Refuting Hank Hanegraaff Unplugged, Origin of Scripture and Tradition

I was pointed this morning to a video of Hank Hanegraaff (joined by Dr. Nathan Jacobs) attacking the doctrine of sola scriptura. Given I debated Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples (Roman Catholics) on The Bible Answer Man Broadcast decades ago, I felt it necessary (and useful) to begin a response to the claims made. Nothing new as we have surely addressed all of this in the recent past and literally since the 1990s. But important as the topic remains central.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/go/336785

[@Bamifun]

Converting to Orthodoxy. 🎉

[@wesleysimelane3423]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are virtually the same

[@samsdad110]

Might want to read Galatians 1, especially verses 6-9.

[@justinchamberlain3443]

​@@samsdad110 but for an arminian those almost no other option. At least orthos hate the pope

[@craigime]

​@@wesleysimelane3423not really

[@proximityportal]

Please edit. 5 minutes in and nothing substantial.

[@lukemelchior4862]

It's really not all about you, James

[@Bamifun]

Say again it for the people in the cheap seats.

[@HarrisonB72]

Where can you find that track?

[@File001]

One Million Tracts website.

[@kellyrhoads1067]

I have a great love for the historical church. I do not feel comfortable at all in a modern evangelical church with modern music that has thrown out any liturgy and rubric of ceremony. Frank Schaefer said in an interview that evangelicalism is ‘cult of personality’, and that he was attracted to orthodoxy because it didn’t rely on the personality of church or preacher. I almost completely agree with that sentiment. I have settled into Anglicanism, because it believes in sola scriptura. Although mass is heavily immersed with the prayer book and creeds, the book is mostly scripture. I leaned that direction after attending a pca (Presbyterian church of America)

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

That's wonderful that you've found your comfort niche in a church. As long as it brings you closer to God. For many Christians though, a stripped down building, that generally lacks personality, and some good music to praise God to, even if it's just a guitar, as long as the bible is taught is all they need. Historical churches are all personality and character though, that is the small point I would disagree w/, and that's a huge draw for many people.

[@PrenticeBoy1688]

I've only ever been an Anglican, and I prefer a pretty rigid, formal liturgy. I regularly visit the local PCA that's nearer than my own parish church and with a later start time on those mornings that I can't quite roll out of bed on time. I do that in preference to a nearby ACNA church as I'd rather see Presbyterianism done well than Anglicanism done badly... I also attend a nearby OPC on Sunday evenings. The conservative Presbyterians are sober and reverent and they take Biblical norms for worship very seriously. They've been a great blessing to me as an inconsistently Reformed visitor. Of their attributes I appreciate are their insistence that Christ's true Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, their emphasis on scholarship, and their position that Church History isn't infallible but neither is it irrelevant. I'm admitted to the Lord's Supper in both the OPC and PCA on the basis of my membership in my Anglican parish with the full consent of our rector.

[@ldebrobander]

When tradition contradicts Scripture, that is heresy!

[@justinchamberlain3443]

24:20 orthodox sent a letter in 367ad defining when they would celebrate easter

[@mikestenger1896]

Is it possible that "pillar of truth" and "pillar of faith" are not exactly the same pillar?

[@Phill0old]

Sorry if all the Orthodox and Catholics are hurt by this but he isn't wrong. When you make the claim that the people didn't have the bible you never correct the statement and say that they did have the OT and some parts of the NT. That never gets said. So much so that you argue that the church created the bible as if the church came first. The simplest objection to this is that the largest part of scripture predates the church. So the church didn't give us that in any sense. Then in the wider sense the church didn't create the NT, a few people did, the church exercised no authority over them about what they wrote or when. The only thing that can be said of the church is that members of it, but not all members of it, recognised which writings were scripture. And of those that recognised the scriptures most of them were mistaken in part. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you still won't say 'the people didn't have the whole bible' but will continue to deceive people with your unqualified claim. You will also, I expect, claim that the church decided which books were inspired instead of merely recognising the facts. By your reasoning I gave the world its tallest mountain when I recognised its height.

[@dralgarza]

I just can’t believe what I am hearing at the 5:00 to 6:00 minute mark from Dr. White. Hank was talking about the “PEOPLE”, NOT the church, who did not have the Bible which is true based on the fact that it was only the Universal Church who read and controlled the Bible and the people. The Bible was not in the hands of the common “PEOPLE” for a very long time. Hank is correct. If this Is how Dr. White actually listens to people then he has serious problems. He is so blinded by his own ego to just correct everyone that he needs to look at himself first.

[@easternmcg]

Even so, The “church” condemning william tyndale, burning him at the stake for providing it to the common people is quite enough to consider that establishment antichrist in my view.

[@dralgarza]

@@easternmcg kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKfMd4mEf8t4Zqc

[@samsingletary7004]

It’s James White, so, you know.

[@dralgarza]

@@samsingletary7004 And...?

[@samsingletary7004]

Dr. Al Garza I’m agreeing with you. He has a track record of misinterpreting (probably more out of ignorance than malevolence) the views of those he disagrees with; particularly Lutherans and Orthodox.

[@christianfauerso3633]

James White deletes comments he doesn't like and that flatly refute his claims.

[@asamanthinketh5944]

It's not even his channel so......

[@cassandragarcia5548]

So then you refute his claims....but you can't!

[@KevinSmile]

No he doesn't lmao

[@KnightFel]

This is such a pathetic comment.

[@tdickensheets]

Is Hank Hanegraaff telling the truth??

[@KristiLEvans1]

Who cares? He revealed himself with this conversion and then trying to justify it with semi-literate ramblings. Then he STILL wanted to call himself “Bible Answer Man”. This whole thing was a hustle.

[@matthewrudolph3514]

This topic is huge for me. I was raised Greek Orthodox and when I was 37 God saved me. I am truly transformed by God and a new creation. I no longer attend an Orthodox Church. I’m in a reformed Baptist church. When I hear Orthodox believers say that the Orthodox Church was the first church it becomes extremely important for me to know the truth! The Orthodox believers are very proud of their “first church” beliefs. If I mention anything in regards to them being dead in their sins, they are clueless. In the Orthodox Church, you live like a devil during the week and you go to church Sunday and communion takes away your sins. There is never any talk about being born again or being a new creation in Christ. There are no testimonies of “ I was once like this( a homosexual, a drug addict, thief, a liar, etc) there are none. Now I’m sure there are some people in the the Orthodox Church who are transformed but why isn’t God glorified for saving someone? I sense that Orthodox believers are dead men walking. No clue that they will stand before God in Judgment. It’s very scary. Their trust is in a church that places hope in sacraments, tradition, and church membership. The priest does all the intercession for the congregation. There is no personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The issue here is: does God partially save you but you must work and earn your salvation through sacraments and good works? -As the Orthodox Church teaches which is heretical or does God at one point in your life save you and the “sin debt” is paid in full? -(Biblical). The Bible clearly states that works don’t save you. I am very concerned for these people! They are going to die in their sins! Again if I mention this to an Orthodox believer, I get strange looks and I’m told that I’m a fundamentalist and they were the first church. They have the truth and I don’t. I believe in scripture alone and Orthodoxy doesn’t. So back to the topic, church history is extremely important! Because truth is there was no Orthodox Church as it exists today. The Orthodox Church today is more like the church of the 12th or 13th century.

[@Durnyful]

I've heard the same sort of story many times from evangelicals who've changed to Orthodox. Go figure 🤔

[@SetTheCaptivesFree4797]

I’m an evangelical who loves the Orthodox Church. I’ve gone to various types of Protestant churches.

[@SetTheCaptivesFree4797]

Soooo this is the way it’s been for 2000 years. The reformation came later who am I to trust? All was passed down until Luther led a rebellion. Even Luther admired the sacraments, gave adoration to Mary, and kept some of the traditions. Are you telling me all those in past are going to hell. You don’t believe that we have a personal relationship with Jesus? How is your relationship more personal than someone from orthodox?

[@ovimm5724]

@@Durnyful Really? Cause I live in an Orhodox country and never heard that?

[@Durnyful]

@@ovimm5724 Yes, really. Perhaps you haven't come across this because you live in an Orthodox country. Almost every Orthodox priest i find in the West was formerly a Protestant - because that's what you first encounter in the West in general (if you're not in a roman catholic family). Lookup fr josiah trenham on youtube as a prime example. There are many, many examples. The story is always the same, they start reading early church history and the fathers and discovering the consensus between them and can see that the rc church has deviated from this concensus by largely following Augustines theology & the protestants did the same though following a different aspect in his thinking. Both at odds with the the consensus of the fathers.

[@t-bonet-bone713]

Him and Bart Erman are in the same boat. They come off with such arrogant confidence and speak like they were there during the time of Christ or Iraneous and REALLY KNOW’s what it was all about back then, and they’re here to correct them and you. Kind of like when Bart Ehrman stated that “Jesus probably was illiterate.. most likely illiterate.” White is the smartest dumb guy I know. I’m a Protestant.

[@Daciaforever95]

@10:55 “I don’t know if bishop Irenaeus would pass any hermeneutics class today” what a hilarious statement 😂😂 White isn’t serious is he? Lol

[@yardiemark]

The Irenaeus argument is weak. What about all the things he said that were true that we take for granted today? Such as the necessity of the four gospels? The New Testament didn't fall out of the sky. The importance of the canon and which books were essential is literally part of the church tradition...

[@t-bonet-bone713]

He also Reminds me of the people that Paul spoke of who were against him and we’re trying to discredit him.

[@benjbaird6851]

Wait... "Greek and Church history" are the most important classes this guy ever took, but he's Baptist? Can somebody explain, i'm new here.

[@pappap1702]

Who is this guy?

[@FaithfulComforter]

A Calvinist who cherry picks

[@ALi71888]

Debate Jay Dyer!

[@4emrys]

Jay dyer is toxic. If I was Orthodox I wouldn't even consider him a brother, let alone an authority.

[@tricord2939]

Jay Dyer 🤣😂😅

[@t-bonet-bone713]

The little I’ve seen of Jay Dyer, while trying to understand what the Eastern Orthodox Church is all about, is that he is childish, disrespectful to those of the charismatic persuasion. I think he is very intelligent but has a character flaw.

[@Jess-cw6tf]

He needs to debate Father Jodiah Trenham not Jay Dyer

[@samuelrosenbalm]

I follow what the Apostles taught. I reject the traditions of men. The New Testament is pretty clear. And if it's not in the Bible, I don't believe it.

[@FaithfulComforter]

Paul taught in Thessaloniki for 2-3 years. Not everything was written like 2 Thess 2:15 states. Paul calls the church the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15. You know Martin Luther valued the sacraments and traditions, right?

[@samuelrosenbalm]

@@FaithfulComforter I believe in Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because it's biblical. And tradition is very much a part of the Christian life. I don't reject tradition - but I subject it to the teachings handed down by the Apostles (the New Testament).

[@FaithfulComforter]

@@samuelrosenbalm If that’s true buy Early Christian Fathers by Cyril Richardson

[@samuelrosenbalm]

@@FaithfulComforter Very important book. The teachings/writings of the apostolic and early church fathers are extremely important and are part of the reason I hold the ordinances in such high regard, including rejecting a purely symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper practiced by many protestants and even a few reformed Christians. I don't shy away from terms such as Theotokos, or even Eucharist. But I refuse to view such language through the lens of modern Catholic theology, or even my own theology. What I see practiced in the early Church is what I feel should be emulated by today's Christians, and it's what I see practiced especially in reformed circles: emphasis on salvation through faith, unto good works. Diligent study of the writings of the Apostles (scripture). Practicing the ordinances. Holy living, separate from the world. Love of the brethren. Practice of spiritual gifts. What I do not see is a vulgar misappropriation of the teachings, contrary to the teachings handed down, as they evolved through centuries of progressive corruption and revision.

[@johnwestermark5649]

VOTE FOR MARV P.😁😁

[@lukusmaximus]

I love how James speaks as if he doesn't have a set of lenses and presuppositions when reading church history.

[@jeremiahboddy8262]

Yes we are all bias haha

[@ManlyServant]

unless if you are believer of tradition of men,you will interpret anything for your church because you have bias

[@ForwardTalk]

Agreed. He certainly does.

[@Phill0old]

He does recognise that. He says so often, he works hard to remove them and studies much to get a better understanding. Communion is bread and wine, served separately by Christ to his disciples. That's what Jesus did and said. He then instructed Paul in the same process and method. What lens are you using when you mix them together and take them from a spoon? Not what Jesus did, not what he said to do, not what he told Paul, not what Paul told the church, not what the early church did. Oral tradition that you didn't remember for 700 years and didn't fully enact until 1500? Mmmm seems like you do what your priests say because they say so and ignore the scriptures when it suits.

[@Phill0old]

@Men Can't Change Their Gender Who?

[@kyrie-eleison-23]

This thought process and line of argumentation leads to atheism (or some restorationist sect).

[@theologian1456]

I don't think one needs new Testament Greek to be an effective apologist, but those that do not know the original language should refer to those that do.

[@TheFluteNewb]

In the first ten minutes White conflates his terms. He says: 1)the Bible = Scripture, 2) Scripture = the Bible, therefore 3) the early church had the Bible However, a much more accurate way of describing this would be 1') the Bible = Scripture, but 2') Scripture =/= the Bible, therefore 3') the early church had Scripture, but not the Bible. So even if the protestant Bible contains all of Scripture, having Scripture is not the same as having the Bible. If someone has a "New Testament with Proverbs" handed to them they can say they have Scripture, but they cannot say they have the Bible. In the early church, there was the Old Testament Scriptures, but they did not have the Bible. By playing fast and loose with the terms he can try to avoid the issue of how the New Testament canon originated.

[@christianfauerso3633]

Don't use logic and common sense around James White, it just makes he and his followers cranky.

[@brianrich7828]

We know how the NT canon originated by the existence of it. The Councils just reaffirmed what was canon. The Scriptures predate the Church councils by a long shot. The fact that some people had some disagreements on what was to be added or not is neither here nor there.

[@timothypolhamus4515]

​@@brianrich7828 That's not true. There were about 150 books that various local churches regarded as Scripture - hence the need for a final and authoritative NT Canon - this happened at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

[@brianrich7828]

@@timothypolhamus4515 They brought all books together including ones that were a “maybe” and even ones that were more in the fringe due to the possibility according to some church leaders of that time. If we go back further, you’ll see that the canon was indeed considered to be just that, but there were some that were maybes still. And none, in the early church Fathers writings, included the complicity of the Apocryphal writings.

[@thaiyang123]

Why you are spending so much efforts and time to criticize someone who are trying to draw people closer to God? Also at the same time, you are missing What Hang was trying to say. I think you should spend those time to Biblical educate people. There are so many people out there waiting for us as Christ follower to educate them and encourage them for Christ.

[@brojstew0831]

Arrogance personified

[@ontologicallysteve7765]

13:35

[@t-bonet-bone713]

I’ve watched many times Mr White speak both in this format and in debates. If his conduct is an indication of his level of humility, then he is devoid of any. Even Bart Erman said “he is not a nice person. Maybe because of what Erman represents. BUT I try to seperate my feelings about white from what he is pointing out. In this video he brings our points I’ve never realized and gives me a point to run down to fine the truth. I do dined it hard to believe from him that the Orthodox Church started there system of traditions/liturgy beginning in the 8th century.

[@KristiLEvans1]

No. He didn’t say that at all. He said they were frozen in the 7th/8tn C. because of the obvious. Clearly, their theology developed UNTIL THEN, then it was nailed down. Scholarship, Scripture… nothing can correct the theology of the various orthodox churches, now. If one points out some unscriptural practice, they’ll just attack scripture as not complete. Hard to argue with that because anything goes as long as it had “tradition” hung onto it, as a teaching.

[@t-bonet-bone713]

@@KristiLEvans1 ok, thank you for clarifing the century statement for me. Not sure I understand the meaning of the last sentence. I am interested in your views. Thanks!

[@KristiLEvans1]

@@t-bonet-bone713 that’s fair. Let me make a complete sentence instead of writing down a thought in my own head. Lol

[@t-bonet-bone713]

@@KristiLEvans1 very good. I eagerly wait for your thoughts on that last sentence sister Kristi

[@maxprescott9371]

@@KristiLEvans1So well said,, and thank you ✝️💟👋

[@scipioafricanus2195]

i love when prots cherry pick quotes from the fathers but ignore everything else the fathers said or believed. Does he really think a quote by ireneaus (that he clearly doesn't even understand properly) is a sufficient refutation of Orthodoxy? He also continually insults Hanegraaffs intelligence in this by nitpicking his wording when anyone even slightly well read knows exactly what hank is saying. Disingenuous and annoying. How do people take this guy seriously?

[@lukusmaximus]

Not many people do anymore, he's even losing listeners from his very own reformed circles. He's the strawman king, and he is deeply illogical.

[@devinlawson2208]

I'm not a James white guy, but I am someone who became Anglican from Eastern Orthodoxy. Believe me, the EOs cherry pick and quote mine just the same.

[@christianfauerso3633]

@@devinlawson2208 You mean like everyone does???

[@scipioafricanus2195]

@@devinlawson2208 difference is the EO church is quote mining their own writers. The difference between the EO and the early church is much smaller than either the Anglicans or any other prottie nonsense. Its sad you left EO for a dying progressive shell of a church. Hope you come back.

[@scipioafricanus2195]

@@devinlawson2208 also that said "difference" i mentioned is not in doctrine but the natural development of various cultures.

[@Chew81]

But the early Christians were still NEVER Reformed or Calvinistic in any sense of these words. They were definitely Orthodox or Catholic in varying degrees

[@ronaldfailano8907]

Wow Hank does not know church history before reformation?

[@KristiLEvans1]

Nope. He is uneducated.

[@mrsvioletlilac]

You are doing a video and you are not prepared?

[@proximityportal]

Refuting the Bible Answer Man 😂 lol

[@BrandynMakes]

You spelled refuting incorrectly

[@christianfauerso3633]

Iraneaus never claims Jesus was more than 50 years old when he died. Also a straw man. James White lies again.

[@acolytes777]

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,(5) He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged(6) by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had(7) appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God(8)--infants,(9) and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"(10) the Prince of life,(11) existing before all, and going before all. 5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle? 6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"(4) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their AEons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their..... (untranslatable)... "The gods sat round, while Jove presided o'er, And converse held upon the golden floor." Against the Heresies book 22:4-6 Not a straw man.

[@christianfauerso3633]

@@acolytes777 I am well aware of what Irenaeus said. Read the link I posted. Just reposting what Irenaeus stated isn't helpful.

[@tricord2939]

Wrong

[@orthodoxrocks9644]

Oh James White....sad sad sad. He has not a clue about Orthodoxy or our Tradition! I watched the so called Catholic debates...the guys actually waxed tired of him blatantly refusing to come to any knowledge of Church History namely Tradition! He kept firing back, "the Greek says this," etc... which means: "my sola interpretation says this!" Sola Scriptura existed long before James White the heresy was called: Arianism.

[@wesleysimelane3423]

So you rely also on the traditions of men.

[@TPizzle96]

@@wesleysimelane3423 no, we rely on the traditions of Christ. Protestants are the one creating man-made traditions

[@wesleysimelane3423]

@@TPizzle96 Which traditions of Christ do you rely on?

[@TPizzle96]

@@wesleysimelane3423 the apostolic deposit of the Church which is continued by the Holy Spirit through unction or the laying of hands as seen in the book of Acts. Within that body Holy Tradition is passed down orally and through written texts

[@wesleysimelane3423]

@@TPizzle96 Your response was ambiguous to say the least. Catholic (T)traditions are not inspired nor of Jesus. They are a result of false claims of authority power brokered by the elite men of romanism who had no intentions to follow scripture, our only sole source of authority. Indeed. these traditions, instead of saving souls, damns them to the deepest pit of hell. Here is a little list of the dates and anti-biblical teachings of the Roman Church introduced: -- A.D. 300 Prayers for the dead -- A.D. 300 Making the sign of the cross -- A.D. 375 Worship of saints and angels -- A.D. 394 Mass first instituted -- A.D. 431 Worship of Mary begun -- A.D. 500 Priests began dressing differently than laymen -- A.D. 526 Extreme unction -- A.D. 593 Doctrine of purgatory introduced -- A.D. 600 Worship services conducted in Latin -- A.D. 600 Prayers directed to Mary Invention of the Rosary 1221 by Saint --Dominic, saying Mary showed it to him in an apparent hallucination --Invention of the Scapular - According to RCC tradition, Blessed Mother appeared to St. Simon Stock at Cambridge, England on Sunday, July 16, 1251 and presented him with the brown scapular. From there it spiralled out of control to invent 17 more scapulars. --The invention & use of religious medals as we know them today arose in the sixteenth century. Pope St. Pius V (d. 1572) began the custom of blessing religious medals and attaching an indulgence to them. For example, in 1566 he blessed medals with the image of Jesus and Mary and granted an indulgence to the faithful who wore them. This was actual pagan, but Catholics claim that through their priests, they “baptised” the culture into Christianity

[@peacesalaam816]

There's so much confusion within christianity!! Jesus or should I say Isa was NOT Christian!! In fact he was Jewish!! This is basic knowledge , he was circumcised and never ate pork, but what do the Christians do🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️??? What they are following now is in fact paulism!! Do your research and watch how you go down that rabbit hole of lies!

[@peacesalaam816]

@Brad Bowers 🙄🤯ok

[@B_Roger]

You either did not watch the video and just came here to post this comment or you watched the video and didn't understand even a thing.

[@t-bonet-bone713]

You make no sense like all of your other Muslim brothers. Read John of Damascus. He talks about the Muslims and Mohammed at a time when Islam just was beginning their doctrines of demons.

[@craigime]

Abdul, where did you come from?

[@colegest9742]

James White is nauseating to listen to. He just emulates pride and pomp.

[@KevinSmile]

This dude has done hundreds of debates and has been in polemics/apologetics his whole life. There's no way he does all that and doesn't become confident in his position.