DEBATE: The Marian Dogmas Contradict Scripture, Trent Horn Vs. Steve Christie

[@TheMagdielzuniga]

Baptized and confirmed this 2022 Easter Vigil after being a lifelong Protestant- Glory be to God for revealing the true church of Christ!

[@dineshpraveen4559]

Went to Confession and received holy communion after 5 yrs and confirmed this Easter Vigil..Hail Mary... Glory to Jesus...

[@AnaBrigidaGomez]

Welcome home

[@dineshpraveen4559]

@@AnaBrigidaGomez Very happy to be home...like a prodigal son...

[@Floridiansince94]

Congratulations! Me too @Madiel ! Baptized and confirmed this Easter Vigil! I’m so happy!

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Do you have Infallible or only moral certainty that you choose the right 'One True Church' when there are several - the Eastern Orthodox , the Oriental Orthodox for example. If you only have moral certainty, that's the same certainty that Christians that read the Scriptures and believe them have.

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Convinced Baptist for 28 years. Just became Catholic this Easter. It took me a year just to start to understand the Catholic position on many subjects. Another year and a half to work through the objections.

[@ChristianTrinity411]

I’m on the same journey.

[@hugomunoz9039]

Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" is an excellent book for that

[@GardenMinistry.]

I'm a cradle Catholic and even I need to consistently go back to stay up to date on our catechism. It's just so rich and beautiful. These debates actually help me a ton! Never stop learning and never stop reading. Welcome home ❤️

[@JeansiByxan]

What books did you read?

[@LadyBean1201]

Viva Cristo Rey! That's awesome to hear such stories! I have some disabilities and issues also with thinking and memory. I get so bummed as I so badly want to be like the great apologists for today. But alas it's not my calling. I know my basics but have a hard time retaining and explaining church teaching. What's cool however is that my husband is like Trent. He studies and reads and retains and it's beautiful...but....he has a hard time with ministry and people . That's where I come in. I love caring and praying for others. And miss it right now. So we each have our gifts. I have to read the children's Baltimore Catechism. Hey no shame. It's an easier read. Also my fellow Catholic peeps and future ones, lookup the channel Sensus Fidelum. Great talks ! And there is a series on the catechism I use. It's wonderful.

[@KyleWhittington]

I just have to say that even though I (as a Catholic) disagree with Steve on many things, I can really appreciate his courage in going toe-to-toe with Trent Horn. Steve, if you read this comment, know that I'll be praying for you, brother, and I hope you'll do the same for me.

[@lonelyberg1808]

@YAJUN YUAN clever comment

[@lonelyberg1808]

@YAJUN YUAN Hello ? What's hello ? Can I spend it ? Just kidding, it was a reference of Mr Ditkovitch from Spiderman Hi YAJUN

[@marklizama5560]

Why would you want someone like him praying for you? He hates your relationship with Our Mother wants to drag you away from it.

[@KyleWhittington]

@@marklizama5560 Because I'm a wretched soul that has only made it this far by the grace of God. Steve Christie can pray until he's blue in the face that I reject the Blessed Mother, but it's only the will of God that I'm concerned with. Thankfully prayers are not spells, and God can choose to ignore requests like "turn him away from Catholicism." However, if his prayer is "let Your will be done in his life," then I gladly welcome the fruits of that prayer.

[@marklizama5560]

@@KyleWhittington are there not enough Catholics on earth, in Purgatory and in Heaven that you need to rely on the intercession of a person who, rejects Our Blessed Mother, rejects Christ Truly Present in the Eucharist and rejects the very intercession of the Saints?

[@vadagomez4826]

I questioned my Catholic faith a lot and thought it was a false for sometime after hearing from Protestants concerns. After learning more of my faith and still doing so, I’ve reverted to Catholicism

[@marklizama5560]

Amen! Alleluia and Ave Maria!

[@marybeth1747]

Welcome back!!

[@marybeth1747]

I couldn't possibly have learned what I now know about my Catholic faith from anywhere else but Catholic radio!!!!

[@Martymilner_]

That's amazing to hear. Always research Catholic replies to Protestant objections. They can seem like silver bullets at first but you would be shocked at how simple the solutions can be.

[@borneandayak6725]

Welcome home sister. Catholic, the only One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and true Church of Christ.

[@obakillaking5643]

44:37 As a Catholic I feel ashamed and embarrassed about the blatant lies and heresies Trent spreads here: The first Pokemon Movie was actually awesome and there are dozens of sequels.

[@bethanyjohnson8001]

👍

[@thorobreu]

XD Nice one!

[@TheCounselofTrent]

I am willing to accept being a material heretic on this one! Mea Culpa!

[@sandmaneyes]

Mewtwo, abhorred by Creation

[@csongorarpad4670]

you got me in the first half, not gonna lie

[@swoosh1mil]

I saw their first debate; and Mr. Christie did a way better job this time around. Still, Mr. Horn did an excellent job as always. To Mr. Christie's credit, taking the affirmative is always the more difficult task. We'll done to both these gentlemen.

[@opheliaadjei-awuah2671]

I didn't watch the first but I'm gonna take your word for it and say that apart from the first submission by Steve, his first rebuttal was very weak. One point he was making actually buttressed Trent's point. I guess he realized and said "I'll come back to that." So not convinced.

[@RJ-bq5mr]

Steve had a strong opening statement and strikes me as a very intelligent and pious man, I like his family pictures above his bookshelf. However I do think Trent had the upper hand by the end. Of course I am biased being Catholic and all. I do love Our Lady and think all Christians should too!

[@thomasdimattia3556]

Which brings up a topic that wasn't done the debate. Believes like Steve don't have any devotion to Mary at all. They'll say they have respect for Mary But they never seem to give the attention to Mary like it is in the Gospels, nor the way the early fathers do. In a certain sense they worship Paul. Paul is infallible, nobody else. The bigger issue here really though is development of doctrine. To claim that The Bible gives us everything we need to know about God implies there would be no divisions as to what The Bible means. In fact from the very start that exactly is what happened.

[@sjappiyah4071]

@RJ As a Protestant I think that's a fair and non-bias analysis, I also agree with your take. Steve opening statement was majestic. However, I feel like he struggled in rebuttals and cross-examination, however I would say that's a problem with his rhetoric abilities rather than his evidence. God bless you, and love and respect to the blessed Mary.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@thomasdimattia3556 Mary is part of the gospel narratives, because she gave birth to Jesus. She is part of the gospel narratives in that respect. Far more is told about the disciples than about Mary. There is no real biblical evidence for the undue reverence that Catholics show to Mary. It developed over time, but it's not taught by Jesus or the disciples to reverence Mary pretty much like Jesus.

[@emiliepoirier6093]

Going back to the Catholic faith, Iam going to church sunday and ask to see the priest to come back to the Catholic faith, thank you for this debate, you answered many of my questions about Mary. 🙏

[@marybeth1747]

Woo hoo --- welcome back home!!!!

[@emiliepoirier6093]

@@marybeth1747 thank you, my family were non practicing Catholics, I didnt know much about the faith, I was baptised, and confirmed and did 1st communion as a child but thats it. At 20 years old after going to a Catholic church 3 time on my own and no one came to talk to me not even the priest I felt unwelcome and never returned, a few months later I was invited to a Brethren protestant church, and I became protestant and got baptised protestant, later left the church after marrying a Jehovah witness, then divorced, got back to the protestant church and now after studying about Catholicism since december I came to the conclusion that all I was told about the Catholic church was not accurate. My mother after converting to protestantism after me converted to the Catholic church a year ago so by curiosity I went to search on my own.

[@apologeticasanmiguelarcangel]

Welcome back to your home

[@emiliepoirier6093]

@@apologeticasanmiguelarcangel thank you 🙏

[@Floridiansince94]

I AM CATHOLIC! I was just baptized on Easter Vigil! Christ Jesus built my church, the one True Faith! It’s all about the Eucharist!

[@williamavitt8264]

Amen

[@lullabiesofthedusk]

Welcome to the fullness of the truth 😊

[@Wgaither1]

@@lullabiesofthedusk so if Rome has the fullness of truth, how do I access this truth? Does Pope Francis have this fullness also?

[@williamavitt8264]

@@Wgaither1 it's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In there is everything the Church officially teaches

[@c.Ichthys]

Welcome!!

[@stevekay4220]

Thank you Trent for so clearly explaining the true faith. I am a former Protestant who converted because of the clear logical arguments of Trent and other Catholic apologists. I encourage all Catholics to support Trent's podcast financially. At least a small amount per month because he is clearly giving reasons for the truth of Catholicism. Of course we should also support Pints With Aquinas. For this debate I thought Steve's opening statement was a good summary but they are all old arguments that have been rebutted again and again. I believe Martin Luther would have agreed more with Trent than Steve. Thanks for having this debate.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

The debate was about Scripture, not historical theologians like Luther, or Calvin or Augustine, or Protestants, that's called throwing out distractions by a professional debator Trent Horn in his opening statement. I'm surprised you don't notice those type of debate tactics. Also Luther, as an individual theologian, taught that the church of Rome errored, and that praying to the Queen of Heaven was sinful idolerty.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

The evidence of the Gospels' is not been rebutted. The sisters of the Lord Jesus are in Heaven.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

So do you agree with Trent Horn is 3rd Esdras might be Scripture, (the tale of the Swordsmen), that the deutorcanonical books might be fictional, and that Paul didn't write Hebrews?

[@EpoRose1]

Didn’t Luther believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

[@raulrovelo5544]

@@truthisbeautiful7492 and Trent provided the proper defense in his opening statement. You might believe the Marian Dogmas unnecessary or not found in Scripture, but they don’t contradict it.

[@JKinder313]

Trent's cross-examination exposes Steve for being unwilling to answer yes/no questions when the correct answers to the questions would suggest he lost the debate. He bit off more than he can chew. Perhaps it would have been for him to debate whether the doctrines are true or not, and not that they contradict sacred Scripture.

[@williamavitt8264]

That's because Steve is inherently dishonest and disingenuous

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@@jpc9923 Hi, JP. Thanks for your reply. I'm not really surprised that Mr. Christie agreed to this debate. There are a number of things which are intimately linked in Mr. Christie's mind, and he hasn't seen clear to recognize that they can and sometimes do operate independently of one another. Being able to make such distinctions is not unique to Catholic minds, and there are Catholic minds which similarly fail to make such distinctions, but the Catholic mind is naturally disposed to make such distinctions, and thus be able and often willing to pursue the implications of such distinctions operating independently. As for the willingness to give a simple yes/no answer to a question in cross examination, all debaters are aware that the purpose of cross examination is to defeat one or both of the strength of the argument and the credibility of the witness, so all debaters will be looking for the hidden trap in what might look like simple questions. Trent did the same when he was cross examined in this debate. I think that what Kinder was responding to was the weakness/difficulty of Mr. Christie's position in assuming the affirmative, coupled with Mr. Christie's tendency to pursue the validation of every detail of [his | the Protestant's] position. The attention to detail definitely has its place, but it can interfere with the ability to recognize that there are other things worthy of consideration, such as the context which makes dialogue attractive.

[@franciscositja4079]

When people agree that leading questions are permitted, they should answer them, not just ask when it comes their turn, then expect the other part to answer to build their own individual case, while simultaneously not allowing the opposing arguments to be elaborated just because they would expose the falsehood of the claims at hand. That is dishonest.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@@franciscositja4079 Hi, Francisco. Thanks for your reply. There are different views about where virtue lies. Some, and it seems that you are among them, hold that it is best overall to answer simply and allow your opponent to make his best case which would include his using the simple honest answers you would provide during cross examination. This would rely on one or both of your ability to revisit the matter to clarify the meaning and significance both of your original statements and of your simple honest answers, and trust that God will both protect the audience from misunderstanding and vindicate your representation. Others would hold that it is best overall to refuse to supply your opponent with material which he can use to misrepresent both your position and reality. Both have their place, and which to adopt would depend on a number of considerations, including your indifference to your own reputation, your confidence in the disposition of your audience, your understanding of your ability to revisit the matter, and the importance of the matter under scrutiny.

[@michaelthrone]

@@williamavitt8264Indeed.

[@thankfullyforgiven9611]

Wow, this was great! Steve, there’s no way I’d want to debate Trent. He’s one tough cookie, but brother, you held your own. Hats off to both of you, great job! I’m hoping for further debates like this with these two. This was awesome!

[@BornAgainRN]

Thank you!

[@thankfullyforgiven9611]

@@BornAgainRN You’re welcome.

[@aginblue]

I was so thoroughly impressed with Steve's opening statement while listening to it as a podcast that i had to come on KZbin and comment on it. This was such an incredible debate and delivered in such a civil and charitable manner by both participants. Well done to Matt for hosting and to both participants for being well prepared and doing an exceptional job at delivering their side of the arguments.

[@JRockit4444]

Such a great debate to listen to! Thanks for doing this!

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

The doctrine of sola scriptura is in Proverbs 30:5 and 6.

[@kennethnorman6767]

@@isaacleillhikar4566 for this argument to be true, then my extension, every Christian is a jewish heretic since the new testament 'added to Gods word' including protestants.

[@brittoncain5090]

@@isaacleillhikar4566 Only if you presume the word of God can only be found in the written form.

[@andreeattieh2963]

@@isaacleillhikar4566 sola scriptura is not in the Bible

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

@@andreeattieh2963 Proverbs 30:5,6

[@bigfootapologetics]

Steve's opening was extremely strong, and I say this as a very convicted Catholic. I'm excited to hear Trent's rebuttal.

[@devonborchards521]

And are you convicted by the rebuttal. But let's dive deeper what does your heart say after reading the scripture yourself?

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@devonborchards521 Having read the Bible a few times, my heart is strongly convicted that the Marian dogmas are biblical, and the Catholic Church is the only one that best represents what we see in scripture.

[@MarkelBeverley]

@@devonborchards521reading the scripture yourself and interpreting the scripture yourself are two different things. That's where you protestants go wrong.

[@finallythere100]

It was a good debate, strong detailed info from. Both sides. . But I will say this in general with all debates that are Protrstant vs Catholic. Even though it is mentioned as a one line disclaimer in the beginning , when we proceed to listen to a 2 hour debate . it still does not even consider the wealth of other information that is other than Scripture. Steve Christi mentioned a coulee of very specific examples of Church fathers that did not believe a certain aspect of a Marian dogma And it seems that either they should stick entirely to Scriptire or not The Amarion dogmas are probably the least obvious dogmas to suport from Scripture alone, and still , it could not be disproven , as no dogma has been. But iit gives an inaccurate impression bc the totality of evidence to support Marian dogmas is overwelmkgn and would just bury any Protrstant argument .. To limit it to Scripture alone is to indulge the man made, false paradigm . This is why we don’t allow even one heresy bc it skews the whole picture . Audiences long forgot Thai and Protrsts T’s don’t even KNOW about the wealth of highly compelling and proven evidence that exists. So while sharpening apologetics skills is good, is this doing the TEUTH of all the information any justice w these constant apologetics debates w Protrstant that are ALWAYS. indulging their false paradigm of sola Scriptura as a framework . I’d lie to see an actual full context debate that includes all of Sacred Tradition. Sacred a scripture and all historical and scientific evidence that supports Marian dogmas , the holy Eucharist. Sand otjer dogmas that really PROCE Catholocsm . Examine all the Catholc Churches from very early Church and see how they were all alike w Mass , etc . What is the foam , how is this REALLY showing the r TRITHS of Catholicsm if we CONSTANTLY capitulate to tbeir erroneous format. Their opinions make more sense to them in the skewed context of their false framework . We’re reaching Way Over the aisle for NO god reason . Let THEM debate with Catholics in the context of ALL information . We are doing a disservice to Catholicslm .

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@finallythere100 It doesn't make sense for protestant Christians to debate w/ Catholics, based only on Catholic parameters. If you're going to argue for Catholic doctrines, only on a CAtholic led view, then keep it to Catholics, and stay in an echo chamber. Protestants have and will debate on whether the RCC's version of sacred tradition is valid, and Catholics will debate whether sola scriptura is valid. We all agree that scripture is infallible for our rules of faith. So it's not catering to protestants to stick to whether certain Catholic dogmas, like Mariology are scriptural or not.

[@marcolatini5037]

Wow finally a great debate. Very nicely done

[@beginningbourbon7385]

Protestant here, and I love my Catholic Brother’s and Sisters and celebrate what we all agree on, Which is SO MUCH.

[@phil4v8]

👏👏🙏🙏🙏

[@artvanderlay1308]

But if you don’t believe that Mary wasn’t bodily assumed into heaven, you’re anathema

[@Wgaither1]

@@artvanderlay1308 How could Rome teach Protestants are separated brethren when they are anathema?

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@Wgaither1 Yeah, the catechism isn't always consistent.

[@juliehoskins5967]

Matt, listened to the Catholic Lo-fi on Hallow last night-- loved it!

[@Floridiansince94]

I listened to it at work it was AWESOME

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@martinobodoechi7677]

This is awesome and I love how Trent could counter all the false interpretation of scriptures. God bless you and I know Steve will come back to the Catholic Church

[@martinobodoechi7677]

I will like Steve to read Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn, he will be cleared of his doubts

[@BornAgainRN]

@@martinobodoechi7677 I have heard Scott Hahn's arguments. They are easily debunked. BTW, in many of Trent's responses, he had to deviate from the set-parameters during our debate we both agreed to ahead of time, and appeal to extra-biblical sources & the authority of the church, which we had both agreed not to do. Other times, Trent was not able to address my arguments or even completely ignore them, like when I brought up the conjunction "for" from Psalm 69:9, which connects to v.8, indicating the same Messiah Who had "Zeal for your house," was the same Messiah Who had "brothers" who were His "mother's sons." Trent could not explain his reasoning why the author would feel the need to suddenly transition from the figurative to the literal in the same passage, to defend a dogma that would not exist for another 1,000 to 1,500 years.

[@wolfwatchers]

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. rom 3:20 -22 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Justified by Faith But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: rom3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. rom5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: rom5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. rom4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: psalm103:10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins or repaid us according to our iniquities. psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. 2 corin 5:19 For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. 2corin 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ. rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, John3:15-17 that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.… John6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

[@raydudo3672]

I always feel sort of bad for Protestants (and atheists for that matter) when they believe they have a slam-dunk argument, and then a Catholic apologist like Trent gently and charitably dismantles every objection raised. I don’t want to psychologize, but at around 55:00 you just have to assume Steve is seeing that playing out. It reminds me of myself when I was coming back to the faith! I had a lot of confidence in my arguments, and when they were found to be wanting, I had a lot of pride shattered. And it took a long, long time to face. I think we need to remember how difficult the *ongoing* battle with pride can be. I even recognize that this testimony of mine seems prideful since it sounds like I’m assuming pride is behind me. Believe me, I know it is not! Steve and Trent, you both did a great job preparing for this debate and I’m happy that Christianity has brothers like you in the fold.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

Absolutely. Pride is the driving force behind every bias we refuse to let go of when it's proven to be wrong.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Nope, Christie grew up Roman. I had a similar experience. It's only after reading the actual text of Scripture and by God's grace believing it, do people see how wrong Rome has become.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

The red herrings that Horn brought up in the debate was incredible, and I'm surprised you didn't notice them.

[@raydudo3672]

@@truthisbeautiful7492 I also grew up Catholic, and through my pride, turned a blind eye to what the church and scripture taught. After going down the path of agnosticism and dabbling with atheism, I came full circle back to Christ’s church. I pray you do as well on your journey home to Christ!

[@intedominesperavi6036]

Pride and humility have two things in common: 1. If you have them, you don't notice them. 2. If you move from on towards the other, you think about them quite frequently (Moving towards humility: "Man, that was prideful again! I'll be more careful next time... God, have mercy on me." Moving towards pride: "Wow, that was actually very humble of me!")

[@exerciserelax8719]

I don't think it works to accuse Trent of arguing by exception. If he was arguing that the text MUST be interpreted a certain way because of some exception elsewhere in the Bible, that would be a bad argument. But he's only saying that the text MAY be interpreted that way. When the other side is arguing that a certain meaning is universal, it's a valid rebuttal to point out exceptions. Protestants certainly think Mary was exceptional in some ways, Catholics simply believe in some additional exceptions, which don't contradict the Bible, even if they aren't specifically mentioned in it.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

And I think that one of the main contentions. Protestants almost always claim Marion doctrine is contrary to scripture but as we've seen it's not. One can't comfortably assert Marion doctrine but it can't be excluded. This scripture allows

[@JeansiByxan]

"If he was arguing that the text MUST be interpreted a certain way because of some exception elsewhere in the Bible, that would be a bad argument." Isn't that exactly what he's doing though? Or do you mean to say that the Marian dogmas are not proved by the text, in which case, why should Protestants be convinced?

[@exerciserelax8719]

@@JeansiByxan Yes, I agree they're not proved by the text and I think Trent does too. They're allowed by the text, suggested by it in some ways, but only fully revealed through the tradition and/or Magisterium. I wouldn't expect a Protestant to accept them until after they'd understood and accepted the different sources of authority.

[@judyswiderski2682]

Is it the Magesterium that approved the Catholic bible? That bible quotes Jesus in a lie! Can we change Jesus and still worship God in spirit and in truth? Consider: The madorn bibles challenge God and His word. It continually asks, Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal. Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26. Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY . Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added????? Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there. BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: Look up: REPENT, REGENERATION, BELIEVE, FAITH, REDEMPTION, PERFECT, CONVERSATION, PREVENT, PROPITIATION etc. Suppliers: Churchkjb.com Localchurchbiblepublishers.com Sources: Adullum Films Documentary -Tares Among the Wheat video Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.

[@Lily_Anne]

These men really impressed me. I once got into a tangle with a Jehovah's Witness and resorted to calling a Greek professor at the local university. She told me that the passage referred to was worded in such a way that nothing could be said definitive either way. But she also said something I've never forgotten: "Koine Greek is so difficult that it requires years of study beyond the graduate level." These fellows are so good. I wonder what their backgrounds in Greek study are. Kudos to all three of these men!

[@veritasmuy2407]

The Greek word used in John 7:3-5 proves that Mary had other children. "Adelphos" = brothers of the WOMB (delphus) -- meaning that these men were Jesus' brothers from the same womb -- Mary's WOMB. The Greek words used in Matthew 16:15-18 show that sinful Simon Peter is NOT the foundation of the church "thou art PETROS and upon THIS PETRA (not Petros) I will build my church" -- the foundation of GOD's eternal spiritual ekklesia/church is the SINLESS Son of GOD -- 1Corinth 3:11 The Greek word used in Luke 1:28 does NOT mean "full of grace" -- the Greek words for "full of grace" are "pleris charis" as used in John 1:14 when speaking of JESUS. The Greek of Luke 1 states that Mary is "being graced/favored" by GOD to be the descendant of King David to birth the prophesied King of the Jews that will sit on his father David's Jewish throne -- Luke 1:32, Rev 20:4, Rev 22:16, etc. The Greek word used by Elizabeth in Luke 1 does not mean GOD/Theos, it is "kurios/lord" which simply means "one in authority such as a husband, boss, master, governor, king, messiah" -- Sarah called Abraham her "lord/kurios" in 1Peter 3:6 -- doesn't mean that Abraham was GOD. Elizabeth wasn't saying that Mary was carrying GOD/Theos, but that Mary was carrying her KING of the Jews (1:32). Sheeeeeesh

[@deborahhenney5952]

I think you are confusing etymology and everyday or contextualised use. Much like how in English awful has become synonymous with 'bad' even through it etymologically is 'full of awe'. Adelphos for instance might etymologically or perhaps originally mean of one womb but that does not mean that in later use it could not expand in meaning. In fact we have strong evidence that it did. Likewise Kurios is the word used in the Septuagint for YHWH and is also likely what it means in the New Testament. This is because the NT generally employs Greek words from the LXX to render Hebrew words as these were well known and accepted so people would know what was meant. The Bible is inherently an incarnational document (authored by God through humans using human language) and therefore does not used an idealised or invented form of Greek based on what words 'ought to mean' in terms of etymology. Rather it uses what words were understood to mean.

[@WoodlandPoetry]

@@deborahhenney5952 That's precisely why it takes so many years of postgraduate study.

[@deborahhenney5952]

@@WoodlandPoetry Absolutely! (Currently doing one in Hebrew Bible)

[@Caddo_Art]

@@deborahhenney5952 Great! I love even the Hebrew alphabet and all the pictographic languages. Hope you enjoy the classes!

[@Matt_M516]

Thank you Trent as always for defending the true faith and Our Blessed Mother. Thank you Matt for hosting this excellent debate. Thank you Steve for your/Protestant view.

[@Vanityofvanity]

Great job, Steve! This is an easier topic to defend than others, but great open and rebuttals.

[@jattebaleyos116]

Great debate this was cordial and I learn a lot

[@paulyfongemie1648]

Just purchased Mr. Horn's books. What a great apologist!

[@williamcrawford7621]

As a Catholic, Steve had an amazing opening! He was far more knowledgeable than I expected. That said, Trent had him reeling by the end and I think won handedly by the end.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

He must have worked on that opening for a while, because the rest of the debate showed he didn't have much command of the facts

[@marvalice3455]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj he who speaks first seems right after all :)

[@rexfordtugwelljr]

@@marvalice3455 Proverbs 18:17

[@marvalice3455]

@@rexfordtugwelljr :D

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Trent is a professional debator. Try listening to the debate again with just audio and realize all the red herrings Trent brought up, and the fallacy he used. Christie is learning how to debate obviously, but being a professional debater or a used car salesman doesn't make you right.

[@catholicmama1572]

Thank you for hosting!

[@hammerheadms]

Wow, very intense debate. Great one, guys👍

[@dmcdmc3777]

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee, Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

That prayer from the 16th century won't save you. Only the Lord Jesus Christ can save you from your sins.

[@dmcdmc3777]

Oh dear there comes the bible thumpers. I was raised fundamental bible church. I am NOW CATHOLIC. yes I know how to be "saved". Give it a break. I just made a comment and fyi that hail Mary comes from Luke 1 NLT. Yes I know I didn't use a KJV. 😂😂😂

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@@dmcdmc3777 no, look up the origin of the Hail Mary prayer, it's from the 16 century century. The passage in Luke doesn't include any invoking of a saints in Heaven, it is not a prayerz it's a greeting. The Scriptures are beautiful and God breathed, I urge you to read them and believe them. I said nothing about the KJV, which is just one translation that happened long after the Reformation. Repent of your sins and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, the sole Head of the Church, not the bishop of Rome.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@@dmcdmc3777 the only way to be saved is to repent of your sins and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ and His righteousness. Praying a prayer or joining any organization can't do that. Only the Lord Jesus can Save a sinner. You can't save yourself by being a 'fundmental Baptist' or bowing before a statue of the Queen of Heaven.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@@dmcdmc3777 stop living in sin. Turn away from your sins, false prayers can't save you.

[@taylorj.1628]

Trent Horn has great non-verbals. When he's not talking, he looks calm and every now and then makes eye contact with the camera. Even though it might not seem like it, non-verbals impact the debate.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Try listening to the debate on just audio and see how strong the evidence that Christie actually presented. Trent Horn is a professional debator so don't be fooled by him.

[@justsomevids4541]

@@truthisbeautiful7492 i challenge you to go even further and make a transcript of the debate, specifically Trent's debate with Steve on the deuterocanon, and then compare whats being said and fact check them, you'll see the protestant position crumble.

[@sotem3608]

@@truthisbeautiful7492 I've listened to the debate just on audio, and while Christie did a fine job debating, the thesis simply can't be established. All he can show is that a reasonable case can be made for contradiction, which isn't the same as proofing that the dogma's contradict scripture. If the debate was about is it a reasonable position to take that the dogma's contradict scripture, I'd say yes. This however is not the case. Trent was correct in how he framed the requirements for the thesis, Trent then proceeded to properly defend the thesis.

[@lestermenezes752]

Steve: "To be Deep in the Bible is to cease to be Catholic" Who canonized the New Testament which all Christians accept? - The Catholic Church. ::p

[@Justas399]

Those that were involved in canonizing the NT did not believe in the Marian dogmas.

[@JeansiByxan]

Trent admitted that he doesn’t care if dogma contradicts the Bible.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Nope, that isn't true. Not according to history. Timothy knew Scripture from childhood, he didn't have to wait until the 16th century "council of Trent" which happened after the Reformation and Luther was already dead, to find out the New Testament was Scripture. During the lifetime of the Apostles, the New Testament was recognized as Scripture, as Peter calls Paul's writings as God breathed Scripture. By the end of the 2nd century, the four gospels and Paul's letters were received by far flung churches. Read the book 'Canon Revisited' for historical proof. Even the bishop of Athanasius Easter letter on the Canon is from Alexandria, not Rome. No reason to restrict it to the New Testament, as The Old testament is Scripture too. The New Testament Church always had Scripture - the Old Testament. And if you eant to claim the local North African councils of Hippo/Carthage in the late 4th century, apparently Timothy as a child and the Christians of the 2nd century recognized Scripture without needing any special definition of the late 4th century. In fact, Hippo/carthage appears to affirm 3rd Esdras, the tale of the Swordsmen, which the 16th century 'council of Trent' passed over in silence, and wouldn't say if it's Scripture or not, according to Trent Horn. So is 3rd Esdras Scripture? No. But if you follow Rome, then isn't your answer 'maybe'? So there is no certainty in Rome. Plus Hippo/Carthage says Paul wrote 14 epistles, which Trent rejects, and they thought the deutorcanonical books were historical, but to defend their obvious historical errors, Trent Horn suggests they might be fictional books. Do you agree?

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

If you read FF Bruce, a famous scholar the Canon of Scripture, nowhere did the Roman organization 'canonize' the New Testament. Scripture was God Breathed when it was written by the Holy Spirit through Prophets and Apoatles. Churches only passively receive what is already God breathed.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@Jack Hummell no evidence of that. Have you read Melito of Sardis earliest Canon list? It's not the 16th century list of Rome. From childhood Timothy knew Scripture. How did he know since he lived in the 1st century, not the 16th?

[@emiliepoirier6093]

Excellent arguments.👍🙏

[@Mah-Tyn]

Great debate. One of the best I’ve seen. Good job!

[@robideals685]

Jesus gave us all, everything. When you contemplate that he also gave his family to us, and in particularly his Mother as the Mother of our Church and Queen of Heaven, the beauty of his gifts only become more clear. God bless everyone and thanks for the great video!

[@nightshade99]

Learn the bible....sheesh!

[@essafats5728]

@@nightshade99 yeah the Bible, a Catholic book

[@duedilligence5463]

If the Protestant reformers left the Catholic Church because they held the belief that Scripture is the highest authority, yet they still believed in the Marian Dogmas wouldn’t that also hurt Steven’s case because they saw no contradiction? Saying “oh they were basically Roman Catholic” doesn’t work if scripture was the ultimate authority.

[@vtaylor21]

I think that's the part where Steve really fell off. They preached Sola Scriptura, but they believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Steve didn't want to say that the reformers believed in Sola Scriptura. He would have to concede that (in his view) they used another authority over scripture and believe in something that contradicts scripture.

[@ThrashTillDeth85]

@@vtaylor21 This is a problem with a lot of protestants in general, the only ones I've seen that aren't quite like that to my knowledge are high church Lutherans and Anglicans. It is something that of course changed over time in different denominations and eventually became the dominate dogma in many denominations.

[@judyswiderski2682]

Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. Matthew 1:25.

[@duedilligence5463]

@@judyswiderski2682 except it doesn’t say after. That verse merely highlights that Jesus was born of a virgin. That Mary didn’t know Joseph before Jesus was born.

[@J3-2344]

@@duedilligence5463it means Joseph didn’t know her until he was born, until in the verse is used as a preposition meaning it would have no meaning with your interpretation

[@williamavitt8264]

It seems like everything one person sees in Scripture that someone else disagrees with, the other person is always engaging in eisegesis of Scripture. If only God, in His infinite wisdom, had seen fit to give us some kind of authority to resolve disputes about Scripture...

[@jon6car]

If only there was some visible body that Christ would've left us. Some sort of foundation or maybe a pillar of truth..

[@williamavitt8264]

@@jon6car maybe started by 12 guys who could pass their teaching authority on to new guys so the visible Church never dies? But that might be too far fetched to imagine

[@elle9082]

@@jon6car God already gave us the foundation… we just choose to ignore or act blind about it.

[@frankjamesiii5362]

Well if there was such an authority, it would have to be 2000 years old.... it would be a sign by God that such an organism could still stand today.

[@ChristianTrinity411]

I would also like to suggest that God give one of the leaders of the church some sort of primacy to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved by the college of leaders alone, kind of like a backbone unifying the church, and preferably beginning with one of the Apostles, kind of like the bottom vertebrae in this unifying stack that the church is built around. That would be awesome! [Chris Farley voice]

[@liberatewethepeople9121]

Once your eyes are opened to the Catholic views you can’t unsee it. It’s almost like it breaks that glass ceiling and faith starts to flow. 🙏🏼💕

[@anne.ominous]

It’s only natural for one to feel that way about their particular denomination. Why would anyone follow a particular sect unless they were convinced of its veracity, after all

[@danielwakei6528]

One of the best debates i have ever watched.

[@gregnorthway3814]

Well done Trent. Outstanding defense of the Catholic faith and Marian dogmas.

[@topper009]

"There are no exceptions to this statement...Jesus is an exception"

[@TKK0812]

@YAJUN YUAN What was the statement?

[@TKK0812]

@YAJUN YUAN Gotcha. Yeah I don’t understand this from Catholics. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. What have the “all” fallen short of? God’s glory. So who is the “all”. Anyone who is not God. Mary was not God. Therefor, Marry is a wretched sinner. Jesus is God. Therefor Jesus is not an exception but the rule.

[@x1kthomas]

Maybe there are a few Protestan listeners? I'd just like to say good job, Steve Christie and thank your for your clarity on several scripture points.

[@juboy04]

This is a Catholic channel so obviously the majority will say Trent is right no matter how wrong he is lol

[@denisebraganza]

God bless both of you. I pray Steve finds the full truth.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Steve was raised Catholic and chose to go to the protestant side as an adult. He said the reading of the church fathers was mainly what brought him out to a more scripturally based form of Christianity. i doubt he's turning now that he's an apologist.

[@christianharrold1298]

Amazing debate. God bless all three of you.

[@mirekzawada7586]

Regarding the topic and burden of proof of this debate, I think we should agree that Mr. Horn won this one. There was not one argument that Horn would not be able to deflect. But the main difference today was visible in the closing statement, Trent just simply and clearly summarized the points he succesfuly rebutted, whereas Mr. Christie went on totally irrelevant rant about "Church vs Scripture", this nonsense of Sola Ecclesia etc. so it looked like a poor atempt to evangelize someone. But I admit he had more difficult position to argue.

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

Steve Christie could never have won this debate... Because his position can't be defended

[@39knights]

Yeah, when you argue against the Truth you are starting from a poor position towards an impossible goal.

[@JeansiByxan]

@@ezekielizuagie7496 He made quite clear that Trent's interpretation is at odds with the koine greek. But of course Trent deflects once again by referring to other verses rather than what the text actually says.

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

@@JeansiByxan I think you should go and listen again Trent shows that according to Greek and new testament scholars and even the Strong's lexicon that Steve appeals to... Steve's interpretation and appeal to Greek is wrong and restrictive.

[@JeansiByxan]

@@ezekielizuagie7496 Restrictive is not the same as wrong. What about Steve's point that the word adelphoi is never used to mean other than biological siblings?

[@ElasticGiraffe]

Enjoying this debate, and the opening statements were great. I'm Orthodox, so I agree with Trent on the perpetual (ever-)virginity of Mary, but also with Richard Bauckham that the predominant Eastern view, that Jesus' adelphoi are the older children of Joseph from a previous marriage that left him widowed, is far more likely true than the Latin (Hieronymic) view that they are Jesus' cousins or other extended relatives. While some Scotist-influence Byzantine theologians accepted some form of the immaculate conception, I would agree with Aquinas in rejecting it; and we would disagree with the mainstream Roman Catholic interpretation of her assumption because we believe in her dormition, that she fell asleep in Christ, and Eastern Rite "Uniate" Catholics are allowed to believe likewise. When it comes to claims of her sinlessness, I'm inclined toward the view held by many church fathers that she was prepurified at the Annunciation, not at her conception, but that it is improper to speculate about the sinfulness of Christ's mother. Some do take the position that she never sinned; others, as Steve noted, believe she sinned even during the ministry of her son. One constant is that they believed she was "in Adam" and bore the same human condition. The principal objection Orthodox Christians have to Rome's Marian dogmas is that they were dogmatized, made binding upon the consciences of the faithful. I can't see this happening in the Orthodox Church in any era, where dogma almost always directly or indirectly pertains to Trinitarian or Christological issues (e.g., Mary rightly being called Theotokos, iconoclasm undermining the Incarnation, etc.). They are defined in response to heretical threats, not because upper management decides it no longer wants to tolerate disagreement on a particular topic. I don't know how these dogmas jive with the ostensibly Roman Catholic belief, conceded by Trent in other debates over Sola sciptura, in the material sufficiency of Scripture for establishing all essential, deal-breaking doctrines of the Church. I think most Orthodox theologians would agree with the material sufficiency principle, but the modern Marian and papal dogmas don't meet this criterion. They require "additional public revelation" (to/from the Roman teaching magisterium) that Trent references in this debate. Even where we would agree with Roman Catholics that a view is pious, and reasonable, and fitting to accept -- even when it has evidentiary support from the fathers or is expressed in our liturgical forms -- affirming it would not necessarily be required to be at peace with the Church, as it still might not be proper to the Rule of Faith or essential to the gospel of God's kingdom. I fail to see how disbelief in, for example, the immaculate conception threatens the gospel, yet we were told when it was defined as Roman dogma that its denial is salvation-wrecking. I'd be interested to hear less about why x is true and more about why belief in x is vital. Just my $0.02.

[@nathangraham2189]

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but I am personally very, VERY disturbed frankly by Steve's derisive, disrespectful, and dismissive reaction to Trent's hypothetical about finding the real cross of Christ at 1:31:45. Seriously, watch this part and watch Steve's reaction....I would expect this sort of mocking attitude from an angry atheist, but from a Christian? Wow... I think Trent is really onto something about Protestants often thinking and arguing like atheists, but I also have been deeply thinking about how much many stripes of Protestants think and argue like Gnostics as well, and I think this reaction, and the profound underlying dualist/anti-physicalist or anti-material dispositions of much of Protestantism is on display here. If all matter is corrupt and bad, and only the spiritual can be good, then it makes perfect sense to feel revulsion at the idea of showing veneration or honor to any physical object or person. But of course no one really lives this way. We Americans routinely speak about the Founding Fathers such as Washington and Jefferson in highly reverential tones, and these were as flawed as any human beings could ever be! We keep the Constitution in a hermetically sealed glass case and give it a special pride of place for obvious reasons, showing reverence for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people that it ordains. Further, if Steve really feels that way about the very cross of Christ, then by these same lights why do we have cemeteries? Why bury our deceased loved ones with reverence and respect, placing elaborate, decorative tomb stones or markers on their graves? Why do we visit their grave sites at all? It's just a plot of grass with a bit of stone planted on top of some decaying physical matter in the end...yes? I wish Trent, instead of wording it the way he did, had asked Steve "How would you react/feel if you were presented the actual cross of Christ and knew it to be so?" Getting an answer out of him on this would be instructive. Would he basically think the wood might make a good table or kindling for a nice fire? I really don't want to presume to know the mind of anyone else, but seriously, that reaction makes me honestly want to follow up by asking "Are you sure you really love Jesus at all?" I know Protestants claim to love Christ, and they certainly share in the joy of belief that His sacrifice gives us the way to eternal life with God, but I have to wonder a bit about how much actual LOVE for Jesus one has if they couldn't show at least an equivalent level of emotion, veneration and honor towards His very cross than is routinely seen in visitors to the Lincoln Memorial. Pax Christi.

[@raydudo3672]

@YAJUN YUAN I think that just about proves all of Nathan’s points

[@nathangraham2189]

@YAJUN YUAN Dude, really? We do these things, we treat the dead with respect and especially pay respects to our dead loved ones out of REVERENCE for them, for how they raised us, helped us in life, the lives they lived of inspiring virtue, whatever the case may be. That’s why we do it: because even non-sacred things and non-divine people have VALUE. So how much more should the very Cross of Christ have great value and be worthy of veneration? I’ll say it here: Protestants of this particular vein act like Manicheans.

[@marybeth1747]

Agree!!

[@jacksonbaker5375]

Lifelong Protestant here, and I want to contribute a perspective on why we generally oppose the veneration of Mary and the saints. There are a lot of reasons (as you can imagine, it's an aspect of our theology which is the subject of a good deal of discussion), but I would say the primary reason is derived from Mark 10:17-22 when Jesus says "No one is good except God alone." While I personally agree with the Catholic definition of sainthood regarding the certainty of the entry into Heaven of some individuals, I also would never venerate those individuals in a spiritual way. I may learn the history of their lives and have a great deal of respect for them, but I also understand them as ultimately being sinful, mortal creatures, not intercessors on my behalf to God. After all, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10). Ultimately the fear that Protestants carry towards veneration of any kind and ESPECIALLY the veneration of icons or relics is that they have the potential to erode the spiritual life of a Christian by diminishing Christ's role as the High Priest and Eternal Intercessor. In our theology, to offer praise in a service to a mortal human is to rob our eternal creator of praise that He is entitled to, and to ask for prayers and intercession from either Mary or the saints would be to deny agency to one of the persons of the Trinity, either to the Holy Spirit our advocate or Jesus Christ our intercessor. (Edited to fix typo, I misspelled "responses" in the first paragraph)

[@nathangraham2189]

@@jacksonbaker5375 You are very late to this party, this thread is over a year old. I’m happy to respond though. First, I was where you are. I grew up Protestant. And I was as ill informed and wrong about these issues then as you are now. You said Mary and veneration of her was an issue of a good deal of discussion in Protestant circles. I’m going to have to disagree with you there. In fact I find that a very strange statement. In the faith communities I grew up in (typical Calvinist leaning Baptist and nondenominational evangelical communities) Mary was essentially NEVER talked about at all, except in passing of course by way of attacking Catholics with the bromide that they worship Mary and we know that’s awful and wrong. All the saints, except for Mary, were sinners, sure. So what? Americans offer up veneration towards the founding fathers plenty, holding them up as heroic figures in some sense, lauding them as role models or great men of vision, even while recognizing at least tacitly their significant failings and faults. Why on Earth would we not want to take such an attitude about the men and women of faith who went before us and who lived lives of heroic virtue, much more so than figures like Jefferson or Franklin? You are flatly wrong about the saints not interceding for us: the Bible says they do. They offer prayers of the faithful to God as shown in Revelation 5:8. They are MORE alive in Heaven than we are now on Earth. If the Bible commands us to pray and INTERCEDE for one another here and now, why in the world would the saints not do so in Heaven? We offer appropriate praise to other humans all the time: we praise a great musical performance, we praise an athlete who wins gold or a team that wins a championship. We absolutely should offer APPROPRIATE “praise” (veneration, NOT worship) to the saints in kind. You indicated a “fear of prayers to the saints eroding spiritual life”. I get it, I was there l myself, but I assure you this is incoherent and the complete opposite is true. My spiritual life is INFINITELY more vibrant and alive as a Catholic than it ever was as a Protestant. The saints CANNOT detract from God’s glory because they are now, in Heaven, wholly conformed to it, and therefore shine with His light like mirrors. They ADD to God’s already infinite glory because He SHARES IT WITH THEM, AND OFFERS TO DO SO WITH US! God, and I can’t stress this enough, is not a selfish megalomaniac. I strongly think many Protestants have come to see Him that way. He shares His divine life freely, PROFLIGATELY, with His saints, because it is His pleasure to do so. I ask you honestly: is asking other people here on Earth to pray for you “denying God’s agency”? I’ve never heard of anyone taking this position, but if asking the saints to pray and intercede for us detracts from God, then so does asking others here on Earth to do the same thing infringe on God in the SAME WAY. I hope that helps give some insight, and guess what? I will PRAY FOR YOU :). Pax Christi.

[@jimmydavid1993]

I will watch mine later. Thanks Matt

[@ridimapinto5500]

Superb!!

[@dennis1662]

Great debate but I fail to understand how anyone can believe in the authority of scripture when the Church existed for 60 yrs before the first book of the Bible was written and for 380 yrs before all 73 books were put together and another 1600 yrs before it was translated into English. So for 1600 years it was the Church who interpreted it, taught it, and explained it and if it was the authority, then, unless one could read and read Hebrew, Greek and Latin then they could not be saved. Which is ridiculous as The Christ would not leave his teaching open for Interpretation. That is why I, as a former devout anti- catholic came into the Catholic Church in 2007.

[@BornAgainRN]

Dennis, if you want an explanation about the canon (which this debate is not, but about the Marian dogmas), go to my channel, and check out my playlist, "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller," which is the same title of my book, which I also debated against Trent & Gary Michuta in 2020.

[@Morlla234]

They had scrolls.

[@carriemccarthy2069]

I noticed Steve has a hard time not rolling his eyes, which seems slightly arrogant and uncharitable! It seems dismissive! Just saying! Who's to believe his translation through sola scripture, and what makes him an expert on scripture, and how it should be interposed, sense thousands disagree with his interpreted version of scripture.

[@tabandken8562]

He IS really arrogant. Just listen to Him in other debates and videos.

[@Justas399]

@@tabandken8562 You have to admit that Steve had the facts on his side.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@Justas399 no

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

Especially when they cross-examine on the definition of adelphos. Steve's saying "here's the definition, it must be literally interpreted here", and Trent giving at least 1 example where it wasn't, so it doesn't need to be used in that way.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@Justas399 We just saw the same debate. Your conclusion of it isn't the only valid one

[@sallygalbudgeting]

When Steve admits the fact that the Church has this authority to tell us Catholics that we must believe a dogma…I said, Yes! Exactly! We HAVE a Church that actually has that authority from Jesus and that’s such a comfort to us but also to know that authority comes from Christ is amazing! He said it like it’s a bad thing, and it’s actually confirming the beauty and headship of Christ over us literally. This my friend is TRUTH about God. We do not have to scramble around with personal interpretations about certain things. Thank you Jesus! And to whole-heartedly know it doesn’t contradict scripture but rather support it, uplift it, confirm it. I just want to say, did I miss something because our Protestant friends are missing this beautiful truth and authority of the Church! Trent won this debate.

[@ionlybowtogod9268]

I bow to God I do not bow to a false Church my sister in Christ.

[@sallygalbudgeting]

@@ionlybowtogod9268 that’s good because I only WORSHIP the one, true God in the Roman Catholic Church at the Traditional Latin Mass, for it is Jesus Christ who is king in our Church. God bless.

[@rickdockery9620]

Respect my authority -Pope and Cartman have something in common.

[@Wgaither1]

@@sallygalbudgeting why does the Roman Catholic Church make dogmas about Mary and not Joseph or the apostles. Maybe they were also immaculately conceived or a perpetual virgin or bodily assumed into heaven

[@alfray1072]

@@Wgaither1 Marian dogmas are not the only dogmas declared by the church. Declaring a dogma does not mean it is a new belief! Declaring a dogma is not set on one period. A dogma is declared by the church if its Sacred Tradition is challenged by its enemies and doubters. The authority of the church is not only for one generation. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were already believed in the Sacred Tradition of the early church. The church formally defines it in the 20th century

[@Sethseneca]

I’ve never heard these Catholic doctrines in full until watching debates like this the past week. Y’all believe some really interesting stuff. Wild.

[@nerdanalog1707]

This is a nice debate, although I prefer discussions more... Many thanks all participants and host.

[@BornAgainRN]

Check out the KZbin channel “a Goy for Jesus”. Trent and I have a discussion with my friend Geoff on his channel responding to Trent’s claim that Protestants act like atheists. Also check out Tony Costa Toronto Apologetics on Wednesday April 27th at 8pm EST. We will be having a discussion on the Assumption.

[@nerdanalog1707]

@@BornAgainRN Thanks I will! Have a beautiful day.

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Trent was at an advantage being that the truth is on his side. Appreciate Steve’s friendly contribution. :-)

[@JH324]

To bad the Bible isnt on his side

[@Adam-ue2ig]

That's completely fallacious circular reasoning...the very thing your suppose to attempt to prove is that Trent has the truth but instead of making an argument you simply presuppose that Trent has the advantage because truth is on his side.

[@defeatingdefeaters]

@@Adam-ue2ig I know that the assertion would need an argument if it were my intention to demonstrate (show) the truth of the claim being made. Fortunately, for me, I am not attempting to convince readers here of anything. I hope you weren’t suggesting that in order to know X, I’ll need an argument.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@defeatingdefeaters you don't intend to try and prove anything, just make a claim...fair enough.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@defeatingdefeaters in the realm of argumentation,philosophy/debate yes you would need an argument which I thought was precisely the context we find ourselves in.

[@bkr_418]

This video reminds me why I prefer dialogue to debate. Good effort though, and some interesting points, though.

[@TheCatholicPiper]

Simon-Peter & Andrew- Sons of Jonah (Matt 4:18 & 16:17) James (greater) & John- Sons of Zebedee and Salome (Mk 10:35) James (lesser), Joses (Joseph), Matthew (Levi)- Sons of Clopas/Alpheus and “the other Mary” (Matt 27:56, Luke 6:15, Mk 2:14) That being said, Mary of Clopas/Alpheus is recorded at the cross with Mary the Virgin, Mary Magdalene, and Salome (Zebedees wife). (Jn 19:25, Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40) So Mary of Clopas is not Mary the Mother of Jesus. She’s also called “The other Mary” at the tomb. (Matt 27:61, 28:1) So the Mother of Jesus was not the Mother of James (the greater), John, James (the lesser), Joses or Matthew based on the women described at the crucifixion.

[@bubbawhisk8243]

Thank you for taking the time to type this up. Super helpful.

[@TheCatholicPiper]

@@bubbawhisk8243 you’re welcome!

[@elizabethburns1449]

Hello friend! Why do you believe Josephus ( 1st century Jewish historian) referred to James as "Jesus brother"? Any theories? I have zero desire to argue, I have my beliefs and you yours, but I want to hear what a Catholics think on this matter? Just looking for an opinion! Thanks :)

[@TheCatholicPiper]

@@elizabethburns1449 I’m not well versed in Josephus’ writings so I wouldn’t be able to give an articulate defense. I will say that from what I understand everything Josephus wrote is based on Roman records and 2nd hand testimonies from the time period because he was born 4 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. He does say James is the “Brother of Jesus” in antiquities 20:200 but from Tradition it is taught that James was a half brother of Jesus from a previous Marriage Joseph had. At the same rate, from tradition Clopas or Cleopas is named Joseph’s Brother which would’ve given James relation to Jesus as a cousin which the word Adelphos would still work in that context. So both situations I think would satisfy the title given to James without taking away the title of Perpetual Virgin.

[@elizabethburns1449]

@@bubbawhisk8243 thanks!

[@masonshirley4051]

Excellent debate!

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 04:17 📜 The debate is about whether Marian dogmas contradict Scripture, with Steve defending the affirmative. 04:32 📚 Steve argues that the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary contradicts Scripture, citing Greek word usage. 08:10 📖 Steve discusses the use of "firstborn" in Luke and argues it implies other siblings for Jesus. 09:15 🤯 Psalm 69:8 is interpreted by Steve as a messianic verse, suggesting Jesus had younger half-brothers. 10:24 📖 Steve references biblical verses to argue that Mary, like all humans, needed redemption from sin through Jesus. 13:34 🚫 Steve rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, stating it contradicts the biblical concept of redemption. 14:57 ⛪️ Steve questions the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary, stating it contradicts the biblical purpose of an assumption. 17:15 📜 Steve emphasizes the importance of these dogmas to Catholics, despite potential contradictions with Scripture. 20:01 🤝 Trent outlines the parameters of the debate, emphasizing the burden on Steve to prove contradictions. 21:27 📖 Trent argues that denying the dogma of Theotokos contradicts Scripture since Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God. 22:35 📖 Trent defends the dogma of the Bodily Assumption, citing biblical examples of Enoch, Elijah, and the archangel Michael's actions regarding Moses. 23:45 📖 Trent argues that the Immaculate Conception is not contradicted by Scripture, as it doesn't affirm Mary committed personal sin or inherited original sin. 24:28 📜 Trent argues that Mary's magnificat parallels Hannah's song, emphasizing salvation from threats in this life, not sin. 25:50 💬 The Bible does not explicitly state that Mary sinned, and it does not universally claim every person has committed personal sin. 27:25 📖 The Bible does not explicitly state that every individual without exception has original sin; the doctrine of original sin is true but not explicitly universal in Scripture. 28:35 📜 Immaculate Conception does not contradict Scripture, and perpetual virginity is not explicitly contradicted in the Bible. 29:01 🔤 The word "until" in Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily imply a reversal of condition; the phrase "he knew her not until" doesn't require that they knew each other afterward. 31:47 💡 The term "adelphos" (brother) can be understood in a non-literal way, possibly as adoptive brothers, and not necessarily biological siblings. 35:45 🔍 Steve argues that the dogmas can contradict Scripture explicitly, implicitly, or partially, providing examples like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. 38:59 🔗 Steve argues that the Bible's use of "savior" consistently refers to saving from sins, implying that Mary calling God her Savior in the Magnificat indicates salvation from sin. 40:23 🚫 Steve claims that if Mary died, as implied by the dogma of the bodily assumption, it demonstrates Mary inherited original sin from Adam. 42:28 💬 Trent addresses the term "prototokos," stating it refers to the firstborn child opening the womb, not necessarily implying subsequent children. 46:40 📜 Trent challenges the claim that Mary committed a sin in Mark 3, arguing that the text doesn't support it, and there's no divine judgment on Mary. 47:07 📖 Luke 1:46-48 doesn't mention sin; Trent contends it parallels Hannah's words in 1 Samuel 2:1, which also doesn't mention sin. 47:37 💬 Trent disputes the interpretation of "all have sinned," pointing to exceptions like Enoch and Elijah, arguing that the Bible allows for universal statements with exceptions. 48:20 💀 Mary's death doesn't prove original sin; Trent asserts that death doesn't imply sin, as Jesus died without sin but had a mortal nature. 49:16 🤝 Trent claims that Steve hasn't demonstrated clear scriptural contradictions to the Marian dogmas, emphasizing the lack of unambiguous evidence in the debate. 01:07:21 🤔 Steve challenges the concept of a preemptive savior in the New Testament, questioning if God or Jesus saves someone before their sins. 01:08:14 📖 Trent suggests that Mary's unique role as the God-bearer implies truths not found in the Old or New Testament. 01:08:41 🤔 The debate delves into whether the assumption of Mary was an eyewitness account, and if so, why the Catholic Church hasn't dogmatically declared whether she died first. 01:09:35 🤝 Trent explains that not every truth about first-century life has been handed down, leading to disagreements about the identity of Jesus' brothers. 01:11:16 🤨 Steve challenges the need for Mary's assumption if she were sinless, arguing that the purpose of assumption is to rescue from death, and sinless individuals wouldn't need saving. 01:12:11 🔍 Trent and Steve discuss whether a person with a human nature can die even if free from sin, bringing in the concepts of original sin and Jesus becoming sin. 01:14:16 ❓ Steve challenges the perpetual virginity of Mary, asking if the Bible mentions her giving birth to anyone besides Jesus. 01:16:10 🔍 The discussion delves into the meaning of the Greek word "adelphos" in the New Testament concerning Jesus' brothers and whether they shared the same mother but had different fathers. 01:19:50 🔄 Steve asserts that the reformers' disagreement with Rome was about the authority of scripture over the church, not specifically about Marian doctrines. 01:20:47 🤔 The debate concludes with questions about the reformers' beliefs on Mary's perpetual virginity and whether they thought it violated the authority of scripture. 01:21:41 🤷‍♂️ Trent reflects on his personal journey and difficulties accepting certain Marian dogmas, emphasizing the importance of the Church's teaching authority. 01:23:03 😕 Steve struggles to accept any of the Marian dogmas, suggesting the bodily assumption might be slightly more acceptable due to the lack of explicit details about Mary's death in scripture. 01:24:40 ❓ Steve explains his understanding of Luke 1:28, arguing that the Greek term "kecharitomene" does not support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. 01:25:27 🧐 Trent responds, pointing out the uniqueness of the term's use in Luke 1:28 as a personal address to Mary and its significance. 01:27:27 🤔 Trent discusses when Marian devotion becomes idolatry, emphasizing that idolatry involves giving Mary worship due to God alone and clarifying the boundaries of veneration. 01:28:49 🙏 Trent emphasizes that offering sacrifices to Mary would be idolatry, highlighting the centrality of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. 01:29:46 📖 Trent acknowledges the use of lofty language about Mary but urges reliance on the Church's magisterial teachings and not literal interpretation. 01:30:56 ❓ Steve questions the authority of the Pope and the potential impact of non-ex-cathedra statements, citing an example related to Muslims and Christians worshiping the same God. 01:34:51 🌐 Trent challenges Steve to identify early Church fathers who held beliefs similar to his own, questioning the continuity of his theological positions. 01:36:30 🤷‍♂️ Trent and Steve discuss their preferences for historical figures to preach at their churches, revealing diverse opinions. 01:37:43 ❓ Steve rejects the typology connecting Mary to the Ark, encouraging post-debate exploration of his videos on false typologies. 01:39:38 🧐 Trent addresses a question about the infallibility of conclusions when underlying logic is false, distinguishing between infallibility and historical accuracy. 01:41:47 ❓ Steve expresses concern about potential errors in magisterial statements recounting history and emphasizes the need for trust in scriptural accuracy. 01:43:11 🌐 Trent acknowledges that some arguments made by Catholics are not convincing, citing examples related to the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity. 01:45:03 🤔 Trent and Steve discuss the acceptance of Marian dogmas by Protestants, considering the authority of Scripture and essential versus non-essential beliefs. 01:46:01 ❓ Trent points out arguments he considers weak, including claims that Mary had to be immaculate for Jesus to be conceived, and objections related to Mary's perpetual virginity. 01:47:26 🙅 Trent critiques arguments suggesting that making Mary perfect is fitting, cautioning against using fittingness as the sole basis for theological beliefs. 01:49:03 📖 The fittingness of Mary being immaculately conceived is discussed, suggesting it aligns with her ability to consent to becoming pregnant with the Savior, but it's not a conclusive proof. 01:51:38 🚫 Steve argues that the Roman Catholic dogmas about Mary contradict the genuine Mary portrayed in the Bible, emphasizing that scripture doesn't support the later-developed doctrines. 01:52:47 📚 The argument against Marian dogmas involves dismissing extrabiblical sources like the Proto-evangelium of James and other apocryphal literature, asserting that these influenced later dogmas. 01:54:25 ⚖️ The authority debate centers on whether to trust the infallible authority of scripture or the fallible magisterium, with the latter imposing excommunication for denying dogmas contradicting scripture. 01:56:36 📜 Trent Horn argues against the notion that Marian dogmas contradict scripture, aiming to show that they align with biblical teachings, leading to a deeper understanding of the Church's authority. 02:00:35 🤔 Trent addresses the argument that Mary's dogmas don't replace Christ, emphasizing that they point believers to Jesus and should be viewed within the framework of the Church's teachings.

[@michaelegan3774]

Blessed be God forever for the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity.

[@nightshade99]

Blasphemy

[@michaelegan3774]

@@nightshade99 Blessed be God forever for the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity.

[@thephilosopherfromdixie7466]

The protestant made a huge blunder in bringing up the "I know not a man" quote. Trent didnt even bring it up, and it literally makes Trent's case for him. If Blessed Mary isnt a perpetual virgin, why was she, being betrothed to marry, surprised that she should bear a son?

[@nightshade99]

@@michaelegan3774 Blasphemy

[@nightshade99]

@@thephilosopherfromdixie7466 Mary was surprised at the whole deal. That doesn't make the case for perpetual virginity.

[@eric_wood]

Thinking about the perpetual virginity of Mary, all seriousness, if your virgin fiancé was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and inside of her womb was the Son of the living God how could you possibly want to have sexual relations with her? Would you not feel like you were desecrating a holy vessel of Divine Grace? Would you not consider your fiancé to be All-Holy knowing that she has been chosen by God to be the birth-giver of His Son? My point is that the Scriptures teach that Joseph was a righteous man so in all of his God-given righteous how could he possibly want to succumb to his sexual desires with his betrothal after the most wonderful of all miracles, the incarnation of God, took place within her womb.

[@judyswiderski2682]

Kinda' emotional thinking. Scriptute said that Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

@@judyswiderski2682 Is it in line with sola scriptura to add the word “after” to that verse? Why did you add that?

[@judyswiderski2682]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 Perhaps it is not a good idea, even though it did make it clearer because I had paraphrased it. If I quote it word for word, I place scripture between the quote markers. " ". Thanks for asking.

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

I honestly expected more from Steve Christie I saw him and his friend Geoff advertising this debate as if he has some ace up his sleeve or some slam dunk arguments but it's same old debunked protestant objections and from his arguments I could have had this debate with him and done very well....

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

Which Popes and in which documents?

[@Justas399]

@@ezekielizuagie7496 Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.” Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.” Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2) Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

@@Justas399 firstly Augustine wasn't a pope and not every thing he taught was considered a dogma of the church. The other two quotes don't prove anything... A pope could have a wrong opinion... And I am not seeing a denial of the immaculate conception In those quotes if they are indeed authentic.. Oh and I didn't count seven of them.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@Justas399 So, according to your reading of Augustine, you think he is saying that Jesus sinned?

[@Fasolislithuan]

@@brendansheehan6180 That's the problem with protestantism. They've usually so obssesed to deny catholic doctrine that always fall in christological heresies to defend their position. Their anticatholicism and specifically their anti-mariology makes majority of them falls in secular heresies like nestorianism (majority of protestants deny Theotokos)

[@LetsTalk055]

I love this channel, keep it up Matt, i have learned a lot from Pints With Aguinas, Thanks for that

[@God-Will-ing]

29:04 misleading grammatical error by Trent. He states it does not always mean a change, but in fact it means no change up to following event. The woman in 2 Samuel experienced no change in her life because she died. Joseph did not know Mary till she had Jesus. It is a false equivalency because one use of the term is in reference till the end of life no opportunity to change. While in Mary’s case she had many decade to “know” Joseph after having Jesus. Very weak rebuttal to this point by Trent.

[@AllanKoayTC]

just a few minutes in, you could already see the expression on Trent's face, like "this is going to be a walk in the park." but kudos to Steve for presenting well-articulated point.

[@judyswiderski2682]

Trent knew that all the facts are on his side. The truth that is accepted is Roman Catholic truth. Is Sola Scriptura true. Why would anyone even claim that? It is believed by those who have read in Psalm12:6 and 7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them LORD, thou shall preserve them from this generation for ever." If one believes that, than the Bible is to be used as a standard. Catholics and modern bible Protestants do not believe this. They believe that Jesus lied! In John 7:8, their Jesus said to his brothers, I am not going to the feast. No, not me, not going. He waits and then goes! Liar! Blasphemy. Jesus actually said, I am not going yet, not now. He waits and then goes. No problem. No lie! Many refuse to believe because there are contradictions in bible. Many are because of eye witness accounts. The fact that a particular thing happened is proven by witnesses. This is used in a court of law. In fact, if all totally agreed, many would say they made it up. Please note the amount of times Jesus quoted scriptures that prophesied His coming. How Peter stressed the importance of scripture when he stated that Paul wrote scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 It is to be read. Consider this also: In 1 Peter 5, Peter wote to the church elders, calling himself an elder, saying, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. You must be born again. John 3:3 and John 3:5. To be born of ghe flesh is flesh, to be born of the Spirit is spirit. Jesus said in John.6:63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth (gives life); the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." You must be born again. John 3:7.

[@TreeOfLifeWoodworking]

Easy to claim its a walk in the park when you preach heresies and twist the word of God

[@generalguy6211]

I have too much bias to enjoy this debate, for example I could not take Steve seriously after denying the perpetual virginity. It feels like a few generations from now protestants will claim that new scholarship proves that "all generations will call me blessed" is a gross mistranslation. It troubles me a bit that Trent rejects material sufficiency of scripture, when sacred tradition seems to affirm it. All these things aside, Matt, Steve is a very nice and kind little guy and has greatly strengthened me in my Catholic faith, thank you for having him on.

[@generalguy6211]

@YAJUN YUAN Completely agree. Sorry if I made it seem like my second line follows from my first.

[@JeansiByxan]

Nice backhanded compliment at the end there.

[@Justas399]

Matthew 13:55-56 disproves the perpetual virginity of Mary.

[@coolmuso6108]

@@jpc9923 Because what type of marriage to Joseph would this be? Some fake guardianship marriage which has no precedence in the Scriptures?

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Hi, Guy. Thanks for your comment. With respect to your third paragraph on the material sufficiency of Scripture, I think that the best understanding of Trent's position is that, in debate, the best approach is to steel man your opponent's argument, so that your refutation successfully addresses itself to your opponent's position while avoiding involved digressions. Thus, Trent could say something like, "Okay, sure; let's say that Scripture does not [whether explicitly or implicitly] teach the Assumption of Mary. We are left with two insurmountable obstacles for your [and if you want to put in a dig: man made] doctrine that Mary was not assumed into Heaven. The first is that Scripture definitely does not explicitly teach that Mary was not assumed, so you have no grounds to teach that it did not happen. The second is that Scripture both teaches that teaching authority rests with the Apostles who had successors and that Scripture does not teach that Scripture is the sole teaching authority. When you put all of these things together with the teaching of the Church that Mary was assumed, you have no grounds for denying me the freedom to receive that teaching." This leaves Trent in the stronger position of identifying the contradiction between denying doctrine and affirming that doctrine must be only what is positively affirmed in Scripture.

[@jxosh.m]

before listening to trent horn i was discerning catholicism. after listening to trent horn i am convicted of the truth of catholicism, and in ocia 😂

[@emoore1439]

Honestly love these debates. Two men who love the Bible and Jesus talking it out trying to find the ultimate truth

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

They are inspiring to our faith, whichever side you fall on.

[@CapnPicard]

if Jesus had siblings why give his mother to John, and not a brother?

[@Valued_Member_of_the_Community]

Man, Steve started so confidently and then just got absolutely dunked on the entire debate. Fs in the chat for our boy.

[@nightshade99]

Steve held firm the entire time. What video were YOU watching?

[@Valued_Member_of_the_Community]

@@nightshade99 holding firm and actually being persuasive are two very different things.

[@nightshade99]

@@Valued_Member_of_the_Community Steve WAS persuasive. There was nothing that he said that wasn't supported by scripture or language analysis. But let's be honest, RCC followers refuse to admit these things.

[@Valued_Member_of_the_Community]

@@nightshade99 keep watching these debates and I'll pray for you in the meantime! You'll be home before you know it.

[@nightshade99]

@@Valued_Member_of_the_Community I am well ahead of you with the research. Yes, pray for me because we are all sinners. Get off the wide road and onto the narrow, kiddo. While one is still breathing it is not too late for you to come to the true Christ.

[@jamie3958]

Which authority does Steve appeal to for believing in the canonization of 27 writings called 'New Testament Scripture' ?

[@Justas399]

Christ is the one who guided the church on which books would be Scripture for the NT. Christ is the one who made those books inspired-inerrant Word of God. No church did that.

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

@@Justas399 So, Christ guided his church as to the proper NT canon, but he stopped guiding that said church to the truth? Is that your position? And how do you know Christ guided the church to the right canon? If he isn’t guiding that church today, how do you know he was guiding it during canonization?

[@cdeep4548]

@@Justas399 I will give you credit. You need to have a lot of faith to believe that. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@jzak5723]

@@Justas399 No Catholic would disagree with that, since we believe the Holy Spirit guides and teaches the Church to all truth.

[@jamie3958]

@@Justas399 Basically, those who claim the Marian dogmas contradict Scripture are appealing to the Church's authority on the NT canon against the Church's authority on the mother of Christ. The Church's Scriptures can't contradict the Church's dogmas because Christ's authority is the source of both. Christ is head of His Church in the 19th century as well as in the 4th century. Pope Pius IX and Pope Damasus I belong to the same divinely established human institution.

[@JesusChurchBible]

It's tough to argue with the church that has been around since the beginning. All these questions I've already been figured out by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of popes bishops and priests. Now we have random pastors at 40,000 Protestant churches read the Bible and all the sudden come up with their own conclusions and think that they are correct. How can a Protestant pastor who has been on the earth for 30 or 40 or 50 years be wiser and more knowledgeable about the scriptures then the church that has been around for over 2,000 years? They've already figured all these questions out it's in the Catholic catechism. Pride and confusion of Martin Luther is still strong today. Grown men think so highly of themselves even though they are Christian that they know better than thousands of years of dedicated Christians before them. God bless you all. 😁🙏🏻🤍✝️

[@franciscositja4079]

Amen.

[@lupelo8819]

The Roman catholic church is not christianity.Never was and never will be..!! It is not the Church Christ build on the Rock.Christ Church is not a physical structure of any kind.Ephesians6:23:30..even as Christ is the head of the church:and he is the Saviour of the body.Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,..even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.That He might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.For we are members of his body,of his flesh,and of his bones. *Christ is the Rock on whom he build his church * Christ is the head of his church *Christ is also the Saviour of the body (all born again believers sanctified by his word) *HIS church(all born again believers) is subject unto Christ. All born again believers in Jesus Christ make up the church he build on the Rock which is his church.Matthew 16:18...And upon this Rock I will build "MY CHURCH"..JESUS SAID.."MY CHURCH"..IT'S JESUS 'CHURCH'...!!!

[@anhgiangho]

@@lupelo8819nd because of this the world will have another church called “Jesus Church” and you probably will be it’s pastor. You see there? Keep dividing…like our Lord warns us. Just quote a verse in the Bible and anyone can suddenly become the translator of God’s teachings

[@lupelo8819]

THERE WAS NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING THE APOSTLES LIVES AFTER THEY BUILD CHRIST CHURCH IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WERE BEING SAVED BY THE PREACHING OF THE APOSTLES.REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED INTHE NAME OF JESUS FOR THE REMISSION(FORGIVENESS) OF SINS WAS THEIR PREACHING.MATTHEW 16:18...AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD "MY CHURCH"...JESUS SAID "MY CHURCH".. IT'S JESUS' CHURCH...!! IT'S JESUS CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING AT PENTECOST..!! GOD POURED HIS HOLY SPIRIT ALL THEM THAT BELIEVED IN JESUS AS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR..!! JESUS CHURCH BUILD ON THE ROCK STARTED AT PENTECOST. IF PETER WAS THE SUCCESSOR OF CHRIST,WHERE IS PETER AS POPE LEADING CHRIST CHURCH AT PENTECOST??THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN'T EXIST AT PENTECOST.

[@anhgiangho]

@@lupelo8819 you don’t have to put your reply in CAP mode. It won’t make your point anymore persuasive. When Lord Jesus said to bring an issue to the Church to finalize. That can not be a spiritual Church. It has to The Church that He built. We all know when was that is. Or else, you would bring an issue to this Baptist church and they said no, you can’t do it. Then you are not satisfied so you bring it to the second Baptist church down the road and they said yes, you can do it then what you will do? Do it or do not do it? You see my point? There must be a The Church to help guide you and what church is that but the Church Jesus built on Peter?

[@bm-outdoors]

I have a doctrine that says the little children that Jesus blessed in Mark 10 have all authority. Under Trent premise, since no one can show me where scripture contradicts this, then it can be true. We can make up all kinds of doctrine that cannot be refuted by scripture

[@soulfulmeditation.smoothre7746]

Thank you Steve! I'm a Catholic converted to Protestantism.

[@ColleenB10]

This man will spend the rest of his life trying to disprove Catholicism. I can only imagine if he put that much effort into spreading the true gospel. Lord have mercy!

[@artvanderlay1308]

Is Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven the true gospel? (The Catholic Church excommunicates anyone that doesn’t believe this dogma)

[@reneeharagsim4720]

It will be hard to disprove THE TRUTH.

[@brittoncain5090]

@@artvanderlay1308 I'm unsure whether the Marian dogmas would be classified as the Gospel, but they're all true and at the very least related to and shed a great amount of light on Christ's life.

[@AnaBrigidaGomez]

Trent clearly won. The Marian Dogmas don't contradict scripture. Baby steps.

[@nightshade99]

Of course they do.

[@essafats5728]

@@nightshade99 and who gave u the authority to say so?

[@thephilosopherfromdixie7466]

@@nightshade99 Do you know what a contradiction is? A and not A in the same respect at the same time. For scriptures to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, you'd have to have the Bible explicitly affirming that she had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus or affirming explicitly that she had other children. The scriptures say no such thing.

[@nightshade99]

@@essafats5728 Scripture

[@nightshade99]

@@thephilosopherfromdixie7466 YOU: Do you know what a contradiction is? ME: Yes YOU: A and not A in the same respect at the same time. ME: No, it is a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. YOU: For scriptures to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, you'd have to have the Bible explicitly affirming that she had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus ME: No, you are using an Argument From Silence. You are not allowed to ADD your own doctrine because of a lack of doctrine. YOU: or affirming explicitly that she had other children. The scriptures say no such thing. ME: The scripture DOES state that. Learn the Bible!

[@jmctigret]

Great job Trent!

[@God-Will-ing]

1:31:47 this is not a strong argument from Trent. Exalting the image of a holy artifact and praying before a holy artifact is something that should be practiced vary carefully as it leads to worship vary easily as seen in the Old Testament. The cross Jesus was crucified on should be preserved and importance recognized, but no more worshipped than a museum artifact (recognizing it would be more important than most artifacts). It should be something that helps you feel connected to God and closer to him, but raising to a divine level would be a degree worship.

[@frankjamesiii5362]

I love this. Trent and Steve should debate the authority of the Church. Or Apostallic Succession.

[@amyfenner3412]

Or sola scriptura

[@MMonika3]

I love Trent so much!! Thank you for defending our Catholic faith. The fullness of the truth is with us❤️

[@veritasmuy2407]

What is Truth ? Savior Jesus (John 14:6). Who gives Truth ? Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, 1John 2:27). *Who is indwelled by Truth ? ALL Believers in Jesus Christ* (John 14:23). The Truth is not in the Roman Church -- RC's believe in a completely different Jesus than the Jesus of the NT written by the Original Church.

[@marvalice3455]

the offering for mothers is part of the ritual purity law, not the moral law. even than, you can offer something to God without bring required to. bringing up sacrifices is moot.

[@tabandken8562]

"Hail Holy Queen, MOTHER OF MERCY, our life, our sweetness, and our hope" What did the original author REALLY intend here? Is he really saying Mary is our life, our sweetness, and our hope? OR Is he REALLY saying Jesus is our life, our sweetness, and our hope? Because the prayer acknowledges Jesus, who is Mercy that Mary is the Mother of, that immediately proceeds that line. I read it that the prayer is saying Jesus is our life, our sweetness, and our hope, and then it goes back to addressing Mary in the rest of the prayer to beg her to pray for us.

[@cronmaker2]

Many Marian devotions are like that - they need to be read in the context of the community and tradition they come from, rather than just isolated lines here and there. It's like atheists hearing one line of a traditional Christian prayer regarding the Trinity and assuming Christians are polytheists.

[@tiagomendesvisscher9030]

I’m searching. I’m raised Dutch reformed, but feel drawn to the catholic church. Love the debate and listen to a whole lot from Trent, however I feel all he did here was say: “well, scripture doesn’t explicitly deny immaculate conception” While what I would love to see as well is, where do you even get that idea and what about it makes it a necessary idea?

[@2wheelz3504]

Trent is a great debater, and his arguments are well-founded in most cases. However, these arguments are totally without merit - TOTALITY. His allusions to Scripture are not only a stretch but make it impossible for me to willingly suspend my disbelief for even a second. Catholic Mariology is no more than a figment of Trent's and the Catholic Church's imagination. It is 100% based on Church tradition without a grain of support from Scripture. Trent does not usually do this. Steve's arguments, on the other hand, were Scriptural and exegetical. This was not even close unless you are one of those "whatever the Church says" folks.

[@brendansheehan6180]

So, Steve's position is that everyone in Church history has been wrong except for him and like a couple other people in the 18th century. The lucky few, I guess.

[@billmoran6957]

Pope Steve Christie I

[@Justas399]

Not everyone in history believed in the Marian dogmas.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@Justas399 According to....

[@brendansheehan6180]

@YAJUN YUAN 1. I don't think he has a decent understanding of past Pope's. 2. Pope's can get things wrong, and do.

[@coolmuso6108]

Firstly, you can’t prove that everyone in Church history believed it. And secondly, there are prominent Catholics throughout history who disagreed with these dogmas.

[@cynthiajohnson8463]

Trent’s last 4 minutes!!! Boom!!!!!!! He nailed it!!!!!!!! Love my Catholic faith. Love my mother Mary❤️🌸🌺🌷🙏🏼

[@nightshade99]

You obviously do not understand true Christianity.

[@hap1678]

@@nightshade99 1500s beliefs and your questioning an Apostolic faith 💀

[@nightshade99]

@@hap1678 You do not know my beliefs. Do you always project erroneous statements on to other people? The RCC is a false system.

[@4309chris]

@@nightshade99 enlighten us, oh keeper of truth and knowledge

[@nightshade99]

@@4309chris What question do you want answered, kiddo?

[@marvalice3455]

ngl, I came away from this significantly less convinced that scripture contradicts the marian dogmas. Steve gave it a good try, but he it sure seems scripture doesn't say anything contrary to them xD

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

I can show you. Yes the third one, but I think the third one might be true. Theres Genesis 2 talking about the first Adam, representing when Jesus would be virgin born. Thats why its mentioning that the land is bare when he makes man from it. Like Mar's virgin body. And the phrase is "The Lord had not yet caused rain to fall on the earth, not yet a man to till the soil." Also the language at the nativity in Matthew adds up quite well "Before they came together she was found to be with child" So they were intending to when they get married. And "He took her as his wife and did not know her until not she birthed her first son." "Until not this happens" usually means something wont happen only before that other thing. And Marks way of saying Jesus is virgin born is in Mark 3, by asking about his biological conections. And so they dont mention his father, only mother, and the brothers are mentioned. She's not sinless because she's taliing about God saving her by being conceived by her. And just as it was through Eve humans are lost, its through Mary people are saved and so she's talking about that salvation.

[@brittoncain5090]

@@isaacleillhikar4566 All these points are addressed in the debate already, and were shown why they don't disprove the Marian dogmas.

[@theperegrinecatholic2892]

There is also nothing in Scripture that contradicts the Communion of Saints.

[@marvalice3455]

@@theperegrinecatholic2892 exactly. it's almost as if cutting all this away is foolish

[@marvalice3455]

@YAJUN YUAN how.

[@gianpopo2007]

I hit the like button a little while after you finished saying to do it to give myself a little autonomy in the action 😁

[@jvlp2046]

Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation in around 110 A.D. According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D. Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc... After the Written WORD of God was COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christians... This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking. The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen..

[@carlnebrin]

Mark 7:9 “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”

[@jvlp2046]

@@carlnebrin EXACTLY!... Some Churches will do everything to bend and twist the Commandments and the Laws of God just to FIT their desire to HOLD ON to their own Spoken/Oral/Verbal TRADITION that contradicts the WRITTEN (WORD of God) TRADITION... St. Paul warned us all (True Christians who worship God in Spirit and in Truth), "DO NOT GO BEYOND/EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN." (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6)... if we DO Exceed, God's CURSE (Anathema/Eternal condemnation) will fall upon us... (ref. Galatians 1:8)....Amen.

[@thuscomeguerriero]

I would be happy to consider any "traditions" the Apostles relayed to the Church. Just tell me which said traditions were in fact handed down by the Apostles.. You're on

[@jvlp2046]

​@@thuscomeguerrieroOnly those 1st Cent. A.D. People who witnessed after Christ Jesus had died around 30-33 A.D. knew all those Oral/Spoken Tradition before any Written N.T. Scriptures (Epistles, Gospels, Acts, and Revelation) had been provided for the Early 7 CHURCHES of God in Christ Jesus in Asia Minor... Take Note: The Written Epistles of Peter, James, and Paul only started around 60 A.D. ... the 4 Gospels were started only after the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70 A.D. ... the Complete Individual Written N.T. Scriptures including the Revelation (not yet compiled as a book/Bible) around 110 A.D. Apostle John attested and claimed that there were many OTHER things that Christ Jesus had done that were not written down... (ref. John 21:25)... We (True Christians) should just need without any DOUBT to believe what the Apostle had said... WHY?... because, Christ Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed." (ref. John 20:29)... Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically with a little common sense speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.

[@thuscomeguerriero]

@@jvlp2046 Again, simply demonstrate these "traditions" are in fact Apostolic. Saying there were teachings relayed by the Apostles which weren't written down is certainly believable. All you need to do is tell me how we know exactly any tradition so-called in question is in fact Apostolic

[@judithkrus4669]

Our Lady told Bernadette that she is the Immaculate Conception. That’s all the proof I need.

[@lullabiesofthedusk]

God bless you Judith and the little baby💓

[@nightshade99]

That was Satan

[@essafats5728]

@@nightshade99 yeah, u are Satan

[@judithkrus4669]

@@nightshade99 you are sick and misguided. You need prayers

[@nightshade99]

@@essafats5728 No, I am not an angel

[@DevinWardMusic]

Though I am much more understanding of how Catholic believe what they do, the Papacy is the one things I feel is the hardest thing to fully embrace as a Protestant. If the Papacy is true I would have to rethink my view of Sola Scriptura which I know many Catholics reject and allows for these extra doctrines and dogmas espoused by the Catholic Church. I am very much along the line of Cameron Bertuzzi on this matter. I have not heard nor can find a clear case for the Papacy that would convince me. Looking forward to see more of Cameron’s findings.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

Did Cameron manage to convince you?

[@DevinWardMusic]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 I think he did some great research, but I wasn’t fully convinced. Part of what converted Cameron was his Bayesian analysis which is high subjective, versus objective truth. In his personal convictions he felt the evidence was compelling based on his analysis. I work with monks on a daily basis at a Catholic monastery and school, so I have had many good discussions with many priests on this over the past year, but I cannot see significant evidence pointing to the papacy and I think the recent debate on Pints with Aquinas between Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Trent Horn was also very compelling but though I can understand and entertain the ideas of the catholic view, my conscious cannot be convinced that sola scriptura is false. I remain evangelical in my convictions.

[@Floridiansince94]

Luke 1:39-45 “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leapt for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.” There is no way that God would choose a sinful woman to bear his Son/himself/Holy Spirit

[@123jinson]

Nothing is impossible to god because medical science prove that mother and baby’s blood don’t get mixed. When you come further on that passage Mary says that “my spirit hath rejoiced in God My saviour “. If Mary is sinless why does she need a saviour. Where and what is she getting saved from??

[@markquioas6097]

Wow this is a great Debate.Steve just did a great job refuting Marian dogmas.Trent is arguing from silence.

[@dzikdziki2983]

If praying for Marys intercession is false what of all those miracles that happen when people do it?

[@matthewpaolantonio634]

Steve's view of the atonement is so ridiculous that he thinks that if it weren't for Jesus receiving the imputation of guilt (which is already false doctrine) that He was immune to suffering and death. Logically that would mean that Jesus was completely impassible before the crucifixion. That's obviously absurd and easily falsifiable. And that wasn't even the main topic of the debate! Protestantism is really a complete non-starter.

[@Justas399]

So 2 Corinthians 5:21 is false? Jesus did not become sin?

[@matthewpaolantonio634]

Sin is not a thing to "become." 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a statement about the Incarnation similar to Romans 8:3. Namely that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. Christ was made "to be sin" by taking on our passible human nature. NOT through any imputed guilt of sins He didn't commit.

[@Justas399]

@@matthewpaolantonio634 The sins of His followers who imputed to Christ and He was punished for those sins as their Substitute. They were imputed to Him because He did not sin. " For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh," Romans 8:3

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@Justas399 Rambling nonsense.

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@Justas399 Typical protestant illiteracy, based in the heresy of sola scriptura... Jesus did not sin. He took on the sins of the world and died with them. To claim otherwise is a blasphemy against God, himself, unless you also believe in the heresy of Arianism...

[@bguman]

It would make zero sense that Jesus Christ would come through a vessel (Mary) tainted with sin. The argument ends with that simple premise. Evidently, some Protestants come to an illogical conclusion the Mother of God would have sin before Christ and/or after Christ. Simply foolish and heretical.

[@nightshade99]

That is just an opinion piece not supported by scripture. Why would God be affected by a vessel of sin? He is God.

[@thephilosopherfromdixie7466]

The protestant appears to have completely misunderstood the debate topic. The topic isnt "are these doctrines supported by scripture." The topic was "are these doctrines contradicted by scripture." Accusing Trent of eisegesis or arguing that these words are normally used in this way only makes sense if he's trying to argue against these doctrines being supported by scripture. But that wasnt the topic.

[@thephilosopherfromdixie7466]

@YAJUN YUAN Where does scripture say that Jesus was the only sinless human? Also, the context matters. The context is Jesus being asked whether divorce and remarriage is permissible for any reason. Hes simply not addressing the question of whether married couples can be celibate.

[@GalnRomnEph320]

This kinda stuff always makes me ponder whether or not those being persecuted in other nations for the gospel of Christ ever have time to sit around and debate such nonsense. It’s about Jesus!! He also saved mary. That would be a good place to start n end.

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!