Mike Winger’s inconsistency toward Jesus and Mary

[@Lupen69]

It was actually Mike Winger who brought me here. I was watching his videos on Catholicism and I thought I'd like to hear the opposite side defend itself so I searched up "Mike Winger Catholicism rebuttal" and now I've been enjoying your videos for who knows how long haha

[@tessa7413]

You are a rational thinker, and honest truth seeker! God bless!

[@jayjackson5932]

Same. I started watching Trent based on suggested KZbin videos after subscribing to Mike Winger's channel. Good job KZbin algorithm. Both good content, sometimes gold.

[@Lupen69]

@@jayjackson5932 dialogue between them when? Haha

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@Lupen69 Sadly, Mike doesn't want this.

[@williammagsambol2143]

Become Catholic ;)

[@alistairkentucky-david9344]

Shoutout for the best popular Marian book I have ever read: Dr. Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary". Phenomenal. It covers in great yet accessible detail the Old Testament basis for all Marian Dogma (and much doctrine too).

[@PopCultureCatechism]

I second this. Dr Pitre has done some amazing work.

[@mickyfrazer786]

The lesser known yoda quote "Always inspiring, Pitre is!"

[@jattebaleyos116]

It is also easy to read and understand

[@megbonita]

Yes. Get the book.

[@Anyone690]

Yes! I recommend this all the time (and I am an aspiring Bible Scholar)

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

“Typology” doesn’t behave as an efficient cause of Dogma, but rather is a testimonial proof of the Church’s adherence to the word of God. When Peter and the Council of Jerusalem declared definitely that Circumcision is void, the “scriptural proofs” didn’t bring this to light for Peter but the scriptures were useful for Paul in combating those who rejected the council. Hence, when Paul speaks to the Galatians he first mentions the councils ruling and then goes on to ask the Galatians “who bewitched your?” Then, he argues against their assumption that the word doesn’t contain what has been explicitly revealed at the Council. He does this by arguing from typology. But Paul’s words are very harsh. “You who want to be UNDER THE LAW do you hear it?” Why “under the Law?” Because they rejected the clear ruling of the council and the dogma that all must adhere to, thinking it contrary to their scriptures. Then Paul shows their own scriptures they boasted in to reject the councils ruling, actually contains the councils ruling typologically hidden within. Thus, the first proof for a Dogma is that “it’s been revealed by God to the Church.” If the Church declares its definitive then its definitive. The Scriptures are a further witness that serves as a “reproof” for those who reject that the Church is the Bride of Christ. Ironically, those who reject the Word of Gods Church do so on the basis of the word of God.

[@ironymatt]

Very well put. I would only add to your concluding statement that they do so on the basis of *their interpretation* of the word of God. They, as do all us followers of Christ, see through a glass but darkly.

[@danielhaas9469]

@Nick B rocks this is just false! The OT does in fact state that God ultimately wants circumcision of the heart: Moses had long before prophesied: "Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6, Which is guess what in the bible. to cite such a declaration that the Church gave us this "New" dogma to the early church is false and in error. The first covenant did in fact require the Jews to be circumcised to belong to God. This was an outwardly expression that you are inwardly devoted to God. God on the other hand found fault with this as stated above in Moses prophecy that God will circumcise the heart instead. How does this therefore relate to the book of Acts during the Council of Jerusalem? Well, Paul as he was preaching became aware that others were preaching the Gospel but was requiring them the Gentiles to be circumcised first and then you are saved. Paul debating with them at first arguing that he witnessed the Holy Spirit descend upon the Gentiles(Uncircumcised) just the same way as the Jews(circumcised). As a result, in order to ensure he wasn't running the race in vain he met up with Peter and the other Apostles to discuss this issue. Thus, the council of Jerusalem began: Much debate and arguing broke out and then Peter stood up and spoke saying: This practice was even hard for us why therefore should be burden them with this yoke? Then Paul and Barnabas bore witness that the Holy Spirit descended up them in the same way. Then, James the Bishop at Jerusalem agreed with Peter and Paul and declared that it is not part of salvation and cited a verse that also indicates a change in bringing others outside of Israel into the fold. Therefore, even Paul, Peter, James all references the Old testament as a source when declaring a judgement on how one ought to be saved. God can not be usurped or disrupted in any way but through Christ just as the Father sent the Son so does the Son send/gave us the holy orders for us to follow.

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@@danielhaas9469 Thanks for your reply. Right now I am tossing to and fro in my mind as to rather or not I should even respond. For I grow tired of these mere trifles. For the sake of my sanity and seeing no fruit from this engagement (your response is already characteristic of those who don’t actually want to engage) I prefer to just say simply, good day and thanks for your opinion.

[@danielhaas9469]

@@MountAthosandAquinas Well that is unfortunate, if however; you change your mind please reach out as I greatly love speaking about God to my follow Christians: When I see errors within a theological context while trying to draw parallels to the church as if it divorces Gods word troubles me. But go and peace and may the love of God bring you great joy!

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@On Fire In Christ Sigh. The scriptures you laid out do not disprove (even slightly) what I have written. Rather then spend time engaging with you (doesn’t even seem fruitful) I will simply say that the Jews (who possess the Scriptures) don’t believe Jesus is biblically sound either. They would reject Him as the “new Adam” would reject Him as the “Isaac” (Paul calls him in Galatians) reject Him as Israel (Matthew calls Him) and reject Him as the second Person of the Trinity. In short, your way of thinking is in accords with theirs, only with Mary. As they don’t see Him ANYWHERE in the Scriptures, neither do you see the Blessed Mother. Blessings

[@carolinafine8050]

Winger’s comment “but Elizabeth wasn’t leaping”…. Is so desperate. I feel bad for him as he says it. Like someone who isn’t convinced but trying to convince himself and others.

[@Nolongeraslave]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6GadXyHo7eMhZo I think in this one you may hear that Winger's comment was not that desperate.

[@cactoidjim1477]

Or it could be a great ProLife passage showing how two Persons can share the same identity. That Winger doesn't even allow for potential interpretations when discussing symbolism is troubling.

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: Winger’s comment “but Elizabeth wasn’t leaping”…. Is so desperate. *ME: It was John The Baptist leaping for joy at the presence of JESUS -- because John was the One sent by GOD to go before Jesus and turn the hearts of God's people back to GOD as prophesied in Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6* -- so says JESUS in Matthew 11:10-14. No one was leaping at the presence of Mary -- *Mary was totally UN-important to the Original Jewish Church -- they were ALL focused on KING DAVID* -- see Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:9, John 7:42, Romans 1:3, etc *Even the GLORIFIED JESUS was ONLY focused on King David -- claiming to be the OFFSPRING OF KING DAVID, not the offspring of Mary -- see Revelation 22:16* Mary was ONLY chosen because she was a descendant of King David -- Luke 1:32, Luke 3:23-39 -- *Mary had King David's DNA in her and could pass it on to Jesus who would eventually be the KING OF THE JEWS (Matthew 2:2) that will sit on his father King David's Jewish throne in Jerusalem in Revelation 20:4-6.*

[@merkon9442]

Typologically, it would have had to have been Elizabeth leaping. Mary is the Ark, no? But even if John is leaping, the typology still doesn’t work. John is leaping at Jesus, which would type David as leaping at the Ten Commandments. That’s just not it. Instead, the typology would suggest (if we wrongly assume John is typological of David), that David was leaping at the four men carrying the Ark, as Mary carried Jesus.

[@KjoNiels]

@@merkon9442 I disagree. First, it says when Elizabeth heard MARY’s greeting, the child in her womb leapt. Why would it need to be Elizabeth who leapt? It seems clearly to point to Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant. Nobody is arguing that Elizabeth nor John the Baptist are types of King David.

[@טמוציןבורגיגין]

You've really opened my mind to Marian typology, which I have never considered or even known about before. Thank you!!

[@nightshade99]

It's all demonic

[@johnvitelli3862]

@@nightshade99 your demonic to go after Jesus Christ Mother the Theotokos.

[@michaelharrington6698]

@@nightshade99 oof

[@nightshade99]

@@michaelharrington6698 I know, right?

[@andreeattieh2963]

@@nightshade99 tilma of our lady of Guadalupe says it's not demonic Neither science nor protestants can explain it

[@manasabadaset8096]

Thank you Trent for your eye opening videos ,I am a Catholic from India ,I face so many question from many protestant people all around me ...I was unable to answer their objections about catholic belief,I was always embarrassed being unable to answer their objection,now i know my faith and more proud to be a Catholic

[@roseg1333]

Amen Brother bless you for wanting to learn more about our faith. Bless you 🙏🏼🕊❤️

[@duckymomo7935]

Probably because Catholicism is just flat out wrong and requires mental gymnastics

[@veritasmuy2407]

Is Rome right that DEATH entered the world by the WOMAN/Eve ?? Or is Apostle Paul right that DEATH entered the world by ONE MAN/Adam (Romans 5:12) thus no need for a "new Eve" ?? Is Rome right that Mary is the "new Eve" that crushes Satan ?? *Or is Apostle Paul right that Death/SATAN were crushed/destroyed by ONE MAN/Jesus dying on the cross (Hebrews 2:14)* -- Jesus is the SEED of Israel -- Isaiah 65:9 -- that has ALREADY crushed Satan's head/power (Genesis 3:15) Is Rome right that Mary's name is part of "redemption/salvation" and thus she is "co-Redemptrix" alongside Jesus as Redeemer ?? *Or is Apostle PETER right that there is NO OTHER NAME by which we are redeemed/saved than the name of JESUS ALONE* (Acts 4:12) -- *so Mary's name is NOT part of Redemption/Salvation -- Mary is NOT co-Redemptrix.* CHOOSE whom you will believe, you can't follow Rome AND also the Apostles/Canon because they CONTRADICT each other.....

[@SirvietheBlueWolf]

@@veritasmuy2407 Thanks. You can see the lies with Marian and Catholic doctrine too

[@jasonwhisler8209]

Care to explain why you would say this?​@@duckymomo7935

[@kevydjegnan3393]

Trent is so smart. Thank God he became Catholic! I wonder how he stays so humble... When I started studying the faith, I became a little arrogant and hard hearted...

[@nightshade99]

But remain naive?

[@roseg1333]

I think it’s the fruit of the religion most Catholics I’ve met even on the internet are very humble and kind a few are arrogant but it shows how well we follow the faith and if we are falling into sin or not.

[@mjramirez6008]

@Alain Hight Luckily you stay so well informed and highly alert dear brother, keep on commenting

[@roseg1333]

@@mjramirez6008 I’m sorry but you guys are misguided. we don’t need you guys to help convert us we already believe and follow Jesus.

[@duckymomo7935]

Trent is smart but not good, he’s trying to enforce bad teaching’s

[@St_Pablo298]

Very strong rebuttal here. Not Catholic, but the typology between Mary and the Ark is very strong. To deny it is to reveal your bias.

[@veritasmuy2407]

*Now Believers are indwelled by Jesus (John 14:23), does that mean that Believers are the Ark ?* Besides, the most important part of the OT Ark that represented JESUS and God's mercy on a lost Mankind, was the MERCY SEAT -- and the Mercy Seat was NOT INSIDE THE ARK, it was on top/the lid of the Ark. See Ephesians 2:4-9 and compare Exodus 25:18-22 with John 20:12. Mary is not the Ark. *EVERYTHING about the Ark represented JESUS, the Savior of Mankind -- the Mercy Seat, the bread, the high priest rod, the Law, the gold, the wood, the two angels, etc.*

[@nightshade99]

Or it reveals your discernment from the Holy Spirit

[@St_Pablo298]

I agree that the center of salvation is Christ, but we have to at least admit the similarities between Mary carrying the Lord and the Ark carrying the manna, the priestly staff, and the law are obvious. I am still wrestling with the Marian dogmas of the Church; however, I feel we Protestants have pushed her completely to the side in many ways. She is forever Christ’s mother. Only two people can say they saw their son die on the cross for humanity, God the Father and Mary. The role of the queen mother to the one who sits on the throne of David is laid out in scripture. Even the early reformers held a very reverent opinion of Mary. Jesus is and forever will be our sole means of salvation; however, this doesn’t necessitate our pushing Mary completely out of view.

[@nightshade99]

@@St_Pablo298 Mary is not divine

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@St_Pablo298 YOU: "we have to at least admit the similarities between Mary carrying the Lord and the Ark carrying the manna, the priestly staff, and the law are obvious." -- *ME: Nope. Because the MOST IMPORTANT part of the Ark that represented Jesus and our New Covenant with GOD, was the MERCY SEAT -- Jesus being the mercy of GOD toward a lost and sinful world* (see Ephesians 2:4-9, 1Peter 1:3, Hebrews 8:12-13, Titus 3:5, etc. And the MERCY SEAT was NOT INSIDE the Ark -- it was the lid/on top of the Ark (Exodus 40:20). *So how can you say that Mary is the Ark because she carried INSIDE HER the items that represented Jesus, when the most important part of the Ark that represented Jesus was NOT INSIDE the Ark ??* JESUS Himself is the Ark. *EVERYTHING about the Ark represents Savior Jesus -- the wood, the gold, bread/manna, law, high priest rod, Mercy Seat, presence of GOD -- even the two angels -- see John 20:12 and Exodus 25:18-22.*

[@coachp12b]

Protestants on passages like these: “Nope no connection to see here. Just Catholics reading something into an unrelated text. typology schmypology.” Atheists and Jews on the same passages: “passages like these texts from the Gospel are so closely connected it’s obvious the Gospel isn’t historical, the author just copied straight from the Old Testament!” 🤦🏻‍♂️ Ave Maria ora pro nobis peccatoribus

[@AdirondackCarlist]

Real

[@donhaddix3770]

it obvious catholic claims lie

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

What gets to me is the absolute lack of deference Winger has upon encountering this tradition of the hermeneutics of typology and deforms it to serve _HIM._ When he doesn't like it it's "gobbledygook", but whenever it pleases him it's sola scriptura.... The arrogance of these people is quite frankly grotesque.

[@computationaltheist7267]

Hey there my friend. It's good to see that you're around.

[@tessa7413]

They're charlatans. I think many of the pastors (at least deep down) know that they're being dishonest.

[@takmaps]

Facts qwerty

[@michaelmoll1214]

@@tessa7413 That's so extreme a statement. I am one of those pastors, and I come here to listen and truly understand the Catholic view on Mary. I know Mike well, and that man is no charlatan. He seeks to please God with every fiber of his being. If Marian doctrine is true (I am undecided at this point), then our Blessed Lord will lead me (and Mike) to that truth in HIS own timing. Show love and grace, not impatience and vile insults.

[@pedrogutierrez1547]

Yes. He has to be dishonest if he wants to keep his pastor gig at his local Bible church. Coming to the truth would probably mean he would need to get a real job.

[@strikevipermkII]

I love how you give so much context to the people you refute. It just goes to show the strength of Catholic doctrine.

[@veritasmuy2407]

LOL. So lets read John 19:25-27 within its CONTEXT and ask ourselves: Did Jesus tell ALL of the believers at the foot of his cross that Mary was THEIR mother ?? No, Jesus selected ONE GUY out of the crowd of believes and told that ONE GUY to take care of Mary as his own mother -- and from that hour that ONE GUY took Mary to his own personal home. *So WITHIN CONTEXT, how does Trent and the Vatican come to the private interpretation that Jesus was making Mary the mother of ALL believers ???*

[@strikevipermkII]

@@veritasmuy2407 Add it to Revelation, and Mary is the Queen of Heaven, mother of Christ. She also is the representation of the Church itself, given that the disciples placed the deposit of faith in the Church they created, just as God placed Christ in Mary. You cannot divorce one piece of scripture from the rest of scripture to suit your own ends. The typology is there, you just disagree with it.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@strikevipermkII YOU: "add it to Revelation, and Mary is the Queen of Heaven, mother of Christ" -- *ME: What ?? 1)). Jesus made it clear that BELIEVERS were his true "mother", and that Mary being his physical mom was of no importance in the Kingdom of GOD* -- see Matthew 12:46-50. 2)). *Mary is not mentioned in Revelation -- the Woman of Rev 12:1 is the physical 12Tribes of Jacob/ISRAEL as described in Genesis 37:9-10.* Mary can not be the Woman Rev 12 because the Woman is ON EARTH during the last 3.5 years being persecuted by Satan (Rev 12:12-17) -- Mary is in Heaven along with all the other Believers that have physically died these past 2000 years. 3)) *The "queen" is the BRIDE of the King -- not the King's mother (Psalm 45).* In patriarchal Judaism the mother of the King is totally unimportant and NEVER reigned with her son, the King. And you might want to take note that in order to be a Queen, a woman had to be married to a King -- like Bathsheba was married to King David -- and even Bathsheba was only called the "wife" of the King, not the queen -- and she had no power in the Kingdom of her son (1Kings 2). And you might also NOTE that Saul, David, and Jesus' moms were NOT married to Kings, and therefore were NEVER seen as a "queen" or a "queen mother" by the Jews/Jewish Church -- that is why you can't find ANY verses in God's Scripture to back you up.. I don't know where you got the idea that Mary was a queen of anything cuz it certainly is found no where in Holy Scripture, OT or NT.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@strikevipermkII YOU: "She also is the representation of the Church itself, given that the disciples placed the deposit of faith in the Church they created" -- *ME: First: the Woman of Rev 12 can not be the Church because the Church did not birth the JEWISH Messiah (verse 2).* SECOND: your definition of "church" is not Biblical. The word in the NT is "ekklesia" which means "the CONGREGATION or assembly of Believers" -- *the Original Church taught the BELIEVERS/congregation about Savior Jesus, thus FAITH is in the individual BELIEVERS -- not some physical religious organization.* GOD/Holy Spirit indwells the individual BELIEVERS (1Corith 3:16, 1Corinth 6:17), not some physical religious system.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@strikevipermkII YOU: "just as God placed Christ in Mary" -- *ME: Since Jesus now indwells all Believers (John 14:23), are Believers now the Ark ??*

[@justinmartyr6454]

Its funny how Winger uses the Septuigint to describe his understanding but also refuses to accept the canon of the Septuigint which held the 7 books that protestants removed. 🙃

[@Emper0rH0rde]

Martin Luther is literally the protestants' authority on the canonicity of scripture.

[@TheEngineerd]

"The Jewish evidence from the Second Temple period (e.g., Philo, New Testament, Josephus) and the clear statements of church fathers (e.g., Melito of Sardis) furnish no evidence for a wider Septuagint canon among Jews or early Christians. Rather, the evidence conforms closely to the Hebrew canon. These sets of evidence should cause us to reconsider the evidence of the early codices and should force us to ask a different question: Are all books placed within a codex considered to be part of the canon? If the answer is “no,” then how are we to explain the data?" I've read that youtube doesn't like links, but an article shows up on logos' website if you search for Was there a "Septuagint Canon".

[@TheEngineerd]

@@Emper0rH0rde Pretty sure James and Jude are in non-Catholic Bibles.

[@Grantthecatholic]

@@TheEngineerd indeed. Luther shifted some books like such to the end, shifted some others to the middle with a title saying “these are not held equal to scripture” there, and todays protestant bibles have 7 books missing thanks to Luther’s heresies

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

They didn't remove them. The cannon aproved by the pope at the time said the same thing and Jerome informed him, because he's a source because he actually investigated it, didn't just go with what it seems. The council of Trent Added them in.

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

brilliant. I notice his blunder with episkiazo, and noticed that William Albretch did too in his video. But the way you contrast that with his claims about Christ is brilliant. He is utterly inconsistent and by undermining Mary he undermines Christ.

[@kevinrivera7413]

Our brother William Albrecht has also done a few videos thoroughly dissecting Mike Winger on this same subject!

[@barbaragonzales5944]

I'm a critical Catholic, but I've learned infinitely more from Pastor Winger's Bible teachings than I did my entire life prior to 35 yrs old. He's partially responsible for my reversion to the RCC. His only deficit at this point is that it's not Catholic ... yet.

[@veritasmuy2407]

Is Rome right that DEATH entered the world by the WOMAN/Eve ??

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

He refuses to submit. Pride.

[@carolkoh298]

Enjoying Trent's rebuttals; more importantly, learning lots. Subscribed.

[@BastianHelena]

As a former Protestant who often ended up at churches where the pastors had specific “anti-catholic” sentiments, I do not know how you endure this breed of Christian enough to decipher anything they say. I find this type of speaker so pretentious. Perhaps it’s because I literally always know the arguments they are going to use.

[@basicin4mationvlog293]

Hahaha I'm from Philippines and literary in the Philippines those protestants and heretics alike "shopping" in the Catholic faith. They cannot teach without attacking the Catholic church. But thanks God there are new priest recently ordained and they were the result of apologetics. They are now frontline in apologetics and very successful. Pray for Father Darwin Gitgano a young priest who is an exorcist and apologist. He debated heretics.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

@Phil Andrew I think its apparent that @caratacus doesn't understand how reason works nor how to critically read. It is apparent by his constant use of illogical fallacies and his inability to remove his personal bias to understand the points you're making.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

@Phil Andrew it's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

[@tommygun333]

Good point. But these attacks tell me that I'm in the only right Church. evil one makes hearts of others attack.

[@EmberBright2077]

That's exactly how I see 99% of Catholics. Don't take your assumptions for granted.

[@AnonYmous-sd4lq]

Really liking the Counsel of Trent. Fantastic!

[@stooch66]

I don’t get how a pastor spends a bunch of time preaching to his flock about what he thinks other people are wrong about. Pastor Mike, what is YOUR doctrine other than NOT Catholicism?

[@jayjackson5932]

Pretty sure he has hundreds of videos. Strange that Trent doesn't link the page or original video in the description. It really is just a handful of videos I've seen of his that question Catholicism.

[@tessa7413]

Exactly! I just made a comment pretty much saying the same thing! Lots of Protestant pastors do it! I think they feel that their teachings are on shaky ground, so they feel the need to deceptively drill misconceptions about Catholicism into the minds of their followers before they find the truth for themselves.

[@stephenjohnson7915]

Protestants gotta protest. They’re usually not conscious of it, but their beliefs are often just a matter of taking a Catholic position and saying “no it isn’t.”

[@stooch66]

@@jayjackson5932 this was a sermon to his flock, not just a video. Say I go to mass and my priest spends 30 minutes explaining why a Mormon doctrine is wrong…I would be weirded out. Just saying. God bless you.

[@jayjackson5932]

@@stooch66 This is during a class, not his sermon. He talks about a lot of different subjects in these classes, and he takes questions at the end. God Bless you too.

[@phoult37]

@8:05 Um Mike, I think you are undercutting your case here buddy. If the Greek word for overshadow means miraculous healing in relation to St. Peter's shadow, then it clearly indicates something miraculous in relation to Mary as well.

[@tonyabrown7796]

Winger already explained why he rejects Marian typology but not that of Jesus: The theology about Jesus is clear in the new testament and they then go back and see the typology- sometimes even within the scripture itself. Contrarily, all they have for Mary is the typology. They invented the theology to go with it.

[@henrylimnyuy3195]

There is enough typology about Mary. This is just one of them

[@tonyabrown7796]

@henrylimnyuy3195 if I find things consistent with me and my life should I assume it's typology of me? If it's not explicitly stated about Mary later than we shouldn't assume it was about her, and certainly not when it is contradicting other scriptures. Ie ALL have sinned. There is ONE mediator; Jesus. Salvation comes ONLY through Jesus. Mary knew Joseph not UNTIL Jesus was born.

[@henrylimnyuy3195]

@tonyabrown7796 Im glad you know your bible It good. Have you taken time to study the catholic teachings of these contradictions? Us catholics know about these verses and there are tones of catholic teachings about it. As a Catholic we have tradition passed down and the bible is part of the tradition in writen form. We dont limit our believes to only scribtures. Infact, its Church tradition that gave you the bible. You believe catholics fabricate things. I want you to take what ever you believ catholics fabricated and look for it before the protestant reformation you will end up seeing that its protestants fabricating teachings😊.

[@hirakisk]

I guess the difference between seeing typology of Mary and Jesus is that one of main points of the Old Testament was to point to Jesus and the understanding of events would be clear when looking at the life of Jesus (for example, Abraham sacrificing his son). Luke 24:27 "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." and also in John 5:39 "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me" and later in verse 46 " If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me". The only other person in the New Testament with a clear prefiguring was John the Baptist to Elijah. Even then the whole point of that was to point to Jesus as the Messiah. If we are looking at typology, it makes more sense biblically since all things were to point to Jesus and that is the whole purpose of typology, that Jesus would be the new Ark of the Covenant. Why? He represented all three of the elements in the ark. Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the law, Jesus said he is the bread of life and Jesus is our high priest forever. I think it is missing something to say that because Jesus was in Mary's womb, it should be her. But, even if we take the examples given as actual typology, they are all pointing towards Jesus and who he is and not to Mary as an end goal to the typology. In your video, the point is drawing attention to Mary, which was NEVER the goal in any of the typology anywhere else in the Bible. But, I agree that in regards to overall typology, some things are a bit of a stretch. IMHO there should be a CLEAR and concise correlation between the two comparisons that when seen there is no doubt as to what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament and how it was fulfilled in Jesus.

[@veritasmuy2407]

Agree. Mary can't be the "Ark" because the most important part of the OT Ark that represented Jesus as the mercy of God to lost mankind was the MERCY SEAT which was NOT INSIDE the Ark -- it was on top/the lid of the Ark. Besides, ALL Believers are now indwelled by Jesus (John 14:23), by Roman logic that would mean we are all Arks.

[@creedy8612]

The funny thing is Mary is drawing him to herself and he doesn’t even realize it. She has a mysterious way of doing this. Adding him to my rosary. 😃

[@gfujigo]

What does this mean? Why not draw someone to Christ or God?

[@TristenTheMD]

@@gfujigo Mary leads all to God and Christ, they’re not mutually exclusive. In fact, to be led to Mary makes it much more likely you’ll be successfully led to Christ

[@pxsmythe8913]

@@gfujigo it means that the Queen of Heaven as the Queen Mother does helps the people under the kingship of her Son. All Marian direction is to Christ

[@danielhaas9469]

Mary doesn't draw anybody to herself...It is God the Father who does the drawing and who then gives them over to the Son. For whatever the Father has so does also the Son.! Lets stick to what is written about how who does the drawing to Gods word and not out of pious acts!

[@Iurymasterful]

Our Lord did not think of Divine Revelation the way you did: Matthew 23: 1-3 . "Moses' seat" is not cited in the OT once, yet it is confirmed by Jesus. It was a doctrine originally transmitted orally then codified in the Mishna.

[@glof2553]

Trent, you have been on fire lately. One request/video idea: can you do a video on "the burden of proof" and how atheists/lacktheists have kind of been spoiled by it (in a way)? Too often I encounter an atheist that thinks that, because they're atheist, that absolves them from providing the burden of proof on ANYTHING, regardless if they actually make a claim or not. An atheist could say something like "science is the best/only way to gain knowledge of the world." The theist would ask for proof of that, and then proceed to get scoffed at for "shifting the burden of proof" when the atheist made the claim in the first place. I encounter this pretty often by atheists; a video encountering this would be useful. Thanks again.

[@jendoe9436]

I guess one thing to point out is the Church’s relationship to science, which is pretty much “learn what we can and thank God for providing the world.” If they try to bring up the Galileo Affair, just steer the conversation away from the incorrect notion that the Church hated the Heliocentric model for being ‘unbiblical’ and point out the most popular astronomers at the time also didn’t believe it without further evidence. Plus, the Church has been a long time supporter of science in understanding God’s creation and bettering the human experience. The only major problem comes when science directly contradicts what we know of God’s workings. In those instances, the Church looks more into the issue and attempts to find out what is actually going on.

[@glof2553]

@@jendoe9436 I would agree. Even secular philosophers and historians have admitted that the Church was more faithful to reason than Galileo at the time, and Galileo was chastised essentially for not doing science well enough and then proceeding to use bad theology while antagonizing the Pope. That said, that can/has been pointed out to atheists, but the original point stands. Atheists will often believe that, because they're atheists, that absolves them from the burden of proof on anything, regardless if they actually make a claim or not. When called out, they complain about the burden of proof being shifted. People making claims have burdens of proof, and both atheists and theists make claims. "Atheism is a lack of belief" is a claim that requires the person who says it to provide proof and not scoff it away.

[@Grantthecatholic]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoDUfnVpd7B7fac here is Trent’s response to such a thing… hope this helps!

[@RobRod305]

Honestly he’s being disingenuous at this point and it’s ridiculous. The worst part is that he won’t even want to have a discussion, so he keeps on lying, and misrepresenting us and tradition. I wish he would just talk to us, but he won’t for whatever reason

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

Disingenuous is the exact same word that came to my mind.

[@lonelyberg1808]

I don't think he is lying, I rather think it is misrepresentation

[@RobRod305]

@@lonelyberg1808 Misrepresentation can be a form of lying, whether intentional or not

[@johnyang1420]

Truth is not on Mikes side….thats why.

[@johnyang1420]

Mike has a bu$ine$$ to run….get it?

[@paulmualdeave5063]

The Church fathers in the first few centuries AD also pointed these examples out.

[@duckymomo7935]

The Church Fathers were also wrong in this regard. CF are not infallible.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

@@duckymomo7935 The disciples of the Apostles themselves are wrong? What basis do you have to say that? Who knows more than them what Christianity is??

[@paulmualdeave5063]

@@duckymomo7935 Feel free to look this up. What tradition in Hebrew history is the basis for Catholics to say Mary is our Queen and Jesus is the King?

[@duckymomo7935]

@@paulmualdeave5063 the earliest mention is mid-second century way too far removed from the Apostles. So you're still wrong. if it was that important (to the Apostles), it would've been explicit in the biblical text.

[@duckymomo7935]

@@paulmualdeave5063 If you look hard enough you can always find similarities. The correspondences between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is equivalent to Islamic arguments that Muhammad was the prophet Moses prophesied about in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 rather than Jesus. that doesn'tmake Islam correct.

[@topper009]

I've honestly never imagined anyone could actually deny the Visitation - Kind David connection. One thing to just ignore, but straight up mention it and deny it? Insanity, invincible ignorance is gone for this guy, we need to pray for him. judgement day is going to rough for him at this rate

[@job1.21]

Yeah! You're the only other person I know, besides myself, that uses the Zach Morris timeout. Great clarification as always. Thanks for doing what you do! God Bless.

[@Bina6019]

Thank you for this video! I was just watching Mike Winger's video on Mary Typology and so glad for your rebuttal. God bless.

[@bouseuxlatache4140]

Why does not Mike Winger discuss what the Church Fathers said about Mary?

[@johnflorio3052]

@Bouseux: The Early Church Fathers were Catholic. For evangelicals this is a non-starter which is sad.

[@michaelt5030]

I watched a video of his once on divorce and remarriage in the Bible, and when he got to the Catholic view of things and referenced the Church Fathers' views, he pretty quickly dismissed them with quotes such as "not sure why they're called 'fathers' when they didn't found the Church" and "they held some really weird views about marriage" (I'm absolutely paraphrasing here). It seems to me he holds them in pretty low esteem.

[@marcokite]

because he's a protestant and they can't see anything outside of the Bible

[@bouseuxlatache4140]

@@johnflorio3052 the paradox is that new baptist and evangelical churches tend go back to the Church Fathers and read them putting Calvin and Luther aside. There are many protestants on the internet with a great interest to the early Church and really willing to re-discover the early Tradition. The Holly Spirit is guiding

[@benjaminw309]

The first few centuries they didn’t say a whole lot about Mary. I never thought the early fathers seemed very Catholic in that regard. It seemed to develop over time.

[@NicklasNylander87]

Does anyone say that Jesus is the new ark of the covenant? It seems to me that it's more fitting that Mary would be since Jesus is the word of God and the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is never God himself but a carrier of his presence.

[@danielhaas9469]

The Arc of the Covenant is a copy of what is in Heaven. You are Temple of God because within YOU dwells God. First the Holy Spirit is the first installment of that inheritance and whoever believes that the Father sent the Son into the world to him/her also will have the Father and Son come to them.

[@NicklasNylander87]

@@danielhaas9469 I don't understand the relevance of this comment as pertaining to mine. Perhaps you want to post it as a stand alone?

[@danielhaas9469]

@@NicklasNylander87 It is releveant because of your statement that only Mary is the new ARC. But for God for to US who believe we all are the ARC for God wanted to dwell within us not by something made from hands or material by his creation but by his hand and handiwork. As it is writtent: Behold, I have made all things new and they shall be my people and I shall be their God dwelling among them.

[@NicklasNylander87]

@@danielhaas9469 I never stated that Mary alone is the new Ark of the covenant, I simply asked if anyone knows of anyone claiming Jesus to be the Ark - because that would seem like a strange thing to me. Since Jesus is the Word of God not the holding place for the Word of God. I don't think your argument disproves anything here. Your statement only says that believers are an ark or a holding place for God presence now - or as it where, after the resurrection. And this is done through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Mary was the only one to carry the physical Christ within her, and this happened before Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church - EI its not the same thing to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit and being the Ark of the covenant in the unfolding of Biblical history.

[@danielhaas9469]

@@NicklasNylander87 thats why we need to be careful here..I could make the argument that the body of Christ is the Ark for behold all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell...but beyond that. I can't say one way... What troubles me is when I hear you are forced to believe Mary was X or Y when we don't know anything about it. And it is even more troubling when Cathloics cite odes of Solomon or the ascension of Isiah to draw on Marian dogmas..we are never instructed to go beyond what was handed on to us by the Apostoles. Therefore, if a certain text is being used and it can't be shown that it came from the Apostoles it should be rejected at max and held with extreme caution at min. And should never be used to force a belief on the church

[@longshanks5531]

I don’t agree with Mike Winger on many things, but it’s amazing you people believe what you do. Mary has absolutely nothing to do with your salvation, none at all. Neither does the pope, or any of the Saints, Mary, the pope, the Saints have never heard of one single prayer, ever. You are saved by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. John 4:16

[@veritasmuy2407]

John 3:15-18,36

[@saintmoses5963]

Who said Mary has anything to do with salvation did u even watch the video. We ask for intercessory prayer from the Saints and Mary. We don’t accept them as our lord and savior.

[@longshanks5531]

@@saintmoses5963 how can a saint and Mary even hear your prayers, it’s not found in scripture

[@longshanks5531]

@@saintmoses5963 also, why do you think you need to pray to Mary? It’s clearly not stated anywhere in scripture to pray to sauté or Mary, it robs Christ of his sovereignty. You are saved by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. Mary has nothing to do with your salvation

[@saintmoses5963]

@@longshanks5531 brother once again who said we need Mary for salvation?? Everyone agrees we can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ. Now let me answer how we ask the saint to intercede for us or pray to the father for us. It’s biblical. Catholics no more worship the saints in Heaven than any Christian worships another Christian still living on earth when we ask one and other to “pray for me” or “pray for us.” St. Paul exhorts the faithful to pray for each other and asks in due turn for others to pray for him (Rom 15:30, 2 Th 3:1, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 5:25). We are not adoring and worshipping the saints because the definition of “Prayer” in this instance is petitioning and asking

[@jamesmisfeldt264]

Mike Winger: *makes a video on catholicism* Trent: "and I took that personally"

[@christineczyryca5820]

Huh? You need to be more specific

[@ryanleclaire3948]

Another home run, Trent. Fantastic job.

[@anta3612]

May God bless you and your work.

[@bouseuxlatache4140]

The Winger analysis on Mary meeting Elizabeth reminds me what you have said on father Carey lately. That there is a genre of writing, i.e. the evangelists trying to link events to create a meaningful situation. Therefore question back to protestants, is the Bible not inspired? Or there are parts more inspired than others?

[@danielhaas9469]

It is about Christ not Mary...the whole point of the annunciation of the LORDs coming is to fulfill what was spoken by the Prophet Jeremiah and others who said the Messiah is to be born of a virgin and by the descends of the root of Jessie and David. If it is typology..then it only is typology of Christ.

[@danielhaas9469]

@Brian Farley this is just incorrect...what you are essentially saying is if Mary said no, then salvation would not come as if a human being can disrupt and usurp God's will... Its true that in our cooperation and communion with God that when we share the gospel that we have a share in leading people to Christ. But Mary is not the source of salvation nor are we.. For if we plant or water it doesn't grow on its own but God who makes it grow...Keep in mind it is God who is choosing us and not the other way around...Peter says exactly that... Now you might say, so God rejects people who are trying to come to him? And I say yes, why? Because God knows our hearts and as a result if that he knows who will and who won't accept him...the whole basis if John 6.

[@danielhaas9469]

@Brian Farley yes she is blessed because God came and became man by the power of the Holy Spirit. God chose Mary to be the God bearer. But Mary is still greatly dependent upon God which is why she says I rejoice in my God and savior.

[@danielhaas9469]

@Brian Farley thats just incorrect...no human being can disrupt or usurp God's will..as it is writtrn..before God laid the foundation of the world God chose us and wanted to save us... What does the OT and NT say about God? God uses us to accomplish is will...when God speaks it will not come back to him void.. Look at how many prophets said no when God called them! Jeremiah said no, Jonah said no and tried to run away from God. Does God choose someone else? Nope, for who he calls they will answer and do it... Nothing and Noone can change that what God has decreed can change that fact.. It is good that Mary did not say no for she can be viewed as a model of saying yes LORD be it done to me in accordance to your word... but also Paul and many others who have come to God.. Again, God chooses us and not the other way around

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@danielhaas9469 Without Mary’s free willed consent, there is no Man/God to redeem us! Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@anng.4542]

When I listen to Mike Winger, I get the same creepy feeling I have when I encounter a scam artist from a Bangalore call center.

[@veritasmuy2407]

When I see a statue of the female Mary INSIDE the buildings for worshiping the ONE TRUE GOD, I get the heebie-jeebies cuz that is the abomination that the satanic AntiChrist will do -- Deut 4:16, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 9:27, Rev 13:13-16...... TRULY... C R E E P Y...

[@veritasmuy2407]

When I see the Roman Vatican inviting demonic pagan religions to set up their female idol on church property, and allow the demonic religion to hold demonic religious rituals on church property, and even have their "christian" ministers participate in the demonic religious rituals (Amazonian Synod) -- I get the creepy feeling that I'm watching the Roman Vatican PROVE that they belong to this evil world and are NOT "of God" -- *what did JESUS do when the people of God showed disrespect for GOD's property in John 2:14-16 ??* No wonder the AntiChrist comes out of ROME -- Daniel 9:26.

[@SeraphMowlid]

😂😂😂😂gold

[@IvanAlvarezCPACMA]

How do you know that isn't Satan speaking to you?

[@SeraphMowlid]

@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA by their fruits ye shall know them simple no?

[@deanphilipsaunders775]

There indeed comes a point where reason and evidence is not enough to convince one of the truth. At this point, it requires the grace of God and a movement of one's soul to see the obvious.

[@markpaalman275]

Thank you for articulating these clear double standards of Marian biblical interpretation.

[@nightshade99]

Great spin doctor, isn't he?

[@johnvitelli3862]

@@nightshade99 research the 5 deadliest sins against Our Lady.

[@atgred]

This is MY typology on Psalm‬ ‭45:9-17 (references and thoughts in parenthesis) 😊 “Kings' daughters were among thy HONORABLE women: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN (Rev. 12) in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; So shall the KING GREATLY DESIRE THY BEAUTY: for HE IS THY LORD; and worship thou him (only). And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift(Lk. 1:28); even the rich among the people shall ENTREAT THY FAVOUR (intercession). The king's daughter is all GLORIOUS WITHIN (immaculate): her clothing is of wrought gold. SHE shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins (religious women) her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace (heaven). Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children (mother of the christians) whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. I WILL make THY NAME to be REMEMBERED IN ALL GENERATIONS (Lk. 1:48) therefore shall the people PRAISE THEE FOR EVER AND EVER.” ‬

[@RobertCooperBohn]

@atgred What is beautiful is that the Church, in Her Holy Wisdom, has selected Psalm 45 for use in the Mass readings for the Solemnity of The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary this year - see below: 1st Reading Revelation 11:19A; 12:1-6A, 10AB Responsorial Psalm Psalms 45:10, 11, 12, 16 2nd Reading 1 Corinthians 15:20-27 Gospel Luke 1:39-56 I never get timed of the truth that the Holy Inspired Scriptures were born from and for the Holy Inspired Liturgy. The Church, with 2000 years of experience, has artfully joined pieces of the Sacred Text together to shine light on the Old and the New. God bless you for your insight in the Psalm about our Blessed Mother and God bless Jesus' One Catholic Church who lights the way for the world!

[@Jenny-ni5bp]

I believe that has to do with a literal wedding from one of the Kings of Israel, not Mary ! She is not the Queen of heaven, there is no Queen . One lord one faith one baptism . Scripture also says there’s only one mediator between God and man is it and that is Chris Jesus. The end!

[@atgred]

@@Jenny-ni5bp Well that is YOUR OWN interpretation. And of course you would not accept the interpretation that I have given because that means you should accept that the Catholic stance on Mary is right. And you would never accept that as you have already stated. God Bless!!

[@Jenny-ni5bp]

@@atgred it’s not in scripture even in apocrypha, it’s not biblical to think so . There’s nothing in scripture that says that Mary is the queen of heaven it only refers to Jesus as being kings of king in lord of lords nothing no where is it in scripture . when the woman blessed him saying blessed be the the woman who bore you he actually changed it to rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it so in actuality he diverted her blessing of her and said rather to those to hear the word of God and obey it because there is no queen of heaven. Also when the disciple said your mother and brothers are here to see you Jesus replies, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” He points to the disciples and says, “Here are my mother and my brothers. ... “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple.”

[@atgred]

@@Jenny-ni5bp Well you say it doesn’t say, I do say it does say. It is your interpretation against mine. You are not going to convince me and I am not here to convince you. You go tell Jesus, who is King, that His mother is not Queen. Go and may God Bless you!

[@Emper0rH0rde]

7:22 Mike, *no one* obfuscates Greek more than protestants. *Nobody.*

[@IAMFISH92]

How does anyone take Winger seriously? Dude won’t even have a discussion with a Catholic 😂

[@spurcalluth6300]

Conversations with Catholic laymen has never been official church doctrine. Why should Mike chat with a guy like Trent (a lay apologist who has zero authority in the church) when the official documents are available online? Do you figure that Mike is illiterate?

[@IAMFISH92]

@@spurcalluth6300 Yeah, I’m actually starting to suspect he is either A.) extremely dense or B.) extremely dishonest given how badly he misrepresents the Catholic position. And that’s coming from an Orthodox Christian who also has a lot of disagreement with Catholics. Mike’s biggest priority is supposedly to equip his followers to be able to adequately dialogue with Catholics and other non-Protestants. And yet when given the opportunity to set an example and demonstrate this type of dialogue himself he refuses? Haha ok…Seems kind of suspicious, to be honest. It’s almost like he isn’t willing to be challenged on his positions. Never take an apologist seriously who isn’t willing to step out of their echo chamber. Doesn’t matter if that person is a Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or anything in between. If they aren’t willing to be challenged by the group they’re critiquing then it means they know something is lacking in their position.

[@spurcalluth6300]

@@IAMFISH92, I honestly don't know if Mike sees himself as an apologist. Sometimes it seems like it, other times it doesn't. My guess would be that he would say he isn't an apologist. It sounds like he considers himself to be a religious KZbinr, and that's all. But I might be wrong. Anyway, it seems like he is very attached to Protestant church tradition, while not really wanting to admit that Protestants have church tradition.

[@IAMFISH92]

@@spurcalluth6300 He classifies himself as an apologist. He literally gives lectures on polemics.

[@spurcalluth6300]

@@IAMFISH92, also, I think I've heard him say that the not-engaging-in-debates is a time management issue. There's no reason to read more into it than that. Not every conversation I have with a Catholic has to be recorded and moderated, and I figure the same is true for Mike. I don't know what goes on in his private life, but I don't think I have reason to think he just walks away if someone privately wants to discuss things.

[@saturncastillon8775]

Thank you Trent. Very helpful. Please make more rebuttals on Mike Winger and other vloggers who discredit Catholic truths.

[@christineczyryca5820]

Love your videos Trent!

[@veritasmuy2407]

9:36 The Hebrew word used in Exodus 40:35 is "kacah" which means "clothe, clad self, conceal, envelope, overwhelm" -- which is different from Luke 1:35's "epi/OVER" ("will come upon/over you") and "episkiazo"/cast a shadow over". *To cast a shadow over something is not the same as enveloping to the point of concealment.* NOT THE SAME.

[@TheEdzy25]

There is a reason why Mike winger will not debate or dialogue with Catholics. He does not want that smoke...

[@panosfillipou14]

I came here from Sam Shamoun's channel ! Nice work ...GBU

[@SerpicoVendemion]

Hi I am a subscriber of Pastor Mike but I loved your response so much the last part got me the most though - don’t be a downer cuz we love Mary ☺️☺️☺️ nah there is nothing wrong with that I love her too!! Haha you are such a kind heart God Bless you already subbed!

[@angelmacas1774]

Mary has always led me Jesus. As I grew up I remember thinking how can anyone not love Mary? The mother of my friends always received from me the most respect and consideration. I never disrespected any of my friend's mothers. As a child it just made sense to me that the Mother of my Lord, the Mother of God deserved AT LEAST UTMOST RESPECT AND CONSIDERATION because of the love I had for my friends and Mary is the Mother of my Lord! Why would I want to say or even think of her in a manner inconsistent with whom He is! As I grew up I realized that listening to the Mother of God made to me as much sense as listening to my own mother or one of my friend's mother. I simply don't understand why Protestants think that any of the honor we bestow upon the Mother of my Lord takes away from Jesus. Finally, like the perfect Son that He is, Jesus will always always love and respect His mother. So if I don't know how to find Jesus but I run into His mother she will lead me to Him.

[@stever4181]

I knew a mother that beat her children with electrical cords., and the authorities did nothing. When the children would misbehave she would punish them by putting Tobasco Sauce in their mouths and the authorities did nothing. Not all mothers deserve respect.

[@angelmacas1774]

@@stever4181 that's unfortunate. Every one of my friends had wonderful women as mothers. I hope her children turned out well.

[@stever4181]

You: "Mary has always led me Jesus", Me: How so? Does she talk to you, and by what authority. It sounds like we should be reading about this, so is this something Jesus said or the writers of the NT said. Or is it something that a religion states without any instructions from Jesus or the apostles? Understanding scriptures tells us it is God's spoken word to man that convicts us and it is the Holy Spirit that brings a sinner to Jesus. What you have said may comfort you but is not correct therefore you are being conforted by a false spirit. "Mother of God": Many times we say things that sound Godly but in reality are not. Knowing about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the most important things we can read about in scriptures. Therefore we must get this right, So If Mary is the Mother of God then who is the Father of God? That is the question that comes from that statement and it can be confusing to people. Or is it more correct to say Mary is the Mother of Jesus who is LIKE God in every way. If you still say Mary is the Mother of God you are saying Jesus is God. That brings up more questions, Who spoke after Jesus was baptized,"This is my Son in whom I am well pleased", Whos right hand did Jesus sit next to, Who was Jesus praying to, himself, Who did he tell us to pray to. Jesus said the Father sent him, how can that be if Jesus is God? The inaccuracy of, "Mary is the Mother of God" is apparent and is exposed as a falsehood by scriptures. That does not take away that Jesus is like God in EVERY way. It does explain who Jesus is.

[@Hamann9631]

This comment is before watching. I predict Trent will fail. Mike will be consistent. I will edit in my after thoughts after. (edit). I was right. Mike wasn't completely right; but, he wasn't inconsistent. He looked for typology about His God. He didn't look for typology about a sinner who needed a Savior and doesn't do anything for him.

[@williammcenaney1331]

I'm happy to hear Mr. Horn answer Protestants and others who misinterpret what Catholics believe. So I wish more priests would disprove Protestant heresies when they preach. The religiously indifferent ecumenism should have ended long ago. I'm tired of hearing Catholic ecumenists pander to non-Catholics when the ecumenists should urge non-Catholics to join the Catholic Church.

[@duckymomo7935]

How is it misrepresentation when these are literally the claims from Catholic sites and the Vatican?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@duckymomo7935 I'll need to look up a specific example. For now, though, I'll give you an example that I've heard from other Protestants. Some Protestants tell me that I shouldn't call any man "father," including any Catholic priest. But those people need to rethink that criticism. To do that they may want to reread the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy, where God tells me to honor my father and my mother. When the Bible says "Call no man father" it means that we shouldn't call a human person a father in the sense we use that word in when we call God "Father." The people telling me to "call no man father" don't mind calling their male parents their fathers. It's not enough for anyone to merely repeat a sentence from the Bible when you need to get the sentence's meaning from the context. Many Protestants believe the Catholic Church teaches that we need to earn our salvation. It doesn't teach that, and it never has taught it. "Bill," they'll warn me, "works of the law can't save anyone." Who thought they could? No orthodox Catholic I've ever met. But the question is what works does the phrase "works of the law" stand for? In Matthew 7:21, you'll read: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." So salvation does depend on some works. The catch is that even when we're Christians, God can still require us to do some things for him. Some theologians teach that a work of the law is anything we do to try to obligate God to give us something in return. Other theologians believe that works of the law are the 613 ones the Mosaic Covenant made Ancient Jews do. Today, some Calvinists seem to think that after we accept Christ, that obligates God to take us to heaven no matter what we do here on earth after we become Christians. Suppose I murder someone after I answer an altar call. Some will insist that if I'd do that, I didn't become a Christian after all. But that reply is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. That fallacy is a mistake some people make to try to explain away evidence against what they believe. How sure can I be of my salvation if I keep doing things suggesting that though I accepted Christ, he didn't accept me? Do I need to accept him each time I commit a serious sin? Why I'm not going to try to force God to let me into Heaven when I already know that some people won't get to heaven for calling him "Lord." In 1 John 5 in the RSV, St. John distinguishes between mortal sins and non-mortal ones. Catholics believe that a mortal sin is a serious one that could send the sinner to hell, remove blessedness from his soul, or both.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@williammcenaney1331 All strawman arguments: true faith in Christ Aways produces good works by the Holy Spirit in you're life. We don't believe you can willfully sin you're whole life, if the Holy Spirit is in U and U are the Temple of God. God Preserves His Saints: we don't Preserver ourselves. It's not once saved always saved: you can do anything U like. The Holy Spirit changes you're hearts motivation. If not you're NOT saved.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Who are "we?" Have you talked with every Protestant, even the ones who told me about "once-saved-always-saved?" I doubt it. You seem to think all my arguments are straw men. But you haven't answered the one about the fourth commandment and calling men fathers. In Mark 14:21, Our Lord says that Judas would have been better off if he, Judas, hadn't been born. But Christ made him an Apostle. In the KJV, Acts 1:21 even implies that Judas was a bishop. If Judas would have been better of dying in the Womb, do you expect to see him in heaven? Do you believe Our Lord would have made a non-Christian, unsaved man a bishop? I don't. Since Christ is and was God the Son, he knew Judas would betray him. Judas didn't ask Christ to forgive him after the Savior rose from the dead. No, Judas killed himself by hanging.

[@williammcenaney1331]

You may want to watch Pastor Winger's KZbin video called "Bad Catholic Theology" where he says Catholics think they're saved by works. In that video, he also mentions Purgatory. But he may have forgotten that each soul in Purgatory is getting ready for heaven. That's because the Book of Revelations teaches that nothing defiled can go there. What does that say about Luther's idea that even in heaven, we'll be depraved and that Christ's blood will hide our depravity from God the Father?

[@andrewpruett3719]

Mike Winger is disingenuous. He bashes the Catholic Church constantly but won’t speak to a Catholic apologist.

[@basicin4mationvlog293]

He's dishonesty and scared. He wants only to be seen and smart not unless our apologist examine his position. That's the reason he doesn't want to talk to Catholic

[@brutus896]

@@basicin4mationvlog293 It's actually more embarrassing listening to a catholic Apologist doing mental gymnastics trying to defend man made teachings. 😅

[@joselongo1601]

@@brutus896 what video have you seen? 😂 on this one this doesn't happen.

[@johnyang1420]

@@brutus896 Jesus made traditions because Jesus started the Catholic church.

[@johnvitelli3862]

@@brutus896 remember the Bible is Catholic

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Typologies of Jesus in the Old Testament are either clearly stated in the New Testament or they are unmistakable, e.g., "...and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4 Not so with Marian typology. With Martian typology it's always a pretty far stretch. A case in point. When Bathsheba presents her son Adonijah's petition to her son King Solomon she says, “I am making one small request of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask, my mother, for I will not refuse you... " 1 Kings 2:20 Mariology apologists always end the quote precisely there. However, when we finish that reading we discover that the request made by the Queen Mother is extremely prejudicial to the King and, the King refuses the Queen Mother's request and in fact, has Adonijah executed. And this scripture is used to promote the Roman Catholic practice of presenting petitions (praying) to Mary. Really? Seriously? 🤔

[@Thosewhocallmetim]

It's also used to smuggle in new theology. This is a point that somehow Trent overlooked in his response video. We don't use Christology to create new theology about Him. But since the Marian dogmas just aren't in the plain reading of the Word, they have to be "found" some other way, thereby these bad typologies.

[@JacksonD0716]

Trent truly impresses me. Incredible skills. I invite anyone reading this to pray for him and Mike!

[@veritasmuy2407]

He has no Biblical skills -- here is just one example. He claims that Mary is the Ark because the Ark contained the "bread/rod/law" that represent Jesus. *But the most important part of the Ark that represented Jesus was the MERCY SEAT -- Jesus being the mercy of GOD toward a sinful world* (see Ephesians 2:4-9, Titus 3:5-6, 1Peter 2:9-10, etc). *And the Mercy Seat was NOT INSIDE THE ARK -- it was the lid/on top of the Ark.* So how can the Ark symbolize Mary carrying Jesus when the most important part of the Ark that represents Jesus was NOT INSIDE the Ark ??? *Everything about the OT Ark represented JESUS HIMSELF -- the wood* (Gal 3:13), *the gold* (Rev 1:15, Isaiah 48:10), *the two Angels* (John 20:12/Exodus 25:18-22), *the Mercy Seat* (Hebrews 8:12-13), *the Bread from Heaven* (John 6:34-35,47-48), *Aaron's Rod* (Eternal High Priest, Hebr 9:11-12, Hebr 5:8-10), *the Law Contract* (Matthew 5:17, 1Peter 2:22). *Jesus is the ARK of our New Covenant -- Jesus is the Mediator of our New Covenant* (Hebr 9:15) -- *Jesus' blood sealed our New Covenant* (Hebr 9:12-18) Everything in the OT is about JESUS, not Mary (John 5:39, Luke 24:44, etc) -- even Isaiah 7:14 is about the MESSIAH being birth by a virgin; its not about the virgin.

[@JacksonD0716]

@@veritasmuy2407 Hey, it’s been a while! Hope you’re doing well. If you remember, we’ve had exchanges on a different video before about Mary (I had a different channel name then). Yes, Jesus represents the new ark. However, I’m confused as to why both Jesus and Mary, in their own ways, can’t both represent new Arks. These similes people make about Biblical figures/concepts don’t have to be mutually exclusive, as they’re not dogmatic statements, but rather clever observations. So while Jesus, in a way, represents a new ark, Mary also represents, in a way, the new ark. Mary doesn’t have to meticulously represent every single aspect of the old Ark in a painstakingly literal way for her to be referred to as an ark of the New Covenant. She bore Christ, the New Covenant, in her body; therefore it’s a clever comparison to refer to her as the new ark. These qualms that some have, at least to me, seem to have to do with the false assumption that honoring Mary somehow detracts from giving glory to God, which doesn’t make sense. Everything good about Mary comes from God, and points back to God. It’s just as nonsensical as someone saying, for example, admiring the beauty of a sunset (God’s creation) detracts from giving glory to God directly.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@JacksonD0716 YOU: I’m confused as to why both Jesus and Mary, in their own ways, can’t both represent new Arks. -- *ME: Because the entire OT is focused on our REDEEMER -- our Savior -- JESUS CHRIST -- the Son of GOD -- see John 5:39, Luke 24:44, etc.* There is NOTHING in the OT that is focused on Mary -- even Isaiah 7:14 is about the Messiah/Redeemer being birthed by a virgin, it is NOT focused on the virgin. *It is a blasphemous SIN to give the glorious attributes that belong to GOD/Messiah ALONE* (sinless, immaculately conceived, redeemer, mediator, giver of graces, leader to Christ, Ark, crusher of Satan, etc). *to a mere female creature such as Mary -- see Romans 1:25-28* -- now you know why there is rampant homosexuality in the Roman hierarchy that teaches these heresies about Mary -- which were NEVER taught by the Original Church that KNEW Mary.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@JacksonD0716 YOU: Everything good about Mary comes from God, and points back to God. -- *ME: Mary was a SINNER* (John 2:1-5, Luke 1:48) -- *and Jesus was the SINLESS Son of GOD that saved Mankind by his horrendous death on a wooden cross* (Hebrews 4:15, Galatians 3:13). Are you seriously saying that its okay to give this female creature some of the glorious attributes that belong to JESUS ALONE ???? That is blasphemy. So yes, it is terribly wrong for you to call Mary the Ark or co-redeemer or mediator or crusher of Satan, etc.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@JacksonD0716 YOU: It’s just as nonsensical as someone saying, for example, admiring the beauty of a sunset (God’s creation) detracts from giving glory to God directly. -- *ME: But when one looks upon the beauty of Creation, one does not venerate and make statues and repetitively chant the mantra of Creation (Deut **4:16**-19) -- we thank GOD directly for His Creation.* Whereas, Romans make statues of a female creature (Deut 4:16) and venerate, serve, etc this female creature -- NOT God.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:16 🤔 Trent criticizes Protestant double standard in evaluating Bible verses for doctrinal arguments. 01:14 📖 Typology explained as finding parallels between Old Testament events and New Testament figures. 02:49 🚫 Trent critiques Mike Winger for inconsistent use of typology in relation to Jesus and Mary. 03:58 🌊 Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant: parallels drawn between Mary and the Old Testament Ark. 07:33 ❌ Mike critiques Mary-Ark parallels, questions their validity based on textual differences. 09:26 📚 Scholarly viewpoints: Protestant scholars debate validity of Mary-Ark typology. 11:09 ✅ Trent argues for parallels between Jesus and the tabernacle, uses similar typological reasoning. 13:09 ❌ Trent demonstrates inconsistency in Mike's arguments against Mary-Ark typology. 15:28 🔄 Trent addresses Mike's objections to parallels between Mary and the Ark. 19:42 🔄 Trent highlights contradictions in Mike's stance on typology, undermining his own arguments. 21:08 🕊️ Jesus being a type of the tabernacle and ten commandments is presented, but Mike's harsh criticism of marian typology is applied to him. 21:34 🔦 Mike argues Jesus is a type of the lamp stand in the tabernacle due to his role as the "Light of the World." 22:18 🔨 Connection drawn between hammered work in the lamp stand and Jesus being beaten, paralleling Isaiah 53:5. 22:45 🛢️ Parallel between pure beaten olive oil for the lamp and Jesus sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. 23:44 🌟 Mike's typological argument for Jesus, although weak, is made with excitement, showing parallels between Old Testament and New Testament figures. 25:08 🔗 Connections between Old and New Testaments don't need a perfect one-to-one correspondence; they can be echoes in salvation history. 25:47 📚 Recommendations for further reading on marian typology and dogmas are provided. 26:00 🙏 The video concludes with gratitude for watching and encouragement for supporting content creation.

[@veritasmuy2407]

Everything about the Ark inside and outside -- the wood, gold, Mercy Seat, two angels, presence of GOD, high priest rod, etc -- symbolized JESUS. The most important part of the Ark that represented JESUS and our New Covenant thru Jesus, was the MERCY SEAT -- Jesus being the mercy of God to a lost Mankind (1Peter 2:9-10, Titus 3:5-6, Ephesians 2:4-9, etc). And the Mercy Seat was NOT INSIDE the Ark -- so to say that "Mary is the Ark because the items that represented Jesus were INSIDE the Ark" is a false statement. Jesus is the Ark -- LOOK at the power of the Ark to destroy by plagues (1Samuel 5:9) and to destroy the idols/false religions (1Samuel 5:3-4). -- this is exactly what JESUS will do when he opens the Scroll and Revelation 15 & 16 happen.... JESUS is the Ark (John 5:39, Luke 24:44)

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: Recommendations for further reading on marian typology *ME: There are no OT typologies of Mary -- even Isaiah 7:14 is about the MESSIAH being born of a virgin, its not about the virgin.* The Woman of Genesis 3:15 is the 12Tribes of Jacob/Israel who's SEED is the Jewish Messiah (Isaiah 65:9) -- that has ALREADY crushed/destroyed SATAN/Death by his death on a cross (Hebrews 2:14, Colossians 2:15). Jesus is the SEED of ISRAEL -- the Lion of the Tribe of Judah -- the offspring of King David -- Revelation 22:16.

[@mjramirez6008]

the condescending sarcastic tone of the guy is just revolting, he shows his true colors

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

yeah I feel so bad for the people in his flock who go shopping around for local churches, and all they find are these modernist Americanized protestant churches, where the pastors are constantly howling and mocking and gnashing their teeth. if that's all they see, it's no surprise that so many lose faith, and that the anger and invective rubs off on all who remain, whereupon we run into them on the internet, regurgitating anti-Catholic myths and calling us all sorts of bigoted slurs.

[@byyykusto]

Which one of Christ Apostles ever said that Mary is the new ark of the covenant?

[@donhaddix3770]

none

[@cslewis1404]

It is implied. Luke was trying to show that in chapter 1.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@cslewis1404 no it is not

[@cslewis1404]

@@donhaddix3770 have you studied Luke chapter 1? He actually interview Mary and gave an account of her side of story. There are parallels between Elizabeth reaction to Mary and David reaction to ark Luke weaves additional parallels into the story of Mary-types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sm 5:1-6:12). David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sm 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. We are also told that David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obed-edom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6:9-14). Compare David and the ark to Luke’s account of the Visitation: In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” (Lk 1:39-45)

[@cslewis1404]

@@byyykusto Luke wrote parallels of David and ark and Elizabeth encounter with Mary After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sm 5:1-6:12). David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sm 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. We are also told that David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obed-edom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6:9-14). Compare David and the ark to Luke’s account of the Visitation: In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” (Lk 1:39-45) Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea. When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Elizabeth uses almost the same words: “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke is telling us something-drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel. When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb-and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within. When the Old Testament ark arrived-as when Mary arrived-they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew. The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).

[@TheFsDguy]

Identification of Jesus’ attributes is logically prior to identifying typologies. For Mary, identification of typologies is logically prior to identification of her supposed attributes. Trent is correct is showing that mere typological evidences are weak. However, this only undermines Mariology. Even if all the typologies of Jesus were merely conjecture, this would not change any important theological truths about Him. We are given permission to find parallels in the OT because we know certain theological truths about Jesus. The same cannot be said about Marian dogma. If the typologies are weak, then, as a critical logical link in the argument, Marian dogma is weak.

[@veritasmuy2407]

Yep, so very weak -- I mean if Mary was the Ark because Jesus indwelled her for 9 months -- are Believers now the Ark because Jesus indwells us for years (John 14:23) ???

[@idankpoaugustine1983]

He already said that typologies are not proof. His only contention here is Winger's inconsistency.

[@TheFsDguy]

@@idankpoaugustine1983 If Winger was consistent, then he would hold that Jesus’ typologies are likewise weak and cannot, in and of themselves, provide for His attributes. This is my point. Typologies cannot provide for this, and are only useful and interesting post-hoc.

[@rightinthedome9973]

Mary being the ark seems quite obvious without even needing to study scripture

[@stever4181]

Really? How long did the stone tablets lay in the ark? Are they still there? How long was Jesus developing in Mary, 9 months. Not quite the same thing is it. Catholics fail to realise that Jesus's words are present throughout the OT. Jesus was around before the beginning.

[@jeffreycole2816]

God bless you Trent.

[@davidpufahl1834]

Ok, so as a protestant considering Catholicism, here is what I need answers to. 1. Regarding classical theism, how strong of a classical theism must one affirm, Aquinas's is too strong for me? 2. Catholics put such an emphasis on Aquinas in general and I'm at odds with most of what he has to say, mainly His Thomistic metaphysics. So is this something necessary for Catholicism? Who are some good Catholic thinkers that are not Thomists? I have a hard time distinguishing general classical theism from Thomistic classical theism. 3. I also find Aquinas's theology on predestination grotesque (its pretty much Calvinism but maybe worse considering he thinks God leads people in and out of faith throughout their life, leaving some and keeping some). Is this the universal Catholic understanding of soteriological doctrine or is their room for true libertarian human freedom? Are there any Catholics in general who wholly separate themselves from Aquinas in general? 4. Must one affirm eternal conscious torment in the strictest sense or could someone adopt a view akin to CS Lewis version of hell that is also eternal? As far as I understand there is no room for annihilationism but there is room for universalism (which I think is false). 5. What must I affirm as infallible coming from the Pope? 6. Is there one divine Catholic interpretation of every verse of scripture or just certain parts of it? If some of these questions seem naïve I apologize but my study mainly has consisted of the historicity of the church and that is my main driver currently (I want to go where the truth leads) but these questions here are just some I cant seem to no where the line is drawn. Thanks in advance for any responses.

[@josephnicastro5897]

Hello I am a Catholic and will try to answer some of these questions for you. The Church recognizes Thomas Aquinas as a saint and mostly refer to his writings and books as good and helpful but perhaps there are some things that he wrote that are not quite in line with the true teachings of the Catholic Church. I’m not quite sure as I have never read any of his works, but I don’t think we need to put too much emphasis on what he taught but should rather look to official Church doctrine The pope is only infallible when he is proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine on faith or morals. Catholics follow the teaching of the Church with regard to biblical interpretation. I wouldn’t say that every verse has its own interpretation, but it is more like every section of verses that go together have their own interpretation so they can be viewed in context. Hope this helps and I would be happy yo answer any more questions!

[@SnypedFTW]

What you must absolutely believe to be a Catholic is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic church. The catechism is the teaching magisteriums official stance on things essential for a Catholic to believe. If you don't agree with Thomas Aquinas that's fine. As long as your views don't go against the Catechism of the Catholic church it is ok to hold whatever view you have. Not everything that comes out of a saints or popes mouth is dogmatic but what is dogmatic will be in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

@@SnypedFTW on number 3 I suggest you to read the work of Jacques Maritain or Marin Sola. They interpret St. Thomas in a very different way than the Banezians. Just like you, I find the Banezian interpretation repugnant, but I think Maritain and Marin Sola find a great balance between free-will and grace. A way to see St Thomas without the lenses of Agustinian predeternminism.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Check out Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on KZbin.

[@lukebrasting5108]

1. God's immutability is a dogma of the Christian faith taught by scripture, the fathers and the councils. Aquinas didn't invent anything new in that regard. 2. Catholics don't put that much of an emphasis on Aquinas. It sounds like you've been listening to Eastern Heterodox schismatics and allowed them to turn you against him. 3. No, his teaching on predestination isn't dogma. It's actually a point of contention in the Church. Research the Thomist vs Molinist controversy. 4. The Church doesn't actually have an in-depth doctrine on hell, although there are plenty of theological opinions and speculations. I think the only dogmatic teaching is that it exists and that the main torment is something called The Pain of Loss. The rest is just speculation, that's why some people in the Church can flirt with hopeful universalism. 5. Whatever he teaches to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals and in a manner that demands the assent of the faithful, usually at ecumenical councils or ex cathedra pronouncements, which are pretty rare. He can't just make something up, it has to be in scripture or part of sacred tradition. 6. No. The Church only claims infallibility in matters of interpretation when resolving a dispute (Mt.18:17) as to a particular scripture's meaning, for instance, the meaning and effect of water baptism. The Council of Trent declared that it's not just a symbol as some of the Reformers taught, but is the instrument used by God to pour out His regenerating and saving grace. It sounds like you're confused about what the Church officially teaches and how to tell the difference between dogma, doctrines, disciplines and theological opinion etc and what you are actually required to believe. You should check out a book called Teaching with Authority by Jimmy Akin, it explains everything. In the meantime, look into what the Solemn and Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is. This website has a good explanation. www.baptismofdesire.com

[@TheLikesofMeh]

How can they sell sola scriptura when they removed books from the Bible?

[@donhaddix3770]

how can Catholics add apocrypha?

[@TheLikesofMeh]

@@donhaddix3770 nobody added anything. You removed books from canon.

[@jzerf5329]

@TheLikesofMee , the apocrypha was referenced by religious scholars, but wasn't considered cannon by the Catholic church until the council of Trent, circa 1545. The protestant reformation started around 1517.

[@TheLikesofMeh]

@@jzerf5329 we have always had the deutro in the EO church. The prots don’t like that 2nd maccabees. I can understand why from their perspective.

[@HauxYZ250]

I really like Mike Winger. He seems very genuine and he often has some very good insights into scripture. Even though I’m not Catholic (I am sympathetic to much of the church’s theology), I have noticed he seems blind to inconsistencies when he tries to refute Catholic teaching. In addition to Marian typology, I noticed he completely misses much of the significance of the communion/new covenant typology.

[@phoult37]

When one approaches the Bible with pre-conceived doctrine, it is easy to miss and/or dismiss significant and obvious typology.

[@HauxYZ250]

That might be the case but I’ve seen him tackle subjects in which he claims the biblical evidence made him change his position. I guess maybe he just has a special bias against Catholicism

[@duckymomo7935]

@@phoult37 forcing typology is eisegesis…

[@zeroisnine]

@@HauxYZ250 imo the main draw (emotionally) for Protestants is ownership and control, i.e. you own your bible and to a degree you get to control what it tells you. Even if he agreed with everything Catholics say, I think he, like many protestants, would not be Catholic. Because fundamentally, the allure is implicitly ownership over religion.

[@HauxYZ250]

@@zeroisnine I don’t think that’s entirely fair. When you psychoanalyze a position that broadly, I think you are disregarding the majority of thoughtful Protestants. It’s kind of analogous to the claim that “Christians believe that God exists because they want the comfort of heaven”. I believe the majority of thoughtful Christians (all denominations), love truth and have genuine problems with the Catholic tradition. Those problems may be unfounded for a number of reasons but I don’t think it’s because they want to “control” what the Bible tells them.

[@obserjasons]

Mary as the arc is the most defendable example, to move the needle in the debate you should defend the more difficult stands like the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary

[@tiffany3319]

Why didn’t you mention the part about Uzzah dying because he touched the ark and that being the reason David would not accept it at first? Seems deceptive for you to leave that out. Jesus is the only way.

[@skukaku1]

I would love to see a debate between you and mike. He’s a smart and faithful man, but I think he’s just misguided.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Agreed. I like him and often find his studies useful in spite of disagreeing on several things. I think he's a good representative of the Protestant position on this and that a good conversation with Trent could be helpful.

[@Veritas1234]

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I don't know, as a Catholic I find him to be pretty offensive and he lacks charity.

[@flearhcp]

I think his charity is much better than other protestants that John Macarthur or Don blackwell whom I think is the worst .

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Debate has to have a basic honesty to it. I’m not sure Mike is honest enough to have a debate with. If he is as dishonest as James White it would be a fruitless exercise.

[@mimi_j]

He doesn’t want to though and unfortunately thanks to some of our own brethren who attacked him a few months ago instead of being good examples of Christ, he probably won’t anytime soon.

[@benjaminread5287]

You take Mike's weakest argument and say it stands as typical of his other arguments in that video and then you take him out of context. At the start of the video Mike says that types (or weak types I can't remember but its still the same) cannot prove new doctrine and he explains how Catholics use these Mary types to prove Mariology. He doesn't mind using weak types for Jesus as long as they don't introduce new ideas about him, they are in tandem with already clear theology.

[@antezulj4453]

If only Mike would debate Trent, but he won't. If he is so sure about the Evangelical theology why doesn't he want to debate(rhetorical question)

[@chrisvalenzuela7911]

The typical excuses "I'm not a debater" "I'm not interested." Yet he loves to confirm his own not-biblical bias of sola scriptura with blatantly misrepresenting Catholicism. How someone can do that yet be completely unwilling to debate/dialogue with Catholics is pretty much cowardly, no matter how much they try to say they're not. Sometimes they'll go with this excuse: "I've had conversations with Catholics privately." I don't really have to explain how hilarious that is.

[@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv]

Mike gave up debates after trying his hand at it against a couple of people. Instead why not ask Trent to just invite him and vice versa to just do a public disscusion.

[@antezulj4453]

@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv I don't want to be aggressive, but you apparently don't watch neither of them ever, because Trent has done that, and many have done that, and Mike has declined

[@rickydettmer2003]

I’m waiting for Trent and Mike to have some actual interaction. That would be awesome and edifying

[@basicin4mationvlog293]

Nah don't expect it winger is to scared that Trent would examine his position.

[@swoosh1mil]

Pastor Mike would most likely loose many viewers and subscribers if he debated Mr. Horn. His level of Apologitics is not at the same level as Mr. Horn (not a put down, just a fact). And that IS an accurate representation...unlike Pastor Mike, who says he'll accurately represent Catholicism and then lies, misrepresents, generalizes, and over exaggerates Catholicism. Then he asks why Catholics get upset at him when he's just calling it like he sees it. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT...NOT CALL IT ACCORDING TO YOUR BIASES!!! I think many people overlook the fact that he makes that claim...to accurately represent....

[@Mkvine]

Trent has tried, Winger wasn’t willing to engage.

[@humphreyobanor866]

I hope Mike Winger watches your videos.

[@Jerônimo_de_Estridão]

So, he thinks ἐπισκιάσει/episkiasei is merelly something passing over the head of Mary and making a shadow over her in the process?? Even liberal catholics scholars, Lutheran and Presbyterian theologians recognize de Mary/Ark parallel, There are twelve points of contact of allusions to the Ark of the Covenant and Mary's visitation (literary, linguistic, topological) in 21 verses of Luke's Gospel, and it is there in the early church fathers too.

[@johnpeters1441]

It always amazes me how the non Greek explan Greek to the Greeks

[@halleylujah247]

Trent-"Gobly-de-greek" 😆

[@mikederp9612]

I am sure Mike Winger would go to the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew I and say he doesnt understand the real greek translations.

[@Christian_Maoist.]

Is this an older video? Because it seemed to me that Mike laid off Catholic bashing after declining your debate offer

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

He didn't, but this is old

[@takmaps]

Yea he didn't

[@jvlp2046]

Luke 1:28 does not mean IMMACULATE CONCEPTION... Take note: the word "HIGHLY" was not in the Original Greek Manuscript... "KECHARITOMENE" means "favored with grace," or "favored one"... and not "Highly Favored One."... R.C.C. added the word "Highly" (superlative degree) in the LATIN Vulgate means exceedingly and solely Favored One (One and Only)... St. Stephen was also "Favored with Grace and Power."... just like when the R.C.C. changed the correct translation of Prophet Isaiah's Prophecy, "HA ALMAH" which means "The Young Woman," into their LATIN Text, added the Latin word VIRGO (Virgin), thus, translated in English as "VIRGIN MAIDEN."... DINAH, the only daughter of Jacob was also called "ALMAH" even after she was RAPED according to the Scripture... WHY?... because ALMAH just means "YOUNG Woman," and not VIRGIN... Prophet Isaiah never Prophesied "HA ALMAH BETULAH" which means "Young Virgin Woman"... R.C.C. added the word "VIRGIN" because of their Doctrine (Dogma) of "PERPETUAL VIRGINITY." On Judgment Day of God (YHWH), the R.C.C. will be fully accountable for all the ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS, and ALTERATIONS of the Context and Meaning of the WORD of God (Holy Scriptures/Bible)... (ref. Deut. 4:2 / Rev. 22:18-19)... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

[@mcgilldi]

John the Baptist as a fetus lept not for Mary, but for his Lord, who was in Mary's womb.

[@veritasmuy2407]

Right. But "lord/kurious" does not mean GOD/Theos. Sarah called Abraham her "lord/kurious" and she wasn't calling him "GOD" (see 1Peter 3:6). "Lord/kurios" simply means "one in authority; a husband, boss, master, governor, king, Messiah)

[@sleepatterns]

Hail Mary the Blessed Mother

[@KamalaKackles]

Do you go back and watch your videos? The mental gymnastics and blatant hypocrisy is impressive.

[@coloradodutch7480]

Why is typology about Jesus and Mary not the same? How about Jesus and Mary are not the same. Jesus is God and came to fulfill the law and the prophets, Mary didn’t. Right there we know the OT was about Jesus and not Mary, one is justified.

[@justinmartyr6454]

I mean, do we gotta set up a gofundme to pay Mike to debate Trent? Let's start one so we can get this settled.

[@cjr4497]

Why do some protestants dislike Mary so much? I have even had one tell me she is dead and if alive in heaven would be groveling at Jesus's feet!

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: Why do some protestants dislike Mary so much? *ME: Protestants do exactly what Scripture tells us to do -- we call Mary "MAKARIZO/fortunate/glad/blessed" to be the descendant of King David chosen to birth the Jewish King/Messiah* (Luke 1:32, Luke 1:48, Matthew 2:2). *What we DO NOT DO is give all the glorious attributes that belong to GOD/Messiah ALONE* -- sinless, immaculately conceived, mediator, redeemer, leader to Jesus, crusher of Satan, Ark, etc -- *to a mere female creature (Mary) because GOD hates that -- and is why the Roman hierarchy that teaches these heresies about Mary has been cursed by GOD with rampant homosexuality -- Romans 1:25-28*

[@youmatter5351]

Why when protestants like him talk long enough they end up bringing something up that will invalidate things they've already said?

[@TJMcCarty]

The Church Father Irenaeus warns against basing theology off typology because it leads to heresy. In his Against Heresies Book 2, it says: "It is better to search after no other knowledge than that of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified for us, than to fall into impiety by subtle questions and hair-splitting expressions. A healthy mind, one which does not expose its possessor to danger and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, eagerly meditates on those things which God has placed within the power of humankind and has subjected to our knowledge... "These things are open to our observation and are clearly, unambiguously set forth in the sacred Scriptures...That is why the parables should not be adapted to fit with ambiguous statements. If one keeps this caution in mind, the one who interprets the parables will avoid danger, and they will receive the same interpretation by all...Indeed, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the gospels can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all..." Irenaeus says a lot more that is so great to read. He says that we slip into heresies when we make things like typology / parables our basis for theology. We should instead base our theology off what is clearly stated in Scripture. Marion dogma is a perfect example of what Irenaeus was warning us about. The Catholic Church has taken typology of Mary being the New Testament Ark of the Covenant and built upon that to what we have today, which is worship of Mary and making Mary take the place of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I do agree with Catholics that the Ark of the Covenant was a shadow of Mary. But in the Old Testament, nobody worshipped or prayed to the Ark, it was always to God. Stick with what is clearly stated in Scripture and you won't fall into error. Jesus clearly said to pray to the Father in His name. Stick with what the Bible says about prayer and you won't become a heretic.

[@veritasmuy2407]

Great comment

[@OVOFloyd]

Lol, I like how Prots quote Church Fathers when it’s convenient for them, and dismiss them when they do. If you’re gonna quote the Church Fathers, quote ALL of them. 😂😂

[@not_milk]

The distinction is “if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” We have a precedent to search for Jesus in the law and prophets within every verse. We have no such precedent for Mary

[@howardhilliard9286]

If we want to really get picky on methodology of typology that Trent uses, we could start with the absurdity of making one to one parallels between Mary and Christ that completely ignore the Creator creature distinction.

[@EmberBright2077]

Just commenting on the early part of the video. I don't know that the New Testament references to the Flood or the parting of the Red Sea are necessarily divine typology, as much as references made to make a point or illustration.

[@JohnR.T.B.]

Even the clothing that Jesus wore healed people who touched it, how much more the mother who had God in her womb. Mary shared the glory of God in fullness and still does now, God forbid; unless there was a scandal to her, and hence to the works of God and salvation in Jesus as a whole (which began at the very moment of the Incarnation), and since God's Word will accomplish His mission without failing; therefore Mary, who is the gateway of God to the world in the flesh, is an inseparable part of God's salvific work in Jesus Christ, and hence is also perfect in her humanity and holiness.

[@n41698m]

Winger is not serious about understanding what we are saying. He interprets us in the least charitable way and is trying to refute us based on… technicalities it seems like?

[@dannysipos]

I think that their both valid however one of them is about jesus and one is about mary so i think mike is more focused on what is about jesus which i agree with

[@dannysipos]

Cause its Jesus, God incarnate

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@dannysipos Are you saying that the PHYSICAL Jesus was GOD walking around on earth ?? That is NOT what the Angel said in Luke 1:35 or Peter said in Acts 10:38 and Matthew 16:15-16 or what Jesus said in John 10:36...... "son of God" does not = GOD.

[@dannysipos]

@@veritasmuy2407 Jesus himself says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him.

[@dannysipos]

@@veritasmuy2407 I'm not saying He is the Father but He is fully human and fully God.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@dannysipos YOU: Jesus himself says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. -- *ME: Jesus also said that the Father/GOD is also "in us" or indwells in us -- see John 14:23. Jesus also said that it was GOD/Holy Spirit that INDWELLED Jesus that did the miracles* -- see John 14:10, Matthew 12:28, John 5:19,30 -- *and therefore Jesus said that any Believer also indwelled by the Holy Spirit/God could do the same miracles that Jesus did -- see John 14:10,12,16-17.* According to Peter, Jesus was a Man that was indwelled by GOD, and that it was GOD that indwelled Jesus that did the miracles (Acts 2:22, Acts 10:38). *Jesus was indwelled by the Holy Spirit/God at his water baptism -- see John 1:33-34, Matthew 3:13-16, Mark 1:4.* *ALL true Believers are indwelled by the FULLNESS of God/Father just like Jesus was -- see 1John **4:12**-13, Ephesians 3:19, John 1:16,* Colossians 1:19-20, Colossians 2:9, etc. *ALL true Believers are One Spirit with Almighty GOD -- 1Corinth **6:17**.* THAT is why we will be resurrected into Eternal Life just like Jesus was -- see Romans 8:9-11.

[@zoilife3929]

God bless you Trent! What you are doing is amazing!❤️from an Orthodox that prays for all the Christian denominations to be enlightened to see the importance of our Holy Mother in Christianity!🙏🏻I pray to Her as well to intercede to our Lord and her Son, to unable all those brothers and sisters to see and perceive Her Holiness, the importance she always had in Christianity and her place in the Kingdom of Heaven!

[@mmbtalk]

Here is my Protestant view on this topic; did any of the Apostle emphasise any of these Marian doctrines? If the answer is no, then I don't have much business with issues that are clearly absent in the foundation!

[@veritasmuy2407]

Yeah, the guys that KNEW Mary and wrote the NT for us didn't bother to write any of these "awesome facts" about Mary ???? Right, because the guys that KNEW Mary knew these things weren't true about Mary.

[@svarogb9743]

As a Protestant starting to look into Catholicism I would have to say mariology seems to be Catholicism weakest area, not that it isn’t fleshed out but that it doesn’t make sense in light of the bible

[@anng.4542]

Which came first, God or the Bible?

[@TrixRN]

As a convert I feel for you. The dogmas on Mary held me back for a couple of years. However I diligently studied the early church fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch & councils, particularly the Council of Ephesus. I also read well thought out books by Catholic converts who had the same issues. For me Scott Hahn’s book Hail Holy Queen was helpful. He refers to Scripture, ancient Jewish beliefs, & early Church beliefs. I’ve been a Catholic for 8 yrs now & while I mentally & verbally assented to all of the dogma & doctrine of the Church I never really took all of the Marian doctrine to heart. I felt the language in many of the prayers to Mary were over the top. I was uncomfortable with them. My spiritual director explained that it was love language but if I felt uncomfortable with them it was ok not to pray them. Lately I’ve been praying that Jesus would show me how I am to honor His mother. He led me to start praying the Rosary. I have been given graces I didn’t have. I’ll keep on this journey to see where Christ leads me. May God lead you into the Catholic Church & the fullness of Truth. My journey took over 2 years. Be patient, read the Catechism, read a good translation of the Bible (I use the Ignatious study Bible RSV2CE), do research, find a good RCIA class (I went through twice before I could understand & accept everything) I’ll say a prayer for you. God bless you🙏❤️

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@TrixRN By "early church fathers" you mean the men of Acts 20:29-30 that Paul warned you about -- *the Original Church that KNEW Mary, never taught ANY of Rome's Mariam traditions.* The Original Church focused on KING DAVID (Matthew 1:1 Rom 1:3, John 7:42, Rev 5:5, Mark 11:8-10, etc) -- *Mary was only chosen because she was a descendant of KING DAVID* (Luke 1:32). *Even the RESURRECTED GLORIFIED JESUS only focused on King David (Revelation 22:16)*

[@veritasmuy2407]

Romans have far more serious issues to focus on than their blatant idolatry of Mary (Deut 4:16,19). *Their doctrine of purgatory DENIES the complete work of Redemption by the shed blood of the sinless Son of GOD -- just like Peter warned in 2Peter 2:1-3.* Paul makes it clear that the shed blood of Jesus 2000 years ago so completely PURIFIED/cleansed the Believers, that Believers are ALREADY IN God's holy Kingdom (Colossians 1:12-14,20-22), and already indwelled by Holy GOD HIMSELF (1Corinth 3:16, etc). *The shed blood of Jesus 2000 years ago made Believers ETERNALLY FORGIVEN for every sin* (Hebr 9:12,26), *and completely HOLY/sanctified, and RIGHTEOUS FOREVER in the eyes of GOD* (Hebrews 10:10,14, 1Corinth 6:11, 2Corinth 5:21) -- *and making us Righteous Forever, absolutely NOTHING else can be ADDED to make us "more righteous"* (see Hebrew 10:14,17-18) -- *NOT confessing every sin, NOT penance, NOT purgatory, etc*

[@ContendingEarnestly]

All of catholic teachings are weak. There is no papacy in the n.t. or even a sacerdotal/ministerial priesthood which you need to make the whole thing work. And yes, if they have a dogma that you MUST believe to be saved then it better be in scripture. They aren't. No distinct roman catholic teaching is in the bible. You need to deepen your study. Look at good people on both sides. Roman catholic arguments simply don't stand up.

[@soccerlife5041]

Mike got exposed. Mike is completely biased and prejudiced when he comes to marian doctrines.Thanks Trent for this video.

[@ericgatera7149]

Thank you Trent for this informative rebuttal.

[@tonyabrown7796]

I am actually shocked by how disingenuous this video is to such an extent that it makes me question Trent's salvation. Mike already addressed all these issues in the original video.

[@digging4pearls961]

Catholics who believe going by the “oral tradition” of the Catholic church, which is not based on the Bible at all, is safe are foolish. The scriptures show the Word of God was never left to “word of mouth” because everything thing God spoke was recorded by writing, which not only preserved his Word, but showed what was and wasn’t of God. Mr. Winger knows as much. When the Jews added to God’s Word Christ scorned and rebuked them, and he used his word to do it. That’s why God ordained that his Word be recorded and kept for a witness and to be passed on the generations. God says plainly “all men have sinned,” and gives no exceptions, including Mary, “and fallen short of the glory of God.” Rom 3:23, and through one man sin entered the world and “death spread to all men.” Rom 5:12. Why do Catholics deny this? Because they put trust in man rather than God's Word. Also, the Catholic church is blind. They won't or can't share the missing huge step of Mary's sin offer and omit the important fact, and wrongly combine what Mary did on the eighth day as her COMPLETENES OF PURIFICATION, but it was not. Luke 2: 21 says “And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” They leave out “AND SHE SHALL "CONTINUE" in the blood OF HER PURIFIYING three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, UNTIL THE DAYS OF HER PURIFYING BE FULFILLED.” This wasn’t complete on the eighth day! Leviticus 12:6 SAYS, "And when the DAYS OF HER PURIFYING ARE FULFILLED, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, FOR A SIN OFFERING, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest” WHAT'S MISSING: In Luke 2:24 it says, “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Leviticus VERSE 8 says “And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other FOR A SIN OFFERING: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. So, as it says, according to the law of Moses, every mother that conceived, either a male or female, AFTER AN APPOINTED TIME had to offer sacrifices to God: one as a burnt offering, and ONE AS A SIN OFFERING. DON'T OVERLOOK "AFTER THE "APPOINTED TIME"! BACK TO LUKE 21 “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. NOTICE VERSE 22 “And WHEN "THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATOIN" ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES “WERE ACCOMPLISHED,” they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; NOTICE VERSE 23 “(As it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) FACT: VERSE 24 “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. This is CLEARLY SHOWN she had to offer a SIN OFFERING! Mary applied this very observance as was required of every Jewish woman born under the Law of Moses, and it’s clear that the offering Mary offers is according to law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. Lk.2:24, the one for the burnt offering, and the other FOR A SIN OFFERING. Lev. 12:8. Mary, being in the family of sinners, as all humans are since Adam, gave her sin offering. Mary knew she was a sinner and admitted her estate as the handmaiden of God and not "Mother of God" “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" Luke 1:48 "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior" Luke 1:46,47 BUT Catholic pew warmers ignore this as well, because you don’t STUDY the Word, as God’s says to and believe the lies you’re told. ALSO, the Scriptures plainly states the family Jesus had, and that she did conceive more children after the birth of Jesus. She never remained a virgin and can never be considered "immaculate" as the lying Catholic Church has exalted her to be. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" Matthew 13:55,56. BUT CATHOLICS IGNORE THIS TOO! Despite her being a participant in a miracle, Mary’s carnal nature tried to interfere with the mission of Jesus. Mary lost sight of Christ for three days and shortly after Jesus began his public ministry. When Jesus returned home, crowds began to mass around hear him speak. Mark 3:20. When Mary and his brothers got heard things had escalated, they went to seek him. It says his friends thought he was out of his mind. When Jesus heard that his family was beckoning him, he ignored their pleas and said to the crowd, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Verse 34-35. So, Jesus denied his mother and brothers in favor of those who listened, were open to and not offended by his message and believed him. His brothers hadn’t yet believed on him and Mary, as sinner and loss sight of Jesus more than once. Christ set the record straight who He was at age 12 when she rebuked him and at the wedding of Cana, which you study more closely. The “oral tradition” of the papists has made innumerable errors. The papists deny central doctrines, such as the application of our salvation, AND the gospel itself, in their denial of justification by faith alone. Everybody who was born in Adam is worthy of condemnation (Romans 5:12-21. Mary as mediatrix is unfounded in Scripture. Scripture tells us who makes intercession for the saints before the Father." YOU HAVE NO ARUGMENT AGAINT GOD'S WORD

[@twixintv137]

Yes we love Mary, but I think you should intently look on the GENRE of the book where Mary was mentioned, because it was only in the GOSPEL! WHY ARE YOU GUYS MAKING MARY A TOPIC IN THE GOSPEL ??? AS THE NEW ARK OF THE COVENANT ??? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THE GOSPEL IS CHRIST CENTERED ??? MEANING THERE IS NO OTHER TOPIC THERE EXCEPT CHRIST JESUS. MARY WAS MENTIONED JUST FROM THE NARRATION OF THE TOPIC OF THE GOSPEL, JESUS CHRIST !!! AND THERE IS ONLY ONE GOSPEL! Be sure your love for Mary will not make "Other Gospel" " But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a Gospel OTHER than the one we preached to you, let him be ETERNALLY CONDEMNED! (Gal. 1:8)" Peace...

[@saoirseryan2546]

Pastors like this hurt my heart. They don't understand how much they're hurting our Blessed Mother

[@anthonywhitney634]

Trent, being honest the typology of Mary being the Arc of the Covenant seems a stretch, and has been read into scripture to support Marian doctrine. You say that this typology doesn't prove Mariology, but I observe other Catholics would present it as a proof. I agree that some of Mike's examples of Christ's typology is a stretch, but that doesn't negate the very clear cases of Christ in typology.

[@pinoysarisari7374]

2 Sam / Luke 1 connection with Mary and the ARk is just too obvious not to notice it....Luke is clearly trying to point us with Mary and Ark connection....the fact that Luke need to put 3 months in there , just to show the connection ...

[@anthonywhitney634]

@@pinoysarisari7374 with respect I don't think it's obvious at all. From my perspective, Catholics see this typology because of their preexisting views on Mary. Remember Trent Horn stated that this connection was first observed in the 1950s. If it was so obvious would have been noticed long before that.

[@pinoysarisari7374]

@@anthonywhitney634 Early church fathers already knew about this Idea of Mary being ARk of the Covenant.... ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN, 390 A.D. “The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” ---Serm. xlii. 6, Int. Opp., S. Ambrosii

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Have watched a few of the rebuttals with Trent and Mike. Can see where Trent is coming from when it concerns grace and works, although Mike really nails it with Romans 11:6, how grace is incompatible with works. Now about Mary. Not that in saying this that Mary the mother of Jesus should be disparaged, but rather correctly assessed. Surely if one were to assume in the four dogmas of Mary, one would also assume that the new testament writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would at least give space to write about these things, in particular that Mary is without sin and was caught up both body and soul. But they don't. Instead, we are not only to assume, but to those who do not affirm these dogmas in Catholicism, are anathema. And just because there could be typeologies of Mary in the Bible doesn't mean we should be looking for types of Mary in the Bible. Here is where a specific danger in thinking occurs, as explained in Acts 14:11-18. It wouldn't be too hard to conceive in the hearts of many Catholics that Mary is divine as well, given all this. Catholics in South America today worship Mary as godlike, which is for the most part uncontested for their incorrect beliefs. Isaiah 44:6. The notion of the rosary, praying to Mary, "hail Mary's", as a practice that Mary is a go between to God is in error as stated in 1 Timothy 2:5. Also, Exodus 34:14. Tell me, how jealous do you think God is, knowing that the thoughts and prayers of His people are being diverted to another, in this case Mary? The reason Jesus can do this is because He is God, and He alone paid the price for our sins. This and other reasons are why i cannot be Catholic

[@Thosewhocallmetim]

It's telling that Trent deliberately misquotes the council of Trent in order to make Catholicism more palatable, and then claims that it's Mike who's misrepresenting Catholicism

[@lordofthered1257]

I came here as a Mormon returning to my faith. Now I am leaning Catholic and will hopefully be attending church soon. Thanks Trent.

[@veritasmuy2407]

From the frying pan into the fire. Revelation 2:18-22

[@lordofthered1257]

@@veritasmuy2407 I know right I was almost as bad as protestants when I was Mormon thankfully the lord helped me find the true church of Christ.