic code of Israel is not identic to the juridic code of a Catholic Christian nation, but the difference is not one of sheer opposition on principles. It's a difference of degrees of application (for instance, marital infidelity is no longer punished with stoning, see John 8 - though it took up to Justinian for Romans to realise this, but divorce and remarriage also counts as marital infidelity and such marriages are not recognised - Matthew 5:31, f), and not of opposed principles.

And yes, when the successors of the Apostles were supposed (Matthew 28:16-20) to make disciples out of all nations, it means making the governments disciples as well. So, there really are Christian states - btw, this is an issue where Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterian Calvinists traditionally agree with Orthodox and Catholics. The Thirty Years War was fought because people like Frederick V of the Palatinate - called The Winter King - and people like Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, had different ideas about what "a Christian nation" means.

See also:

The Woman I Love | Bishop Fulton Sheen
1st Sept. 2022 | Catholic 365
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTbVPVUs24

13:28 Other reason, noted by someone else before me, the first mention Our Lord made of His Mother ti Her at Cana, the last on Calvary ("woman, see thy son"), He is using the same noun that God used when threatening the serpent.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Even the first half is enough to know, Mary is the enemy of Satan. And since there is a difference between slave and enemy, this means, She was not a slave of Satan. This means, She was sinless from the start.

However, the adress by the angel, echoing an adress to the women Jael and Judith who had killed their enemies and crushed their heads, show that the Catholic translation of the second half is not overdoing it.

See also : Wikipedia : Élisabeth Leseur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lisabeth_Leseur

Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Was Simon Peter Ever Called Niger?

Here is a recent video by Ray Comfort (there are three other guys on living waters, but this one is by him), here:

This Will Make You Think Differently About Catholicism...
30th March 2022 | Living Waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZesJt_8JBIg

Where I answer at time stamps 1:51 and 2:02, though, there is a clip with MacArthur, whom I answer. Apart from that I comment when Ray Comfort or someone he's talking to is talking.

0:37 A Roman Catholic who says "I'm not born again" is misstating a truth : he's not of the confession that's nicknamed "born again".

A better instructed Catholic - like normally any priest - will say "I was born again by water and spirit, in the sacrament called baptism".

1:02 No, that verse does not say that James, Joses; Simon and Judas and at least two girls were physically Her daughters. In Biblical language, "brother" and "sister" have a range of meanings, and one pertinent one is, if someone dies childless, who will marry his widow. If you read the book of Ruth, you know that is not always a full brother. It could be a first or second cousin. Or whoever is closest, unless the one actually closest gives his shoe to the one next in line. Nevertheless, the term in the law was "brother". The sisters would have been full siblings to these brothers, but it doesn't say they were so to Our Lord.

In the case of legal half brothers, they would share neither God nor Mary as parents, but Joseph as in one case actual father but for Our Lord fosterfather. See Proto-Gospel of St. James.

1:51 Needing a Saviour is not exclusive of having one, meaning, She is not portrayed hereby as having ever sinned or even had the stain of Adam's sin. All that is needed is, being in Her case free even from the first from that sin is a state She owed to Her Saviour.

Now, what exactly had St. Elisabeth told Her before She said that?

"Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"

What's the connection? It meant, She and Her Son were and are the "woman and her seed" of Genesis 3:15.

And as the angel had already said "blessed art thou among women" before She was pregnant with God, this means She had already in Herself a complete victory over the serpent.

There are only two women in the "bigger" Old Testament we use, only one of them in yours, who were in a sense called "blessed among women" - one won a complete victory over Sisera, and the other over Holophernes.

You can check that these days with a simple computerised search.

2:02 "because she was a sinner, and she knew it"
Doesn't say. You are, in your own classical words "adding to the Bible" - but what's worse, it's not from tradition.

2:33 That St. Peter had a wife is correct.

It doesn't say she stayed with him in married life, while he was a disciple.

I don't even think it says she was alive at this point, though a common tradition says she was.

2:41 it says "ειδεν την πενθεραν αυτου" - and "την πενθεραν" means, the mother in law.

Some languages (like French) would have to say "wife's mother" because the word mother in law in their language also means stepmother. In Greek and Latin this is not so, "socrum" cannot be confused with "materteram" in Latin. The wife as such is not mentioned in the text.

Mt. 23:9 - are you also literalistic about the command in Mt 5:29?

Or is there room for a spiritual meaning differing from the letter, in commands?

Like Mt 5:29 means cutting off occasions for sin, even if it hurts like ripping out your eye, and Mt 23:9 involves not taking any man, as man, for mentor.

3:41 In the New Testament, Our Lord Himself uses resumés for commandments, or approves them.

The division between the ten commandments, like between the 16 verses, is not textually transmitted, only the whole passage is.

When there are verses in Exodus 20, the chapter is called "Exodus 20" because of a Roman Catholic bishop who divided the Bible into chapters at a hunting trip (apart from being a hunter, he also knew the Bible by heart).

A certain passage is now known as verses 2 to 6, and as little as the passage was originally divided before the Renaissance into five verses, as little was there among Christians an agreed division whether this was one or two commands. No verse is skipped, because the enumeration of commandments is not a quote.

If that hunting bishop were asked to quote the first commandment from the Exodus, he would have answered:

Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis. [3] Non habebis deos alienos coram me. [4] Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper, et quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra. [5] Non adorabis ea, neque coles : ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis, zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios, in tertiam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me : [6] et faciens misericordiam in millia his qui diligunt me, et custodiunt praecepta mea.

And some Jews who agree with you on the tenth, would quote the Hebrew equivalent only of Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis.

4:57 I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt not have strange gods before me...

See what the catechetic version leaves out - both parts of verse 2 and everything after 3. It's not meant as a straight quote.

6:54 The guy uses "born again" as about a certain Protestant lifestyle centering on an experience.

He probably is born again around day 8 of his life outside the womb.

If he believes you don't need to be baptised, he has a problem both with John 3 and with the Council of Trent.

7:58 I'm on exactly the right day to object to the rigmarole pseudo-"confession of sins" here.

A man who today says "have you seen my new notebook - it rewrites on voice command" and after being at least half and half believed says "April fools" is not someone one would call a liar, normally.

Similarily, stealing small amounts from necessity is not the sin of stealing (it would be in a part of the world where one could beg that amount easily - the case for food, but not for transport in Paris).

8:25 "making a graven image with your mind" - what Protestants are doing when it comes to their imagination about God.

There is a difference between saying God's name without much care, and saying it with contempt.

Just because someone shouts it out about as loud as the S word doesn't mean it replaces the S word.

In the case of the S word, one could imagine a notion like "I found s..."

In the case of "oh God" one could imagine a notion like "oh God, why are you allowing this to happen!?!?"

The latter is being somewhat rude to God, not trusting Him, but not treating Him with actual contempt.

8:53 In fact, God will judge everyone on the commandments - but the sins will be those that are current.

Blessed are those whose sins are forgiven, so if one of the sins was committed, was mortal in its kind, was sufficiently deliberate for God to judge you on the act as your act, and therefore deserved Hell, if it is forgiven, you will still not go to Hell for that sin.

However, the verse I cited has been abused for OSAS - it doesn't say that.

The blessedness of those whose sins are forgiven at a given moment in their earthly life before it is over, can be taken away again, by new mortal sins. The blessedness of those whose every sin is forgiven when he dies and faces God, can't. Only that blessedness is guaranteed eternal.

12:04 What exactly does it say in John 3?

[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting. [16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Sounds you are right if you stop there.

[17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sounds you are right all believers go to Heaven, if you stop there.

[19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Oh, suddenly it sounds like we do have to keep the commandment after all, as part of the bargain here referred to as believing in Christ. Those who don't can't stand the light. They get themselves into judgement instead.

[21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

What does "doing truth" mean? It means keeping the ten.

Christ said so to the rich young man.

12:24 "confess your sins to God" ... good enough if you can't confess them to "God and men" in the context where a man, representing Christ, has authority to bind or lose you in or from your sins (John 20:21-3)

If you are near Topeka and committed sins after you were baptised, get ready to confess to Pope Michael or to Father Francis Dominic!

13:08 Wait a minite ... Quomodo ergo invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? aut quomodo credent ei, quem non audierunt? quomodo autem audient sine praedicante? quomodo vero praedicabunt nisi mittantur? sicut scriptum est : Quam speciosi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona!

Switching to English, I happen to know "quomodo audient" by heart, so this is where I go when I have to look this up ... ah, yes, it's also known as Romans chapter 10 ...

How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Eleven men were sent, directly by God, as we read in Matthew 28:16-20.

How does it go on after that? That's right. Apostolic succession. It's available through the sacrament of orders, but is effective for salvation on condition of being faithful to the tradition that Christ gave the eleven and the new twelfth. He said: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: - Meaning, even if you were a bishop with full sacramental validity, your preaching would be a trap and a snare for souls as long as you stand outside the universality of the Christian message as preserved by the Catholic Church.

And no new man gets sent only by God.

St. Paul had the epistemological authority of an apostle over and above that of other bishops directly by God. But he and Barnabas both get put into the chain of apostolic succession, linking us to Christ, before they go out and get souls saved.

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. [4] So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. [5] And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

Paul and Barnabas being sent by the Holy Ghost = Paul and Barnabas being sent by men who ordained them.

Here is the Haydock comment, from Acts 13:

// Ver. 3. Fasting and prayer, imposing their hands upon them. By which is clearly expressed, the manner in which the ministers of God were, and are still ordained bishops, priests, deacons in the Church. Witham.

— Interpreters are much divided in opinion, whether this imposition of hands be a mere deputation to a certain employment, or the sacramental ceremony, by which orders are conferred. SS. Chrysostom, Leo, &c. are of the latter opinion; nor does it any where appear that S. Paul was bishop before this. Arator, sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, who dedicated in the year 544 his version of the Acts of the Apostles into heroic verse to Pope Virgilius, attributes this imposition of hands to S. Peter:

———Quem mox sacravit euntem
Imposita Petrus ille manu, cui sermo magistri
Omnia posse dedit.———

— See his printed poems in 4to. Venice, an. 1502. Arator was sent in quality of ambassador from Athalaric to the emperor Justinian. — Following the practice of the apostles, the Church of God ordains a solemn and general fast on the four public times for ordination, the ember days, as a necessary preparation for so great a work, and this S. Leo calls also an apostolical tradition. See S. Leo, serm. ix. de jejun. and ep. lxxxi. c. 1. and serm. iii. and iv. de jejun. 7. mensis.

— Nor was this fasting a fasting from sin, as some ridiculously affirm, for such fasting was of universal obligation: nor was it left to each one's discretion, as certain heretics maintained. Vide S. Aug. hæres. liii. //

You may think it means, five men can (none of them having apostolic succession) get together and pray, and then all of them ordain one or two of them. Not what it means, not what the practise of the Church shows afterwards.

14:33 Ah, atheism!

I've recalled to celebrate it today!

(April Fools!)

14:57 How about you get a Haydock study Bible and start printing that instead.

Wait ... there are some Catholics left at TAN Books, they are still printing it:

The Douay-Rheims Bible, a Reproduction of the 1899 Edition of John Murphy Company
3rd June 2018 | R. Grant Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6FE_sw5tM