Did the Catholic Church MURDER the "True Church"?

Some Baptists (most famously J.M. Carroll, in his 1931 work "The Trail of Blood") claim that Baptists aren't REALLY Protestants. Instead, the theory goes, there have been Baptists* for 2000 years, and the only reasons nobody had heard of them until after the Protestant Reformation is that (a) they used to go by different names, and (b) the Catholic Church killed 50,000,000(!) of them. So... is any of that true?
*While I'm focusing on Baptists, other groups (like the Seventh-day Adventists) have their own versions of this kind of history, and most of what I'm addressing is relevant to those claims as well.
Chapters
0:00 - Intro
9:18 - Overveiw
2:30 - Protestant's Problem
11:43 - Key Ideas
25:44 - What do they believe
30:16 - The Donatists
34:33 - The Bogomils and Cathars
46:48 - The Albigensians

[@Revolver1701]

I’m a Baptist. The idea that “ Fifty Million Baptists” could be in agreement on ANYTHING is absurd. That’s why we have hundreds if not thousands of Baptist denominations. But I’m 65 and have never heard of the Landmark variety. On behalf of this Baptist (me) I’m sorry if this group offended you guys. I’m here to learn. Thank you.

[@kainosktisis777]

God bless you. Peace be with you. 🙏🏼🕊️✝️

[@timboslice980]

Prayers for joe and his expanding family! Loved the content, when i was a calvinist i heard john macarthur and james white mention the faithful remnant of protestant styled christians. I believed them and trusted them. I was shamefully unaware of church history but in my defense, i was convinced the catholic church doctored church history so it was a waste of time to look into anything they said. I would only trust secular or protestant sources. I was really into apologetics but wouldn't watch anything with a catholic in it. Only in house debates with different protestants. They typically debate scripture and rarely touch on history. I was almost totally ignorant of church history between nicea 1 and the reformation. I had generally secular ideas about the crusades, the colonization of south america, slave trade, and Spanish inquisition. Last year, After a really low point in my life i prayed to god to show me what i had to do, where do i go, what is the truth? I was lost and felt like maybe i was never elect or going to be. That night i had a dream as clear as day about the Catholic church. I thought i had seen one too many exorcist movies or i was going crazy but felt compelled to study the church, even if it was to finally dismiss it. I was shocked that day to discover a lot of what i was taught about them was totally being denied by the catholics. I thought, why do they deny their beliefs? Lets see what they say they actually believe and test it by the scriptures like i did the other protestants. I was confirmed this year and my obsession with studying the church has become an absolute addiction. The more i learn, the more i want to learn. If i wasnt married already id probably be thinking it was some kind of call to priesthood. My life has improved 100% since turning from calvinism toward the true church. Unfortunately it has put some religious strain on my marriage but my wife has always been extremely nominal when it comes to her spiritual life. She does admit that our lives have greatly improved since my conversion but doesnt eant to admit that was the cause. I get it.... i was foolish for a very long time. I am nothing now if not patient and faithful so i think shell come around one day.

[@StringofPearls55]

I will pray for your wife! I have a feeling that at some point she'll open heart heat and mind. God bless and thanks for the story! I love conversion stories.

[@TrixRN]

I love honest account of your conversion. I’ll pray for your wife as well.🙏❤️ from one convert to another

[@stacielara9856]

Thank you for sharing your powerful story. I became catholic at age 26 after reading my way into the church. I wasn’t brought up in any particular religion but had a lot of anti-catholic bias which surprised me. I am now 51 and very happily Catholic. I also am obsessed with learning as much as I can about our beautiful church. I’ll be praying for you and your wife.

[@timboslice980]

@stacielara9856 Thank you for that. Perhaps too much to ask but what books/literature brought you in? I was shocked by my anti catholic biases as well... the worst was my distrust of the church pre reformation. I just casually assumed God had mercy on all those poor souls the catholic church forced into those rituals. I assumed the faith was lost sometime around Constantine. I was totally ignorant that the church had multiple popes before that. I knew rome fell shortly after the Christians started spreading the gospel there. I assumed most were wiped out but the few survivors taught the barbarians latin and about christ and then it was just isolated pockets of Christians all over western Rome. Then Constantine shows up and starts the catholic church, introduced the chi ro, etc ... incredibly, I wouldn't even listen to anything opposing that view of history.

[@TrixRN]

@@timboslice980 I also primarily read myself into the Church; I came into the Church 9 years ago. I 1st became interested when I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I was reading it I would look up the reference documents cited in the CCC. Next I read the Early Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Justin Martyr, & others. I read documents of the 1st 7 Councils & looked up reputable online sources, Catholic Answers, Vatican website, watched EWTN. I read books by Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Edward Sri, Brant Pitre, & a lot of others. All of this took 4 years & included 2 times in RCIA. I hope my list helps.🙏❤️

[@Catholiclady3]

Wow! The mental gymnastics people go thru to renounce the authority of the Catholic church is seriously impressive!

[@kylecityy]

Hello, not trying to be rude. Could you please explain how it's mental gymnastics to not believe in an infallible supreme bishop of rome

[@GreatfulGert]

@@kylecityy Supported by the New Eliakim typological argument and the Rock affirmation, the keys of heaven + binding and loosing permission alongside the practice of Apostolic Succession. Affirmed repeatedly through the early church councils.

[@kylecityy]

@GreatfulGert Thank you for answering my question, I hope to have a respectful conversation, I hope you don't find my points disrespectful or dishonest. im not claiming its mental gymnastics to believe in the papacy, just trying to say it's not mental gymnastics to not to. If I'm wrong, I'm always willing to change my view. 1. I think it is reasonable, not mental gymnastics, to not believe in a doctrine based upon a typology... as well as the typology has limits, I don't think it shows a papal authority, and it doesn't have much patristic support. 2. The rock - I don't think it's mental gymnastics to think Peter was the rock, but not Peter faith, and personhood, and the bishop of Rome successors alone to be the rock. I think his faith was the rock, and he represented all the bishops and apostles(a view Cyprian holds). The patristic support for your view of the rock, I could be wrong, and please correct me, but I think it's limited in comparison to what most church fathers say. 3. Keys of heaven and binding and loosing. i dont think that is peter alone who holds that power, but all the apostles shown in matthew 18. I take the interpretation of the rest of the passage of matthew 16 to mean in the end the gates of hell will not prevail, I don't think that means that there won't be any doctrinal error, just like God makes similar promises to his people in the old testament, and that didn't mean sinful stuff didn't happen, like the Babylonian exile. I guess to summarize my point is that God can fulfill promises even though his body of believers are not always faithful. 4. dont see how apostolic succession proves the papacy, maybe it proves that their was a single bishop in rome, but id argue that its plausible that there wasnt a single bishop of rome, rather plurality of elders/bishops in rome until the middle of 2nd century. 5. church councils... could you please tell me which ecumenical council affirms the papacy so we can talk about one in detail. i know this isn't an ecumenical council, but cyprian of carthage and 87 bishops had a council and rejected the papacy. stephen(bishop of rome) was dealing with a controversy and claimed since he was bishop of rome, he held supreme authority. he was probably the first to use matthew 16 in a similar way you do. firmillian rebuked him, and cyprian presided over a council which 87 bishops accepted the statement... "For no one [of us ] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions". it seems to me at one point the bishop of rome didn't have universal authority here.

[@kylecityy]

@GreatfulGert sorry for the long response. I just wanted to answer each of your points. If you want to continue, I'll limit the long responses and ask more questions instead.

[@SaltShack]

@@GreatfulGertinteresting you call upon the authority of the “early Church councils” to justify the authority of the Papacy because they in fact and in practice don’t. Canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that was attended by 251 Bishops granted the same privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople “New Rome” as the Bishop of “Old Rome”. The entire idea of magisterium authority held by the Papacy is a new development that began getting traction with the enthronement of Charlemagne and the rise and reforms of the Holy Roman Empire as a result of political and geographic isolation and turmoil in the west. In other words the Papacy as necessary as it may have been in its time and place and it’s contributions to the advancement of Christianity and its extraordinary monuments built to the glory of God actually has little connection to the early Church as it was in fact the first to embrace reformation. Proof is found in the existence of the 849 pages of the Roman Catholic Catechism, the “Summary of Beliefs” that have modified theology, Doctrine and practice to a degree that makes the Roman Church virtually unrecognizable to the Church of the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers.

[@batmaninc2793]

I heard you say the group's name, but all I could hear was, "We're so desperate to reject the Catholic Church that we'll lie about history".

[@finallythere100]

Yeah it’s what they do .. and why they try to dismiss Apostolic / Early Church fathers . They say we listen to men. But it’s historical documentation of the early Church starting w direct disciples of Apostles: .. bs believing THEM w their falsely translated bibles and their ventures off religions. But where did these anti Baptist’s get their bibles?!

[@JaddenSinn]

A baptist friend gave me Trail of Blood to read in an attempt to sway me from Catholicism. It was one of the worst "scholarly" works I've ever read. It has no scholarly merit with no real citations, the few references and citations in the book are near impossible to verify, it is laughably bad.

[@robertotapia8086]

Learning and growing in my faith with you @Joe Heschmeyer. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

[@jendoe9436]

That was….. interesting I’ll say. I wish I would have known about these sorts of arguments back when I was in high school and the textbooks touted out the “millions killed by the Church in the ‘Dark Ages’” lines. Something never sat right with me about that, even when I was only a nominal Catholic at the time. I think the layout and calculations of the numbers and population offer pretty solid evidence that claims of mass genocide by the Church are laughably unsupported. Thanks for a great episode as always, Joe 😇

[@slyguy.7216]

Some big names in the Protestant world have held to this or very similar to this view. Most notably John MacArthur has expressed this “golden thread” view, identifying groups like the anabaptists as the forebears of modern day Reformed Calvinist Baptists. I’ve found this sort of ridiculous especially if you consider the amount of mental gymnastics you need to make that connection while attempting to cherry pick doctrines that were authoritatively defined by the Catholic Church and discard others. The truth is that guys like MacArthur are intelligent enough to realize how bad Protestantism and particularly traditions like the Baptist’s look when the history of the Church is applied, that there is very clearly innovation or at very least novel interpretations of scripture as well as a willful disregard for the heritage we have as Christians. Going so far as to cast Ecumenical Councils aside to avoid the mistake of the EO and having difficulty explaining why the Papacy is not accepted now when it was clearly accepted by the ancients.

[@jlynnc9559]

To me it is the first among equals. The Pope of RC was corrupted when politics took over and changed the dynamics. I am toying with idea that the Orthodox Church is the original church. It stayed true.

[@slyguy.7216]

@@jlynnc9559 keep looking into them, I was convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and the others have wonderful things about them but ultimately don’t pass the test of being indefectible in the same way. Particularly on matters of salvific grace, prime example is rebaptism. As a catholic and some orthodox this would be considered illicit if the believer was baptized using the proper substance (water) and the trinitarian formula (I baptize you in the name of…) However, the Orthodox are not uniform on this and disagree with each other on the practice, since there is no clear head that can exert authority over another apostolic see there is no way to definitively settle this issue. This is only one example but when you look further in you will find others, it was unsettling to me as a Protestant looking for stability. Peace be with you.

[@Krehfish534]

As soon as the apostles died people were making claims that everyone had a responsibility to submit to the bishops, that infants could be baptized, that the eucharist was only valid if a bishop or someone he appoints is presiding, that Mary was the sinless, immaculately conceived, assumed, perpetual virgin-mother of God, and that you could ask the deceased to pray for you. Either the generation after the apostles killed the true church, or these things were a part of the Gospel from the beginning. Those really are our only two options. And it all really comes down to how much you think God loved his church: to save it from heresy, or not?

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Interesting. You don't consider a 3rd option: development of doctrine, as described by Cardinal Newman?

[@mikekayanderson408]

That’s where you have it wrong. The truth did not die - God had his people who HE preserved in truth. Protestants do not say the church died. Jesus did not say the church would be preserved from false doctrine even Jesus Himself warned about false shepherds and teachers - wolves in sheep’s clothing who would come to TRY and decoy the flock. Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail. False teaching would come. Satan would attack. But the Church would not succumb to death and would win in the end. The Church is protected by God. So Jesus is addressing the final outcome - which is victory ! He has already win the victory on our behalf. Re the Reformation - the Roman church was powerful and had grabbed all authority for itself and did persecute Christian’s who would not bow to its authority and false teaching - need to be corrected. RE FORMED. Changed. But it refused and so many people within the Roman church left and joined the Protestants because the could see - by God’s grace and help - the lies within Rome. Which have been re-enforced and added to since the 16 th century. God loves His church and said heresy would come - but by this heresy God can weed out the tares from the wheat. He said HE would send a delusion that people would love because they did not love the truth, the great apostasy. SO. I now say to you. There are two options and it comes down to what you want to believe. GOD’S TRUTH in HIS WORD. Or the LIES OF ROME. I pray to God that you will, with His help, seek HIM and HIS TRUTH in HIS WORD and in HIS WORD ALONE. 🙏🙏🙏

[@daviddabrowski01]

@@mikekayanderson408no. If the true church fell into apostasy you would need prophets. John the Baptist was the last prophet and the apocalypse was the last book of public revelation. So you have to call the reformers prophets in order for your argument to stand. And if prophets, then you negate the entire New Testament because these 16th century “prophets” would have to pen their own letters to be added to the Bible.

[@daviddabrowski01]

@@mikekayanderson408so many people could see…. Could see what exactly? Over 95% of the public was illiterate. They weren’t sitting around watching KZbin videos. They didn’t have access to thousands of thousands of theology texts because the printing press hadn’t been invented yet. To see means they understood. And to understand means they had to be learned. In the 16th century they were more worried about where their next meal was coming from and whether they’d die of their next fever. What was it that they saw exactly? If by see you mean the Protestant sects were protected by the states that saw a massive political benefit in adopting, for example, Lutheranism as their state church, then sure, they saw, they saw what was politically and socially expedient.

[@cristinamz2137]

@@mikekayanderson408 You need prayer, darling 😮‍💨, if you cannot see that it is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH whom HE preserved in the TRUTH.

[@blueticks8423]

Man! This unpacked so much for me! I was raised in the SDA church and lived within it for almost 30 years. I’ve spent the last year or so unlearning all the lies and distortions of the Bible and history I’ve been taught. This was a big one for me. Thank you sir. I’m one step closer to asking to begin RCIA.

[@GrammarPoliceBot]

I was a reformed Baptist. The funniest thing to me now is how their defining doctrine is an insistence on “believers baptism” but they also don’t believe baptism actually does anything. It’s 100% symbolic. So they really care how it’s done even though it is not efficacious in any way.

[@AISurvivor-sh6dl]

I’m friends with a Baptist (Likely a fundamentalist) who believes this stuff. During some conversations he took down a religious slant he tried to convince me of his Baptists beliefs, and he presented this idea to me in that effort. I was utterly dumbfounded by it to say the least, and that sent me down the rabbit hole of learning about this Baptist Sucessionism idea. Luckily I had some brilliant Catholic friends who helped me along the way. (Thanks guys!) In a debate they had with my Baptist buddy he tried to fling this assertion at them. My Catholic friends merely asserted the falsehood of this claim, and to my surprise even now it was enough to make him completely abandon it and change topics. Why he made no effort to further defend it was and remains really astonishing to me. But then again, the whole idea he was trying to defend was and is completely ludicrous to begin with.

[@RenegadeCatholic]

"We were founded by John the Baptist" - Brother Billy Bob, ignoring the fact that John was a devout Jew who died under the Davidic covenant years before the indefectible church would be founded....by Jesus...not John. I also find it comical to imagine a small band of Nazarene Baptists running around the Galilean countryside in 33AD preaching to people from their 1611AV KJV.

[@wesleysimelane3423]

Same applies to Peter and the rcc. I always found it amazing that the first pope of the Roman Catholic church was a Sabbath observing, Temple worshipping, pork abstaining JEW who was married and according to the Bible had a mother - in - law so he must have had a wife. Simply amazing. Also amazing that most of the practices of the Vatican go completely contrary to what Peter was all about.

[@RenegadeCatholic]

1. Scripture indicates that the earliest Christians worshipped on the Lord's day, Sunday, as the Sabbath is no longer binding. Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2, Col 2:16-17, Rev 1:10 2. Scripture states that the apostles did go to the Temple, usually to witness to those in attendance about the Messiah and Gospel message. However, it also indicates they did this in private homes. 3. Scripture states that dietary laws are no longer necessary, however, it doesn't indicate that Christians must eat pork. So if Peter abstained, which is not mentioned in scripture, that's a personal choice that he was free to make. 4. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, and there are priests who are married. Byzantine Catholic priests are allowed to marry. This wasn't quite the "gotcha" that you thought it was.

[@stcolreplover]

@@wesleysimelane3423you simply talk about things you know nothing about

[@marvalice3455]

​@@stcolreplovermany such cases unfortunately

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

@@wesleysimelane3423 You know priests, and Bishops, can be married, right?

[@eddardgreybeard]

That's always my go to question: If the Catholic Church wasn't the church Christ founded, which church was it and why did the gates of hell prevail against it?

[@clivejames5058]

You're right, the catholic church (small 'c', meaning universal) is Christ's church. This is not the Roman Rite (one of only 23 Rites, as I'm sure you know).

[@huntsman528]

Wrong church man, not a human organization. Small c...

[@eddardgreybeard]

@@huntsman528 Assuming Christ wasn't founding an upper case C

[@eddardgreybeard]

@@clivejames5058 But those rites are one Church. Catholic and Orthodox might have split but it's still one Church. If the Church isn't apostlic then it's a man made religion

[@marvalice3455]

​@@huntsman528so either 1. That means there's actually nothing Rome with being in the Catholic church, or 2. You still have the same exact problem being unable to identify the "small c church". You are not actually getting out of this problem, you are trying and failing to play a word game to get out of having to confront this problem.

[@jamesmisfeldt264]

Man I love Thursdays! It is amazing how common these sorts of beliefs are. I occasionally see friends post things like this on social media, great video.

[@robertotapia8086]

@ShamelessPopery @Joe Heschmeyer I thank GOD every time you drop a video. We learn so much with you. I would like to see you talk about SDA, and there's a brother called @Myles Christian YT channel called @Answering Adventism he's very knowledgeable and charitable especially in SDA false doctrines he reminds me of Cameron Bertuzzi he's trying to help SDA get out.

[@angelanelson2369]

Absolutely!

[@southpawhammer8644]

Thank you for addressing this, your work is priceless. I appreciate your videos so much, I have 2 of your books, all I need now is time, LoL.

[@michaeljefferies2444]

I think the trail of blood answers a question that’s more specific to baptists. If baptists are right, and infant baptisms aren’t valid (and they will admit that baptism is the sign of church membership) then you have an at least 1,000 year period where there were almost no true members of the church, other than converts. This is a real problem for baptists that I’ve seen few wrestle with. Gavin Ortlund, fortunately, I have seen wrestle with, and he called infant baptisms valid, but so departed from the biblical norm that they probably should be repeated if a person is joining a baptist church.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

He also has zero evidence and doesn't interact with the essence of early Christianity to see how it would be applied throughout time

[@Valued_Member_of_the_Community]

Thanks for all of your hard work Joe.

[@BasilTU]

This channel is a gem! Thank you Joe. I discovered you through your book, Pope Peter. And since then, I've been amazed with what yiu do here on KZbin. God bless you.

[@paularnold3745]

How could an invalid Church preserve the scriptures so well? If protestants believe in the inerrancy of scripture then they have to believe that the Church was at least inerrant regarding its determination of the canon and the preservation and promulgation of scripture through history.

[@marvalice3455]

Remember! They only have 66 books.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Who was inerrant to preserve what we refer to as the “Old Testament”?

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303There were different groups of Jews in Jesus's day like the sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots, and they all had different canons. The books the Apostles left behind at the Churches they established are the Catholic OT canon.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@MasterKeyMagic so did the Jews not know for certain what the Word of God (the canon) at that time was? Did no one know for certain what the Word of God (the canon) was until these councils said so?

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 There was no such thing as Judaism yet as we know it today. Rabbinic Judaism didn't arise until after the destruction of the second temple. In the time of Jesus there was no unity among those who called themselves Jews. Like Protestants, they all claimed to be the real ones. But Jesus never confirmed who was right. While he never said it, it can be argued that Jesus most aligned with the Essenes and Pharisees, but not entirely of either. Its the Essenes who left us the Dead Sea Scrolls which has all the LXX books found in the Catholic Canon, but in Hebrew, confirming they were believed by some to be the word of God.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

Joe, I am excited to watch this video. Keep them coming.

[@user-uc1yb7hy2n]

This makes my day. Thank you. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.

[@bradfordrupert1769]

Thanks for breaking this argument down!

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

What's interesting is how the earliest protestants understood how necessary a succession of their beliefs was. Now they never had any evidence at all, but there wasn't a lot of great scholarship on it. Then when the evidence did come out that there was no such succession, did people leave protestant churches en masse? Of course not. They just abandoned what their own forebears believed for a more stripped down version of sola scriptura. They stayed on the same team while their views shifted wildly which is unfortunately also a problem for Catholics especially with semantic shift. It's less of a problem for a sacramental religion, but would an ancient Christian transported here today see Church communities with the same essence on many other things given how infected they've been with liberalism and a liberal conception of Christianity?

[@ingoditrust7784]

Protestantism is heretical in nature. Heresy is a problem arising in regard with all belief systems. Heretical thinking will always coexist with sound doctrine because we're not that smart or moral, after all. The world has been throwing so much dirt at humanity, of course Catholics are also affected. In the end our divisions have done much to weaken the Church. This is why all Christians should strive for unity in the true Faith.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

What do you mean by liberalism? Like helping the poor? Making sure everyone sick gets treatment regardless of cost? Making sure the elderly, widows and orphans are taken care of? All the things conservatives are obstacles towards?

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@MasterKeyMagic Delusional virtue signaling. People high only in the individualizing moral foundations don't care about objective measures that help the poor based on some constant standard. They care about appearing virtuous in light of the ruling morality. This is why you end up with such a problem with drug abuse and homeless people. If you want to see progressive policies working, look at Vancouver where they want you to either die through euthanasia or because of a state supplied needle in your arm. Studies also show those who really care about wealth redistribution are mostly motivated by malicious envy. This is also why people are so concerned with relative inequality even if the absolute level of poverty has declined, but a highly wealthy society with a specialized economy allows for people to become fantastically wealthy due to satisfying scarce resources especially related to coordination. Well anyway, everyone knows leftists are complete hypocrites, nimbys. Just look into studies on how they talk down to the poor and racial minorities, or engage in white flight more readily despite their avowed love of diversity. They speak of these things in the abstract, but look at how they treat people in these classes when they step off the plantation and say somethint other than the approved line

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@MasterKeyMagic The Bible also speaks about the essence of things vs just the appearance especially when discussing the pharisees. We would much rather have a program that actually helps the poor than something that says it helps the poor. The modern left has basically nothing to say against consumerism, sexual sin, and drug abuse, thus why they actually prop up modern capitalism that is highly invested in such anti-social behavior

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@TheThreatenedSwan But the poorest states are red states💀 I know where you are going at. Less government is better, free market capitalism helps the poor the most. But history doesn't support either claim. I'm not a liberal because unlike liberals, the scope of how far i am willing to go to continue the ministry of Jesus exceeds beyond whats possible in Capitalism. You can give a man a fish AND teach him to fish. Its a lot easier to learn when you're not starving. Prior to FDR, the very limited government before that led to poverty the likes its hard for us to wrap our heads around. Free market capitalism lead to awful abuse of the poor and child labor.

[@tylerpilkington8461]

Hey Joe, thank you so much for your videos. I appreciate you expounding on the "invisible remnant:" I recently came out of a branch of Plymouth Brethren who pretty much base their entire existence on this idea; they believe very strongly that they are the remnant. If you're ever able to go in deeper into Brethrenism, Darby, dispensationalism et al., I would appreciate it. Thanks again!

[@Peter-zh5mv]

I wish I had a nickel for every group that says it's the remnant. The graven image Mary worshipers think they are God's people. Just ask cardinal mccarrick.

[@essafats5728]

@@Peter-zh5mv right, and yet modern "christians" have no problem with allowing legalized MURDER of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of INNOCENT babies via abortion.

[@kylej.reeves4268]

My father cited this when I converted to Catholicism, and he still believes it.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

Awww the poor innocent protestants. Remind him Luther directly caused thousands/hundreds of thousands to die because his revolt caused political and religious disruption between the 16th-early 18th centuries. Or horny Henry VIII and his daughter Elizebeth killing thousands of Catholics in England. Then there was the Potato famine killing 1M Irish Catholics starved to death and displacing 3M more trying to avoid certain starvation brought on by anti Catholic Brit laws in the late 18th to early 19th to 1850 or so. It’s why we have such a high Irish population in America today.

[@beyond0077]

Ask them this: Do you think the church that created the Bible ultimately fail? Of course not, an infallible book needs an infallible interpreter because the church is a human and divine institution.

[@SaltShack]

The Church that created the Bible is not and was not the Roman Catholic Church! They did create a book, though, almost as long as the Old and New Testaments combined. It’s the 849 page “summary of belief “ called the Catechism that codifies their heresy’s.

[@Peter-zh5mv]

Why does this divine institution have tonnes of homosexual pedophile costume holymen? No to mention burning people to death. Sounds more like the devil's church.

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

@@SaltShack The Bible new testament canon was compiled in the 300s and the only church that existed then was the Catholic Church.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@femaleKCRoyalsFan can you better explain what you mean? (Specifically on the “compiled in the 300s)

[@Peter-zh5mv]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 this infallible business is just another phoney baloney claim made by the sexual perverts that inhabit that snake pit called the Catholic Church

[@sarasofiacastro6750]

Joe, i love your work. Would you please use larger fonts? God bless your ministry! And congratulations on the new baby!❤

[@thefreeman8791]

This video just popped up in my suggestions on YT. I do not know what you are about but the title of the podcast alone made me click on it. :D

[@malulanimoreno1965]

I’m sure Gavin will do a rebuttal video to explain why his storefront Baptist “church” can truly be traced back to John the Baptist.

[@grantlauinger8663]

This is timely. I just had someone comment to me who was claiming the papacy has killed 50+ million Christians up to the time of Nepolean. And the biblical evidence came from Dan 7:21 and Rev 17:6 This made no sense to me, and I responded to him. Now I know where this is coming from.

[@kyrptonite1825]

The Inquistions: The Spanish Inquisition was after a 770 year conflict to take back control of Spain from the Muslims, called the Reconquista. This led to a destabilized political order, which is what caused the Inquisition. Instead of relying on mob Justice, the Inquisition streamlined things and made it more law-abiding. The Inquisition, is called “the black legend”, in Spain, and for good reason. First of all, it was mainly targeted against “Conversos”, or people who claimed to be Christian, but were secretly still practicing their former faiths of Islam and Judaism. This was seen as treason against the established order, since religion was so intertwined with politics, and threatened the stability of the country, especially after the 770 year conflict. There were also many of these in top positions in government.Its goal wasn’t to convert people, but to go after those who were faking professing Christianity for political benefits. It also went after the predecessors to the Albigensians, a Gnostic group. The Inquisitors were mostly legal scholars, not Priests. They would give a notice before investigating, and only after her to ng evidence, would question someone. They could only use torture if they had good reason, and it was important to the case. They could only use it once, for 15 minutes, without permanent damage. And eventually it was banned, and the Inquisition was the first court to not allow confessions under torture. The notion of innocent until guilty was developed by the Inquisitions. The Inquistion also put less people to death than the State of Texas, compared to the mass numbers of the scholar courts, and did not put to death people by itself, but handed them over to the secular authorities. Priests also could not do torture. The prisons and courts were so good that people actually blasphemies to get moved to Inquisition courts instead of the secular ones. The Inquisitor always gave someone a chance to recant heresy, and the punishment was most often a form of Public Penance. The main purpose of the Inquisition was to protect the souls of the community from heresy, since this was so intertwined with soceity, and hence does not contradict religious freedom Dogma, from what I understand, and to save people’s souls. When one grand inquisitor said he wanted to kill heretics, instead of save souls, the Pope actually kicked him out. The Inquistion led to Spain being a bastion of Catholicism in the later centuries. The other Inquisitikns I know of were the Albigensian Inquistion, against the Cathars in Southern France, who believed in Dualism, Gnosticism, the devil creating the physical world, ritual unaliving, no Marriage but abortion, fornicstion, and contraception, no taking Oaths in FEUDAL EUROPE, and other things. This was started after the King of France refused to do anything, and the Papal Legate to France was unalived. The last and least severe was the Roman Inquisition against the early Protestants who some actually rebelled against the Church, and weren’t just born into Protestantism. This caused great instability in Europe, and there were also wars and Protestant Inquistions and kings who did trrrible things to Catholics at this time. There was also the Crusades, which were a response to Muslims securing 2/3s of Christian territory through conquering, Christian persecution in the Middle East, and a threat of Muslims conquering Europe, if they took Constantinople, as well as taken ancient Christian sites and dangerous Pilgrimage, and the massive Islamic sl-ve trade. There were the Baltic Crusades, or Northern Crysades against pag-ns who had another kidnap sl-ve trade. There was also the fights against Vikings, who raided Monastaries, and tried to conquer Northern Europe and England. These were secular wars though. There were some early fights of Barbarian kings against pag-ns. And some other secular wars. There was the Reconquista, after the Islamic Moors conquered most of Christian Spain, a 770 year conflict over Spain between the Muslims and Christians. There was also Colonization, but the Conquistadors and the Catholic Church were actually constantly at odds, with the Pope telling them to stop conquering. The mainland Spain and conquistadors were actually often at odds. There was sl-very, which the Popes denounced from the beginning, and throughout the whole time, but was propagated through greed, until the Christian world was the first to put an end to it. It was replaced by serfdom in the Middle Ages, defeated in the Roman Empire, but returned in the Age of Exploration. Some also say that we had a role in the Ha-locaust, however Catholic Germany was tricked and tempted into supporting it. The Catholic Church was against it, and the Pope sent a document to be read in every Church on Sunday against the regime’s beleifs. The Catholic Churxh saved more Jews than all of the relief organizations combined, with the Pope hiding them even in his own home, and saving many. He could not just outright condemn the evils however, at the time, because he was sourrounded by fascist Italy, an ally to Germany, and was able to save more lives this way. Many Catholic Saints come from this time.

[@kyrptonite1825]

There were also small Crusades in Eastern Europe against the Otoomans, who were conquering Christian Eastern Europe. There was also the Spanish Civil War, the forerunner to WW2, in which the Communist were massacring the Church. The Church sided with Franco, against the Communists, to protect Her interests, but did not necessarily support the immoral actions taken against the Communists. The Catholic Church also took a hard line stance against Communism, even in its earliest days with Marx. And especially against freemasonry as well. Just for more interesting history. Yeah, the people in the Church have made mistakes, but overall, the Churxh has been a force for good in the world.

[@JoshN91]

Please excuse my ignorance, but it sounds like the Cathars share a lot in common with the Docetists in terms of material bad/ spiritual good thinking. Would that be a fair statement?

[@marvalice3455]

There's a lot of overlap with different heresies. That's why a lot of modern people think literally everything is gnosticism.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

Yes!

[@Krehfish534]

Hey Joe! One quick note, gates are defensive structures. For Jesus to be saying that the gates of hell won't prevail is to say that the forces of evil cannot withstand the Church's attacks. Which actually bolsters the Catholic position: hell winning isn't an option, according to jesus. The real question is whether or not the Church is battling evil. Which it is and always has.

[@ingoditrust7784]

Sorry, it means the true Faith will always be upheld. Of course, it's up to every Christian to defend or betray it.

[@Krehfish534]

​@@ingoditrust7784that's not precisely what it does mean. There's plenty of passages that do support the claim you just made but this one is saying something else. Gates don't attack things. Gates are a thing that gets attacked. So if we're saying that gates won't prevail, we're saying the church will tear them down and decimate the fortress within. That's a very different claim. It's not just "the truth will be upheld." It's "the truth will radically conquer evil." Which not only includes the claim that truth is upheld, but goes even further to say that lies can't supplant it ANYWHERE the truth has influence. So yes, the Church will always prevail. But it does so because hell can't defend itself against the onslaughts of the Church.

[@pemcortes9467]

True. The Catholic Church, Jesus' church, must evangelize and the gates of hell can not prevail against it.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

Wow, I knew these people were crazy and ignorant, but I didn't realize to what extent.

[@marvalice3455]

There is no limit to how crazy and ignorant an agent can be. The only limiting factor is how much vice it takes to get you there

[@Robert-bm2jr]

Mandatory celibacy? I guess we know why the movement didn't last. Thanks for the great discussion. You're always very informative.

[@sueseelie]

Lol my thoughts exactly

[@Jim-Mc]

The churches of the American Restoration Movement (Church of Christ , etc) often teach something similar.

[@mikeyangel1067]

Excellent insight. Wild theories justifying sectarian are trying to fill a theological gap from a need to explain separation, thus to continue in separation a theory of survival is needed, but it only makes sense if u find an institution to blame; but any small sect won’t do because it creates a small ratio in comparison; so a much bigger church must be blamed so in proportion these sectarians look like holy survivors that can apply to themselves all promises of indestructibility, such as Mt 16:18

[@laurenmcnichol5311]

I’m so glad you made this video

[@hglundahl]

27:01 A possible assessment for some group within the true Church (real life example, Japanese Catholics prior to 1868). But theologically speaking, an impossible assessment for the Church as a whole. Matthew 28:16-20 actually does not just give an "all days" promise, but ties it to an "all truths" command. Carroll was basically abandoning the real base line of his claim.

[@alecchavez8700]

Hey Joe, I appreciate all your thoughtful and reasonable videos! Is it possible for you to do some content on "oneness theology" ? Thank you, brother

[@MrDavidObeid]

A friend of mine recommended your channel to me. Sad to see you don’t publish to Rumble as well.

[@raeldc]

Seventh-day Adventist end time Prophet Ellen G. White also wrote something similar to the Trail of Blood called The Great Controversy. As a former Adventist, now Catholic, I can already predict how an Adventist who watch this video would think and be dismissive. Joe, if ever you’re gonna do a presentation about Adventists just like you did to Mormons and radical Baptists, I hope to offer a feedback in your outline before doing the video. It would be best if we can remove potential strawman against Adventists. Their apologist tend to ignore most of the arguments against them and pick little details that they can refute to discredit you and the whole presentation as a case of another misunderstanding of Adventism. Keep up the good work Joe!

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

@raeldc I'm literally working on an Adventist video right now, how can I contact you?

[@raeldc]

@@JosephHeschmeyerthanks Joe. I will contact you on facebook.

[@larrybedouin2921]

​@@raeldc Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God? {Psalm77:13} ...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. {Hebrews 8:5} The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows. Jesus Christ is the door to the sanctuary; He is the door to the Kingdom of heaven. He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness. He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice. He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit. He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles. He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world. He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints. He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment. Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice. In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months. How so? This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation. And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church. She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments. She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man. Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God. Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense. Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth. This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God. And goeth into perdition.

[@jldisme]

Unfortunately, people who believe in conspiracy theories like this one will not accept any evidence that goes against their theory. Thousands of psychology experiments have shown that even after the evidence for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs.

[@bencook6585]

There's a study on a lot of those groups, called "The Socialist Phenomenon" by Igor Shafarevich, which shows the horrors those groups (waldensians, etc.). The church my parents grew up in claimed to be descendants of the waldensians. After reading that book, I can only see that as a horrible thing

[@andrewpearson1903]

Jacques Barzun noticed “the socialist phenomenon” too, in his most famous book he called it “the recurring Western dream of community of goods and women.”

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Excellent content as usual!

[@davidcaldarola5188]

What the Protestant scholars are acknowledging is that they are the continuation of ancient heresies. In Luke 22:31 Jesus explains to Simon (Peter) that the devil wishes to sift "you" like wheat. The "you" here in the Greek is plural and should make sense since one cannot sift a single grain of wheat. Jesus is telling us the Devil wants division. Since the start of the reformation, Protestants have divided endlessly over 500 years from a handful of denominations to uncounted thousands. It seems the devil worked his division by leading Christians astray into new denominations which are just different names to the old heresies. So, a sacrament is invalid if the person offering it is not perfect or spotless. Yet, the Baptist ministers are apostates, and their denominations are in schism from the body of Christ. Are they not admitting that a "Baptist" baptism is invalid?

[@janet6379]

Thanks so much Joe! You're awesome!

[@nickw9766]

Dark Ages? Technology actually increased during the so-called dark ages. SMH 🤦‍♂️

[@pemcortes9467]

The renaissance would not have happened without the technology and knowledge culled by the church in the middle ages.

[@lellachu1682]

The first time I heard this theory, I was impressed by the attempt to at least make it make sense. I didn’t realize how far the rest of the story digressed from the truth.

[@christopherort2889]

What people forget, especially Protestants, is the Catholics pulled together the Bible and started Christianity. They were the closest to Christ.

[@jamiejaegel7962]

How are the Baptists our brothers and sisters? Our Lord said”For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” They reject the will of God.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

The catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this point.

[@jamiejaegel7962]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 can you direct me to the catechism you are referencing?

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@jamiejaegel7962 second edition. 818

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@jamiejaegel7962 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . .

[@conovan5081]

Their baptism is trinitarian therefore valid so they are also adopted children of God, which means they are our brothers and sisters

[@kennethprather9633]

This is news to me. I read the American Baptist Church History as a child. The Baptist left Protestant Christians to follow the first 350 years of the Church when it was truly Orthodox. Well before all of the Catholic Church major doctrines that make it Catholicism and not just Christian. The Southern Baptist embraced Calvinism and other heresies so the Northern Baptist was at odds with them and they parted ways at the time of the Civil war. Now history says they parted due to slavery. The division was there long before the civil war. The Northern Baptist changed name to American Baptist. And they became infected by Socialism and today are at least half Socialism Christian. Which means Anti Christian.

[@ilonkastille2993]

This big lie is very disturbing. It keeps on going and does not stop. More converted Protestants should evangelize.

[@IsaiahINRI]

"I name you Peter, which means pebble, and on this other hitherto unmentioned boulder I shall build my loose conglomeration of believers who won't agree on literally anything. And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Except some weird people who think they eat my flesh every week and worship my not mom will totally destroy everything we've built and pretend to be the same people." "What?" "What?..." " Also, some guy named Constantine will be involved too." -The Protestant reading of Matthew 16:18-19

[@jntwyatt]

Thx for another excellent presentation. I was just thinking that if the married Bogomils and Cathars had to be celibate, they practiced self defeating theologies. Members would also die as well as voluntarily leave or be excommunicated. Survival was totally dependent on evangelizing new converts. They were destined to failure from the get go from their unbiblical interpretations, and from ignorance of apostolic tradition as well as scripture.

[@hglundahl]

3:47 That interpretation is also contrary to the "all days" promise in Matthew 28:16-20.

[@SaintlySaavy]

Baptist theology is like apple from the garden. “Interpret the Bible yourself at home… surely you win not die. “

[@bubbag8895]

The Schism is interesting. Also these Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..." Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River." Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

[@hglundahl]

30:25 One of the groups _now_ commonly added are the Culdees. Why? Why not see them simply as RC priest? Well, they were in schism with Rome. They refused to obey Rome and the paschal calendar. For those considering "Paul VI" was Pope, this just turned Monseigneur Lefebvre, when he died, into one of these Culdees. Even more Culdee vibes for Écône - the idea of non-territorial bishops under a command not necessarily a bishop - when Écône was ruled by Father Schmidberger, this mirrored several bishops under a non-bishop abbot in the many monasteries of the ... Culdees. Thought you might need a good chuckle ...

[@Levij83]

Would absolutely love to see a debate between a Catholic apologist (looking at you Joe ) and a Baptist Successionist.

[@judysantmire968]

First, I carefully and prayerfully came into full communion with the Catholic Church Easter Vigil 2013. Having said that, can you honestly say the Church today is committed to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and actively sharing the truth of Jesus and his teachings to those who don't know him? Particularly, do you think the highest authority in the Church is embracing bringing the lost to Jesus?

[@srich7503]

I can certainly say such. The question may be is which “lost” are you speaking about? Im talking about those truly seeking not the ones closed minded. There is a big difference.

[@pemcortes9467]

The Catholic Church- the pope, the priests, the nuns,the missionaries, the cathechists, the laity- is still evangelizing and still doing missionary work. We do it during mass, during prayers, during charity works, during catechism, thru organizations and by individual works, in social media and all other media and in all other art, literature and works. Catholics are comprehensive and creative people. We are multidimensional.

[@samuelcowan9776]

The neo pagan religion of wicca does almost the same thing. If anyone is familiar with Margaret Murray's book, the witch cult in western europe (1929, I believe), she makes very similar claims about underground religions, connections to heretical groups, and so on. Only in her case, its an ancient pagan religion (which incidentally doesnt show up in the pre Christian historical record either).

[@robertrimmer4841]

Cathars and related believers in the evil of sexuality, marriage, reproduction would not need to be “murdered” . They would be (un)bred out in a generation or a little more.

[@elijeremiah1058]

Interesting topic

[@johns1834]

If someone decides to be a baptist, then how do they decide which church to go to? Baptist churches are like Baskin Robbins Ice Cream with 31+ different flavors to choose from and they all claim 'fullness of truth' and all say the others don't have it. However, if someone doesn't like the music, or the pastor, or the message, no problem because you can just drive a few miles down the road to another baptist church with a message that scratches those itchy ears just right. It only depends on someone's personal preference in regard to; the rapture, once saved/ always saved, Bible alone, Faith alone, predestination, and so on. How does anyone decide which baptist church to go to?

[@azazel5673]

Thank you so much for explaining this.

[@hglundahl]

43:06 A good example of double standards.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Points 1 and 2 do NOT have to mean what Catholicism would have us believe. "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Does that mean that Peter became the first pope and then apostolic succession took over from there? If so, where is the support for that inference (and it has to be inferred (i.e. imposed on the text) because it certainly says nothing close to that. The church of Christ (which the gates of hell cannot prevail against) exists whether anybody believes in it or not. The church of Christ is like the kingdom of God. It exists. Period. Now, if you want to hitch your wagon to that church - that kingdom - then by all means do but you don't have to. In fact, nobody has to. The church exists (more of less) on paper. It's an ideal. Think of it in terms of "the faith" or the other New Testament term used to describe it, "the Way". "The faith" and "the Way" exist independent of followers. Nobody has to believe it or follow it for it to exist. It's like any "truth". The sky is blue whether you want to accept it or not. So, points 1 and 2 are fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that Jesus was talking about the kind of ecclesiastical structure that the world recognizes as the Catholic Church. He was not.

[@floppynwah8141]

Funny how reformation churches love to accuse the chatolic church of all evils. But the orthodox eastern and Oriental churches, Ethiopian and coptic churches. All have subtle differences but is essentially the same. While reformation churches praise Jesus but insult the Holy mother. But Luther and church of England are closer to Mormons than the churches the actual Apostles created.

[@gbnessdot96]

Jesus asked the demon it’s name and it answered “Legion, for we are many.” The Christian church of Jesus is one and catholic.

[@hglundahl]

21:40 Belloc would it be 5 000 000 people at the time of the Domesday book - key point, only the pater domus of each household was mentioned.

[@orbeuniversity]

You misspelled the word *Church* on the thumbnail.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

Thanks for catching that!

[@piushalg5041]

To take such historical writing seriously is a waste of time. In fact to try to trace Protestantism back to the early church is an assumption considered futile even by protestant church histories.

[@petion2013]

These groups died out because people eventually realized that they weren't Christians

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Obviously, "the church" means "a bunch of people" but it also refers to a standard of belief and practice. or example, read Romans 16, where Paul sends this greeting: Rom. 16:3 - Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Rom. 16:5a - Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila had a congregation (a church) that met in their house. The term "the church", as it is used in the New Testament, refers to both an individual congregation of believes as well as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). It is NEVER used in reference to a "denomination" or "sect" of Christianity - because such a reference would dilute and nullify the very concept of "THE church of Christ". In other words, the New Testament does not recognize variant forms of Christianity. We need to look at the context in which "the church" is used. We cannot simply go to another passage of scripture (Matthew 18:15-17) and conclude that it's talking about the same thing. "The church" is also used to mean "the faith". It is also called "the Way" in the Book of Acts. These are labels used to identify a religious code or canon. As such, "the church" exists outside the context of "a bunch of believers". In other words, Law exists whether anybody is following it or not. "Upon this rock I will build my church" is a reference to the code (framework, system, body of belief, etc.) that was in the process of being built by Jesus. What is Peter's involvement in that? That is a subject of another comment. Suffice it to say that we have exactly Peter's involvement in that construction, documented in the New Testament.

[@nosuchthing8]

I'm a cat and love the show. But this might not be too far from the church. The original adherents might have started the ebionites. Who might have been demolished by the cat church.

[@GaiatheSage]

the orthodox and catholic church both destroyed the true church thats why those of deep christian faith often find themselves drawn towards orthodoxy and/or catholicism. they may have destroyed the true church but they are closest to it. this is why I love heterodox theology within the orthodoxy and catholic religions as it actually tries to investigate what first century christianity is about not just following blind dogma and creeds.

[@8elionadvancing884]

Not one shred of evidence that baptists go back 2000 yrs 😂

[@tonyl3762]

Mary was virgin in partu, during birth. That is Catholic teaching. So I wouldn't make too much of how exactly or from where Jesus was born of her. The very early but noncanonical Protoevangelium/Infancy Gospel of James says Jesus was born by appearing beside her. Lack of labor is testified to early on in history.

[@jendoe9436]

I would say it does have some bearing on how Jesus was birthed through Mary. Quite a lot of early Christian discussion was on Jesus and Mary’s relationship because that set the foundation of who Jesus was. Pure god who took on the appearance of man? Man who was infused with God’s spirit later? Did he take anything from Mary that could tie him to her lineage? Was Mary needed at all or did Jesus simply pass through her? Was Mary even necessary for mankind’s salvation? That’s why there’s quite a bit of flowery language for Mary and why she is known as Theotokos, “God bearer,” and not simply “Christ bearer” since she gave birth to Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. If Jesus wasn’t born through the system designed for nurturing and birthing children, then it sort of lessens the connection he has with mankind. Otherwise it gets to the issue again of who is Mary to Jesus and who is Jesus in essence.

[@tonyl3762]

@@jendoe9436 You are going off on a tangent from the very Catholic point I was making (and preaching to the choir).... Joe made it sound like Jesus was born vaginally just like most of us, and that's just not true because then Mary would not have remained a virgin strictly speaking. That is actually Church teaching, that Mary remained a virgin during the birth of Jesus, which means His birth was different somehow. Please engage the actual point I made rather than list Catholic talking points meant for a non-Catholic.

[@jendoe9436]

@@tonyl3762 I disagree that was a tangent as, like I said, figuring out how the conception and birth of Jesus through Mary happened is a big part of understanding who Jesus is. If Jesus could have been nurtured outside of Mary or be birthed without going through her body then it goes back to figuring out who Jesus is in relation to his humanity and divinity. Also, the Church does teach Mary remained a perpetual virgin. But, it also lays out the thought that even after giving birth, that part of her remained intact. If the Holy Spirit was able to impregnate her and not violate her virginity in that regard, then it’s more than possible for her to remain that way even after giving birth. That is why her birthing Jesus is different from normal means. Not only because she conceived through the Holy Spirit, but also because she was somehow preserved through God’s grace bestowed on her. It does not mean Jesus just appeared outside her body when he was born, as like I said that would call back into question “Why use Mary at all?” You really mean to tell me that after nine months of being nurtured inside Mary’s womb, a place God created for life to gestate and grow by the natural means, and getting ready for that final push that normally brings babies into the world that Jesus would instead ‘poof’ himself into the world and be done? That doesn’t seem fitting to me from the person of the Trinity who desires to join us in all things human but sin. I engaged the point by showing why it’s fitting for Jesus to be born of Mary through Mary by the natural means, including how he was birthed. I would recommend you read up on the Church’s views of Mary remaining ever virgin even after birthing Jesus, because most of what I come across supports the idea she went through physical labor and Jesus came out that way, but her virginity remained intact because of God’s grace.

[@tonyl3762]

@@jendoe9436 I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. The traditional Catholic view/teaching is NOT that Mary went through natural physical labor/pain, and the earliest 1st and 2nd century historical/Church writings affirm this, i.e. The Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, and Protoevangelium of James, all of which deny natural labor pains. Please research this for yourself (though I could quote them for you). Do you accept the ecumenical Council of Trent's authority? "But as the conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord . . . *just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass,* so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth *from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.* ...To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for *preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus* . . . *without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain* ." "[Mary,] indeed conceived without shame, *gave birth without pain,* and went hence without corruption...." -Pope Alexander III (1169) "In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the human race, and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth *without the pains of childbirth* was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church." -Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross II” (pre-1969 Latin Rite) "Without suffering he has come forth to us from an all-pure virgin...." -Synaxis of the Theotokos, Tone 2 (Byzantine liturgy, Feast of the Nativity) The idea that Jesus came out of Mary's body in a miraculous/supernatural way, so as to keep the virginity of Mary intact, does NOT endanger any Catholic dogma regarding Jesus or Mary and is in fact the traditional Catholic view/teaching. Mary's humanity in the DNA/body/person of Jesus from conception and her motherhood are not endangered at all. God can't make a contradiction. He can't make a four-sided triangle. It is a contradiction in terms/definitions for Mary to remain ever-virgin and also give birth in the natural/vaginal way. Virginity is not merely the absence of sexual intercourse but, for a woman, physical bodily integrity, i.e. no physical opening of the womb. If you consider yourself a faithful, orthodox, and devout Catholic, please study up and assent to the Magisterium's teaching on this.

[@idankpoaugustine1983]

No. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[@theo-dr2dz]

Catharism and Bogomilism are clearly gnostic. They have all the hallmarks: dualism, the belief that all matter is evil, secret knowledge etc. It clearly traces back to Persian Zoroastrianism. That secret supper stuff is wild. I believe Cathars and Albigensians are the same. The Albigensians are named after Albi, a town in Southern France, not far from Toulouse. The Cathars were also mainly in the same region at the same time, believing the same things. They are probably the same sect: two names for the same thing. Cathars were prevalent in the county of Toulouse. That was a very powerful entity controlling a large part of Southern France. For some reason, the count was foolish enough to get involved with it. Maybe conviction, maybe as a means to strengthen his position in his own lands. But this gave the king of France a casus belli. Both the king and the Pope had reasons for wanting to get rid of these Cathars: the Pope because it was a dangerous heresy, the king because he wanted the land. So a crusade was called. This crusade was led by Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, who was pretty ruthless, even to the standards of his days. In the end, the Cathars ceased to exist, the county of Toulouse ceased to exist, the king of France took most of the territory for himself and the de Montforts had their day in the sun and got significant lands in France. Simon's son (also Simon) was still pretty prominent, but the dynasty faded soon after. So, like most "religious" wars, there was a very strong political side to this whole episode.

[@hglundahl]

30:26 _"what do historians actually believe the Donatists taught"_ Historians like Carroll and Ruckman believed they taught Baptism. There is a difference between "real history" and "historians" ... the latter can be wrong. Lots of historians these days will claim: * the Trojan War didn't happen * Ulysses didn't even roughly speaking return to Ithaca as the Odyssey claimed * Agamemnon wasn't murdered by Clytaemnestra, who in her turn was murdered by their son Orestes, with accomplice Pylades, acting on the instigation of Apollon * Hercules and Theseus are figures of fiction, much like Superman and Batman ... That's not what the stories say, and saying the stories themselves were fiction is not how they were taken by for instance Eratosthenes. He made a chronology up to his own and Alexander's time, involving the Pelopponesian war and the war against Persia, and _starting with_ Trojan War and Return of the Heraclides. The problem is not that historians thought Donatists taught a definitive thing, it is how much this view is consistent with contemporary evidence or as near contemporary as possible.

[@larrybedouin2921]

And to the woman [remnant church] were given two wings of a great eagle, that *she might fly into the wilderness* into her place, where she is nourished for *a time and times and half a time* from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, *which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ* {Revelation 12:14-17} The little horn...shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and *think to change times and laws* and they shall be given into his hand until *a time and times and the dividing of time* {Daniel 7:25}

[@ChristeEleison7]

Protestant Extremism Represents Protestant Subconsciousness

[@ilonkastille2993]

The inquisition was called by the King and Queen of Spain.

[@bibleman8010]

against the Moors(Muslims) who had invaded their country🤣🤣

[@hglundahl]

32:53 When Petilian here uses "faithless" he is obviously not using it as synonym of "heretic" or (final, unrepentant) "apostate" but as a synonym of "traitor" ... That heretics _cannot_ perform valid baptisms because of _heresy_ is not the main issue. St. Cyprian or Cyril (forget which, I think it's Cyprian) actually held this. A very different question is whether certain heretics in fact _do not_ perform valid sacraments, if in obedience to their heresy they changed the sacraments. A Sede who holds that Novus Ordo is invalid or Novus Ordo ordinations are, is not a Donatist. At least not for that reason. If his main issue is with Clown Masses, yes, that would be Donatism.

[@alonsoACR]

I don't think any of the 4 Apostolic Churches hold that heretics can't confer valid baptisms. This was settled back in the Arian controversy..

[@hglundahl]

@@alonsoACR There are in fact some of the Eastern Orthodox at least who hold with St. Cyprian, and who would normally prefer a Catholic convert to get baptised unconditionally.

[@alonsoACR]

@@hglundahl ...prefer? Isn't a conditional baptism much more preferable? One shouldn't risk baptizing twice. It's a severe infraction.

[@hglundahl]

But,@@alonsoACR - I was talking of _their_ preferences, not the ones of the Catholic Church!

[@alonsoACR]

@@hglundahl Oh gotcha

[@grandsonofman]

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Why assume rock the church is built on means Peter's church rather than GODS word?

[@alonsoACR]

Peter didn't have a Church. Peter never built any Church. Jesus said HIS Church would be built ON Peter.

[@grandsonofman]

@@alonsoACR so.. where his dead body is? Because in those verses I don't find that Jesus gave Peter some special authority that the others didn't possess. He only told him he was blessed, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.". And if the bread and wine go through transubstatiation .... why would the church Jesus said he would set up be built on literally flesh and blood ... a dead body?

[@alonsoACR]

@@grandsonofman His dead body is in the Vatican, you can visit if you wish. He did give him authority, it's right after that. "...I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." If you search for the word "key" in the Old Testament you'll find the only other reference in Isaiah 22 "22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open." This chapter is about the appointment of Eliakim, the new Palace Administrator. This job consisted in representing the King and the power to overrule/veto whatever the other 11 Court Officials did. The Pope doesn't have half the power an "Eliakim" would have, which you may find quite interesting.

[@461weavile]

The authority is given in other verses, not in either of the verses you quoted. Are you a native English speaker? I'm trying to determine if you're having trouble with the language or if you're looking for the corpse of Peter because you are arguing in bad faith. (Also, we could tell you where the corpse of Peter is, if that's your question.)

[@grandsonofman]

@@461weavile leaving your attempt at insulting aside. I'd appreciate if you could back up your assessment of Peter having been granted such authorities with the verses you claim do.

[@larrybedouin2921]

Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God? {Psalm77:13} ...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. {Hebrews 8:5} The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows. He is the door to the sanctuary; Jesus is the door to the Kingdom of heaven. He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness. He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice. He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit. He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles. He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world. He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints. He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment. Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice. In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months. How so? This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation. And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church. She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments. She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man. Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God. Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense. Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth. This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God. And goeth into perdition.

[@clarekuehn4372]

Answer to title: No! 😃 But something else was prophesied and occurred. 4 parts (4th awesome). 1st part: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKqwcmeJj8ijmcUsi=aoOEu-Pby8it35a5

[@timelessroyalestudio]

Do you know when all that started about we are whore of babylon So far i know it started with protestantism I mean what year or century and by whom Also veneration of saints Thanks

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Jesus said, "Ye are the light of the world." Was He talking to Christians? He COULDN'T have been. That argument doesn't hold up. "The church", in addition to meaning "a group of believers" was also used in the new Testament to identify a code of belief (a canon). Conflating the two is what the Catholic apologist needs us to do in order to sell his brand of religion.

[@EmberBright2077]

Where are you getting this from?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@EmberBright2077 - Jesus wasn't talking to "Christians" because the New Covenant hadn't begun yet. He was talking to the Jews who were in the area. Terms like "the church" had a dual-purpose. It's a label used to identify a local congregation of believers (as in, "I'm going to church") and also it was used in the global sense (as in "the church is the pillar and ground of the truth"). Conflating the term into a monolithic (i.e singular) definition is a trick used to sell a philosophy. For example, I can say that I am a member of the church without respect to any particular gathering. The term "the faith" is used in a global sense only. No one says, "I go to the faith on Sunday." But the term "the church" is used in either or both contexts. A lot of people go to church but not many people are of "the faith". Catholicism has long ago departed from "the faith" as even a cursory examination of the New Testament will prove. "The faith" implies a code of belief - a doctrine. The Apostle John said it this way: 2 John 9 - Whosoever transgresseth [that means "goes beyond"] and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. "The faith", it can be concluded, is the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine OF Christ includes the doctrine ABOUT Christ. In other words, "the faith" is a package containing both the teachings of Christ AND of His apostles. Where do we find the doctrine of Christ? In the word of God, of course. It's where the doctrine of God has always resided - both Old Testament and New. Now, obviously, we have a great advantage over the first century Christians because we have the teachings of Christ available to us in written form. A lot of the first century folks depended on whatever they could absorb from sermons and lectures. The written words of these men are a tremendous aid in keeping the ship of faith on course. Where am I getting this from? From the reality of the word of God. The church of the New Testament was very much a local affair but had application globally. Therefore, does "the church" mean a denomination? No. Never. The church is the body of Christ. Is Christ divided? No. Therefore, if the only people who are of "the faith" exist in a single town then that is "the church", the whole church, and nothing but the church. It doesn't matter how many pretenders claim membership of the body of Christ. They don't count. This is what this KZbinr is trying to say. "If you're not a member of the Catholic Church then you're not part of the church". Well, that's patently false. Where is the Catholic Church defined in the New Testament? Nowhere. In other words, the apostles would never recognize Catholicism as being "the church". She doesn't abide in the doctrine of Christ. She's just playing church for fun and profit. Catholicism mocks the word of God. Her take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward the word of God is all the proof we need. Anybody who says that his tradition can trump the word of God is putting his unbelief on display for the whole world to see. This is Catholicism. So, to say that unless I'm part of that abomination, I am not part of the church of Christ is laughable at best. The Apostle John told us to not even bid such a person God speed.

[@EmberBright2077]

@@GizmoFromPizmo I'm seeing a lot of doctrinal claims. I'm not seeing any evidence. Can you provide some?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@EmberBright2077 - I just did. The logic I used is flawless. The term "the church" has both local and global connotation. If you understand the language, you can see that I'm right. The KZbinr, however, uses the term "the church" in a singular sense - the global sense. This is required in order to make it seem like the bible is calling for everybody to be a member of the Empire's religion. As an aside, the label "Christian" didn't exist prior to Jesus' resurrection. It's something that developed in Antioch, Syria (see Acts 11). This means, that Jesus isn't addressing "Christians" in the Sermon on the Mount as the term didn't exist yet. I don't know how much more there is to explain. I have a myriad other doctrinal issues with the Empire's religion but, in order to stay on topic, I'm only going to limit my remarks to the topic.

[@hglundahl]

40:17 Albigensians and Cathars only have _half_ the evil St. Paul is talking of. Forbidding marriage. Note, the other half is not enjoining abstinence from meat, but forbidding it. Yes, I know, the Greek verb can also mean enjoin. But it is just exactly one verb, it would be odd to have it used in both opposite meanings when used only once. * If you take a man, and you state - with sufficient social interactions to make this work as the social reality surrounding a man - that he is too immature to marry, you are forbidding him to marry. * If you then think that making him more desirous of sex would make him more pliable to your demands to "mature" or "grow up" and in that purpose sabotage his attempts to abstain from meat at least on days of fast and abstinence, you are _also_ forbidding him abstinence from meats. * If you continue doing this, and continue to ridicule him for whatever scrapes not being married leads him into, you are on top of that showing how you are hypocritical and have cauterised normal reactions of your conscience. SUCH people, not Albigensians as such, is what St. Paul is primarily talking of.

[@hglundahl]

As for doctrines of demons, psychiatry and psychoanalysis are good candidates for the modern manifestation of Delphic Apollo.

[@user-ls6jo6wm3i]

How does the cathlic recensaile all the kiilimgs it did and how hard they tride to stop the bible translation And all the child abuse cover ups

[@richardjackson7887]

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before. Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. A Tree and Its Fruit Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Build Your House on the Rock Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and who started since the apostles? the RCC Their are many walking down the wide road but the largest is the RCC because they listen to sinful men and not God and if you want to wail and grind your teeth keep following this wolf in sheep's clothing. do research on the Dark ages and the inquest yourself, Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. remember, one day you will have to stand before the judge yourself and ignorance will be no excuse!

[@georgekoshy4656]

Gates of Hell will not prevail againt the true Catholic Church ; but it is not talking about Roman Catholic Church ! Their claim, that Peter established the Church at Rome, has no basis !

[@GumbyJumpOff]

What does Jesus' promise mean, though, if not referring to a visible institution? I've never received a coherent answer from a Protestant about this, though to be fair hardly anyone has ever given an answer in the first place. Does it mean that no more than 49.9999% of Christians will apostatize? Like, what does the promise mean, what is being prevented?

[@EmberBright2077]

Ok, on what basis do you think the Catholic claim is wrong, and what would you put forward as the alternative?

[@georgekoshy4656]

Why R.C Church is not what Matt. 16:18 is referring to because Apostle Peter never visited Rome while he was free, much less he was a the Bishop of the Church of Rome between A.D 45 and 67 as the Papal Church claims! Apostle Peter was one of the Elders of Jerusalem Church in around AD 39 and around A.D 53, the two years in which Apostle Paul visited the Jerusalem Church. Gal. 1:18 & 2:1-9. Neither was there any office called "Priest or heireus" or pope till the Roman Emperors took the control of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.

[@EmberBright2077]

@@georgekoshy4656 This is all claims. Can you provide evidence?

[@jamesthelesser9345]

Genius bro, thanks.

[@damnedmadman]

Excellent 👌

[@donhaddix3770]

The Roman Catholic Church had established inquisitions in the past. The Medieval Inquisition was a series of Inquisitions (Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). The Medieval Inquisition was established in response to movements considered apostate or heretical to Roman Catholicism, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in Southern France and Northern Italy. These were the first movements of many inquisitions that would follow. The Cathars were first noted in the 1140s in Southern France, and the Waldensians around 1170 in Northern Italy. Before this point, individual heretics such as Peter of Bruis had often challenged the Church. However, the Cathars were the first mass organization in the second millennium that posed a serious threat to the authority of the Church. This article covers only these early inquisitions, not the Roman Inquisition of the 16th century onwards, or the somewhat different phenomenon of the Spanish Inquisition of the late 15th century, which was under the control of the Spanish monarchy using local clergy. The Portuguese Inquisition of the 16th century and various colonial branches followed the same pattern. Taking their name from the Latin verb inquiro (“inquire into”), these commissions had authority to question supposed heretics about their religious practices and loyalties starting in the 13th century. Anti-Semitic sentiment grew toward Spain’s substantial Jewish population. During the reign of Henry III of Castile and Leon (1390-1406), Jews faced increased persecution. Pogroms in 1391 were especially brutal, and the Jewish community faced the choice between baptism and death. Anti-Semitic sentiment grew toward Spain’s substantial Jewish population. During the reign of Henry III of Castile and Leon (1390-1406), Jews faced increased persecution. Pogroms in 1391 were especially brutal, and the Jewish community faced the choice between baptism and death. Many Jews were killed upon refusal to convert to Christianity. Those who adopted Christian beliefs, the conversos (Spanish for “converted”) still faced suspicion and prejudice. Marranos, Jews who had apparently converted but continued to practice their faith in secret, were considered a major threat to Spanish society. The autos-da-fé (Portuguese for “acts of faith”) were public ceremonies during which sentences against the condemned were read. These ceremonies were elaborate and popular spectacles with processions, oaths of obedience to the Inquisition, and sermons. The condemned were afterward turned over to secular, or nonreligious, authorities to actually carry out the punishments. Extreme punishments included execution or life imprisonment. Tomás de Torquemada was the first grand inquisitor, and his name became associated with the brutality characteristic of the Inquisition. He issued 28 articles that outlined crimes that could be investigated by inquisitors as well as methods used for interrogation and punishment. Torquemada used torture and the confiscation of property to terrorize and intimidate his victims. An estimated 2,000 people were burned at the stake during Torquemada’s tenure as grand inquisitor. The Protestant population of Spain was small, but, as it was considered a threat upon the rise of the Reformation, the Inquisition eliminated it as well. Having largely purged the country of Jews and Muslims-as well as many former members of those faiths who had converted to Christianity-the Spanish Inquisition turned its attention to prominent Roman Catholics. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was twice arrested on suspicion of heresy, and the archbishop of Toledo, the Dominican Bartolomé de Carranza, was imprisoned for almost 17 years. The supreme council of the Spanish Inquisition oversaw 14 local tribunals in Spain and several in the Spanish colonies, including in the Americas. A similar inquisition was established in Portugal in 1547, lasting until 1821. Though the excesses seen under Torquemada diminished somewhat, autos-da-fé continued into the mid-18th century. The Spanish Inquisition was suppressed by Joseph Bonaparte in 1808, restored by Ferdinand VII in 1814, suppressed in 1820, and restored in 1823. It was finally suppressed permanently by Spanish queen regent María Cristina de Borbón in 1834.

[@bibleman8010]

PROTESTANT ATROCITIES & CRIMES, MODERN DAY CORRUPTION AND SEX ABUSE SCANDALS: Protestants have their own crimes, atrocities, abuse scandals & modern day corruption. Not as well known because the following crimes are never acknowledged or repented of by protestants. ✦ 1517: Followers of Luther burned catholic homes with families in. ✦ 1524 Martin Luther killed 100, 000 peasants - Peasant War 1524. ✦ 1534: King Henry VIII, founder of Anglican church tortured & murdered catholics all over England, seizing their proerty for himself, Priests were hunted down, tortured & imprisoned. ✦ 1536 Danish protestants burned "Witches" after the reformation. ✦ 1558, Queen Elizabeth 1 issued an edict demanding that all English people convert to protestantism or face death. Priests were AGSIN Hunted down, tortured and murdered as was anyone who hid Priests. ✦ 1573: The Earl of Essex, John Norris & Sir Francis Drake, along with their forces, invade Northern Ireland, butchering un-armed Catholic men, woemen & children without mercy, Most of whom were hiding in caves & in the forrests. All With the approval of the protestant Queen, Elizabeth I. ✦ 1590 Scottish protestants, headed by King James VI, murdered "witches" in the Scottish witch hunt of the 1590's. ✦ 1599: Second wave of slaughter of Irish Catholics conrtinued under Sir Arthur Chichester. ✦ 1604: During The Reign of King James 1. The King contoninued the reign of terror and the laws that were put in place by Queen E#lizabeth 1, Imposing fines and jail time for those refusing to attend Protestant services and continuing the torture and murder of Priests. ✦ 1650: 3rd wave of slaughter of Irish Catholics: Oliver Cromwell, Protestant head of England, slaughtered a full 1/3 of the Irish, seizing their property & selling others as slaves. ✦ 1680: William of Orange & his "Orange men" carried on with the slaughter of Catholics in the Ulster area of N. Ireland. Present day, this event ois still celebrated with parades. ✦ 1692: Puritan prots in Salem Mass murdered people during Salem witch hunt. ✦ 1789 French prots hacked catholics to death during French revolution. ✦ In more modern times, the English Parliment deliberatly starved the Irish for refusing to convert, during the Irish potato famine of 1845. ✦ The American KKK is a protestant organization Y& they have the same hatred for Catholics as theyu do for Jews & blacks. ✦ Modern day corruption: Jim Bakker in prison for fraud, Jimmy Swaggart doing hookers, Jim Jones poisened his followers, John Hagee living in a mansion, ditto for numerous other prot ministers, driving fancy cars, living in luxury, prot evangelists flying around in private planes while they bilk the elderly out of $$$$, oh ya, and you even have a prot theme park etc etc etc :D ➨ PROTESTANT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN: ● Billy Graham's grandson is an attorny who is investigating sexual abuse of children in evangelical churches and HE said the problem is WORSE in evangelical churches. Here are some statistics: ● ★ 7 thousand catholic priests were accusing of sexual abuse of children in the past 10 years. ● ★ TEN THOUSAND PROTESTANT MINISTERS were accused of sexually abusing children in the past ten years. ● ★ 200 thousand Public school teachers who were accused of sexually abusing children in the past 2 years. ★ We Americans are taught from the time we were school children that the pilgrim Fathers were good & noble men, who had fled from religious persecution in England, whereas in reality The pilgrim Fathers were protestants who had been guilty of perseciting catholics in the old world and continued their persecution of Catholics in the New world. when the prorotestants came to America in 1659 They banned celebrations of Christmas and Easter In addition, the banned Catholic priests. The First time a Priest was caught, he was banished from the territory, but if caught again, it was death. Catholics could not own property or vote. ● 10 famous evangelical scandals: john hagee blasphemy ● Televangelists who are anything but holy: s:🤦‍♀🤦‍♀

[@larrybedouin2921]

Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God? {Psalm77:13} ...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. {Hebrews 8:5} The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows. Jesus Christ is the door to the sanctuary; He is the door to the Kingdom of heaven. He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness. He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice. He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit. He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles. He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world. He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints. He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment. Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice. In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months. How so? This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation. And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church. She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments. She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man. Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God. Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense. Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth. This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God. And goeth into perdition.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@larrybedouin2921 big claims, zero proof.

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@donhaddix3770 You cannot deny the truth without cognitive dissonance. And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. {Revelation 17:15} The seven headed beast of Revelation 17: The seven heads are symbolic of seven kingdoms, starting with the beast of Daniel chapter 7 1st < Babylon 2nd < Medo-Persia 3rd < Greece 4th < Pagan Rome 5th < Papal Rome; the little horn ("that was" & "is not" & "yet is") 6th < "one is" ^ The woman that rides the beast is in captivity at the time of John's vision, AFTER receiving the deadly wound from the (atheist) beast from the bottomless pit [Rev 11:7]. This is the beast of THE TIME of John's vision IN THE WILDERNESS. (Meaning that John is in the wilderness in his vision and not physical on Patmos, and he sees a beast that would come up from out of this wilderness. Read Job 38:26.) The 7th < "is not yet come" At the time of John's vision *in the wilderness* this head of the beast was yet to come; this is *the beast from out of the earth* [Rev 13:11]; (And he shall exercise all of the power of the first beast...) when this beast will speak like a dragon. This beast must continue a short time, as per the others before him. I believe by the testimony of Jesus, that we are now living in that "short time". The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. {Revelation 17:8} :11...even he is the eighth, AND IS OF THE SEVEN, and ascends out of the bottomless pit and goes into perdition. --There are seven heads at the time of John's vision, five kings/heads/beast are fallen, so this eighth is of the seven kingdoms...."that was"...."and is not"...."yet is" AND received a deadly wound; AND his deadly wound was healed. This wound is the loss of her (the woman/church that rides the beast.) temporal sword (also her captivity), which is the earthly secular world kingdom. This is the image of the beast (that great city), who like Babylon of antiquity, who thinks to usurp church and state craft. The number eight is a metaphor for the resurrection. The eighth is resurrected from a former head of the seven; the 5th head that received a deadly wound. (When he shall go into perdition: this will be the final dispensation of this beast with seven heads, that is a metaphor for satan.) Jesus; (The resurrection; Jn 11:25) Ἰησοῦς/Iēsous = 888 by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration; I(10), E(8), S(200), O(70), U(400), S(200). In antiquity the mountain was not only a metaphor for a kingdom, but it was also symbolic of the head of a (river) dragon that was symbolic of a river that flows out from a mountain, after the spring thaw and overflowing its banks, spreading out in the form of the dragon's tail. The color is scarlet because it is symbolic of the blood of the saints of the Lord. A woman in prophecy is always a metaphor for a church, in this case (Jezebel) it is the fallen temple of God. The false prophet, a lamb (Christ like) with two horns, and/but will speak like a dragon (a wolf in sheep's clothing), will be the beast (from out of the earth ... the USA) that will make an image unto the first beast from out of the sea, who received a deadly wound and his deadly wound was healed. The two horns are a metaphor for two (equal) kingdoms in one, church and state craft. Medo-Persia also is expressed as having two horns [Dan 8:3], but one was higher, (Persia) and eventually usurps the other. This is the image of the first beast from out of the sea (Papal Rome). Once the wall of separation of church and state is lost, then will the second beast from out of the earth become the image of the first beast, who claims the authority of both church and state. Even so, come Lord Jesus. Amen.

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@donhaddix3770 Revelation 13:1-10 the (conglomerate) beast from out of the sea. And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and *ten horns* and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto *a leopard* and his feet were as the feet of *a bear* and his mouth as the mouth of *a lion* and *the dragon* gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. {Revelation 13:1-2} Greek > philosophy Persian > religious sects and monachism Babylonian > sun worship (Mithraism) Roman > law And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION." ... “Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do.” {Mark 7:9&13} But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?” {Matthew 15:3} Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the *tradition of men* after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {Colossians 2:8} 'Catholic Record' September 1 1923 "Sunday is our MARK of authority....The church is above the bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."

[@Rachel-wz8kw]

Can you go into the Waldenses I’ve heard this is the toughest case.

[@Godfrey118]

They were in the 1200-1700(ish). What's funny is they eventually joined the Methodist and Reformed churches...not the Baptist. A landmarkist will associate the Waldensians with maintaining the "true" church, but ironically when the Baptists came into existence in the 1600's, the group they claim was in their trail of blood... Doesn't associate with them

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

I don't see how given the main issue was they were rebel groups who rejected local authorities. They also had clearly Catholic views until they even just became protestant. Killing a bunch of schismatic rebels with mostly Catholic views certainly doesn't make the successionist case. And the later killings were again in the context of political rebellion where they adopted protestant views after protestantism already developed for political reasons

[@Rachel-wz8kw]

@@Godfrey118 thanks this is good Information I feel like they may be the closest thing to what they are talking about but idk enough about them all around to know.

[@papoo9517]

Shadow banned…just like the Catholic Church has been doing for centuries.Afraid of the truth. Murder, torture, or persecution by any name is NOT Christian. Jesus said LOVE your enemies.