The pharisees didnt ask Jesus if they should put his inscription on the coin, they asked if they should pay taxes to caesar and he said they should give Caesar what he is owed and to God what he is owed. This is in no way a rejection of a Christian state.
It literally just means be moral and pay your taxes, but it doesn't disqualify doing the two of those together under one political system in which there church is parallel, but not subservient to the state. Moreover, it doesn't mean that the state should have agency or power over the church as people like to interpret.
@DangerBrighton The church is fallible, that's why they were separated from each other as Nick stated in the video to keep the church from being corrupted (as it has today). But the state should always be informed by Christian doctrine as it has throughout history. Again, only now when we part from this influence do we see our society break down like it has.
@DangerBrighton the institution of the (Roman) catholic church today as is presided over by the pope. I think Nick believes in a sense that the pope is infallible, but as all human beings are tragic and flawed, so is the pope. Only God is infallible.
@@Wilantonjakov Perfect argument for the Catholic Church. The room for fallcy is VERY small. The magisterium is bound to tradition as well. This tradition goes back to Peter. If you start a Church today from scratch, the only thing there is is scripture, interpreted by people removed 2000 years from Christ.
2:00 Leo totally butchered the story here. They weren't asking to put a religious inscription on the coin, they were asking whether they should pay taxes to the existing secular government. Our Lord's response was deep, and there are several layers there, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the separation of Church and state. The entire Christian church, both east and west, taught that confessional states were ideal. The idea of an explicitly secular state where you can do whatever you want would have been absurd to everyone pre-1750. This idea originated in the Satanic "Enlightenment" and was first instituted in 1776.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry "We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" - John Adams and John Hancock (April 18, 1775)
At 6 minutes in Nick absolutely destroyed this fella
Před 4 lety+9
Separation of church and state is ant-Christian. It is used as an attack on Christians. So for example, we can no longer pray in schools, our accurate history is destroyed while schools push for and teach alternative religions: Islam, yoga, spiritualism, secularism, atheism, etc. - these are all forms of religions and have values attached to them; and these same people push for taking down the Ten Commandments in places like courthouses, while demanding equal rights to erect satanic statues like Baphomet. This is wrong. It's immoral, and in no way represents how our Founding Fathers created the country.
And how it often, (but not always) produces a translation of the Old Testament that is more in line with how the Hebrew Old Testament was during that time. Most manuscripts of the OT are from the second millenium AD and those contain many accidental and perhaps intentional errors. The few ones that survive from the BC and early AD years actually agree more with the Septuagint. For example, in the later manuscripts Goliath was an absurd six cubits and a span, or 12'6'' tall, which is impossible, but in the early versions and the Septuagint he was only four cubits and a span. Still almost 8' or very large, but not impossible. The numbers in the later MSs are also inflated to match medieval battle numbers whereas the earlier ones are more realistic. For example, the number of war-chariots in Solomon's army is said to be 5000, the equivalent of a massive force of cavalry for a medieval army. The earlier MSS give us a more realistic 500, which is more than enough to harm an army of that era and geography. There are many things, such as the pre-Christ manuscripts reflecting the interpretation of the prophecies quite fittingly in the earlier manuscripts whereas in the latter ones the reference and translation is a bit more obscure. Psalm 22 and lions in his hands come to mind.
I'm not sure about quoting in the NT, but the septuagint makes it appear as if Methuselah survived the Great Flood. LXX says Meth. was 167 at Lamech's birth and Lamech 188 when Noah was born. The Masoretic Texts numbers are 187 and 182 respectively. Both agree that Meth. lived to 969. Both agree Noah was 600 when the flood began. But how old was Methuselah when the flood began? LXX: 167+188+600=955 MAS: 187+182+600=969 So you see how the LXX is wrong and clearly not inspired or divinely preserved, at least in totality. The name 'Methuselah' means 'his death will bring it' or 'when he is dead, it shall be sent'. LXX says he hadn't died, and the flood came anyway.
@@voyager14 I see that there is variation in both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in these ages. My Septuagint in Greek says Metuselah lived 187 before he begat Lemech and he lived 188 before Noah. This means Metuselah died 6 years before the flood. The variation across manuscripts suggests scribal errors or corrections. I suspect the Masoretic numbers are a later attempt to make the numbers fit perfectly, not the original text. Because overall the Septuagint agrees more with the ancient Hebrew mss in key texts whereas the 1000+ years younger masoretics are all over the place, and especially inaccurate and heavily edited when it comes to numbers. I would submit that for Goliath for example the earlier Hebrew and the Septuagint contain the original correct height of four cubits and a span, or 245 cm or 7'2". Goliath was of the Philistines, the Sea People who were warriors with Greek influence, so his challenge and desire to face a champion would be perfectly in line with his culture. If he was 3m tall, that is strange as no skeletons of that height among that people have been discovered. Messianic prophecies are heavily altered in Masoretic Mss almost to the point of not being legible. This is obvious evidence of scribal editing and tampering to cover up messianic prophecy after the fact.
Protestants really do love to use Matthew 22 21 to attack catholics. If only you guys applied such literal interpretation of the gospel when doing all the things that you guys do and that are so blatantly heresy perhaps we would be on better terms.
@@mattg6186 reject the church that Jesus Christ established, reject the literal Eucharist, misinterpret baptism, don't have confession to priests, reject papal authority, not to mention that people who are sola scriptura are total hypocrites as no where in the Bible does it say to use the Bible alone
@@illinoiszoomer2415 If I followed the original church that Jesus established, it would look nothing like the Catholic church. Peter had a wife, and Paul was the one that setup most of the church and was considered the church leader. Also, there weren't any confessions or anything like that in the original church. And the original church did not consider communion to be the actual blood and flesh of Christ in multiple documents they had explained to the Romans who called them cannibals for doing it that it was symbolic. And Peter and Paul disagreed on a lot, Paul even called Peter out by name in Galatians and said that he was only meeting with Jews and rich people initially.
@@mattg6186 Haha so you think that priests should be allowed to get married? Peter is considered to be the first leader of the early church, not Paul. I'm not sure where you get that from. Once priests came about in the early churches, there was confession. You can read Origen, Cyprian, Basil the Great, or Augustine's writings on it. Before there were official priests, early Christians still confessed sins to each other. Many early church fathers also considered the Eucharist to be literal, most notably Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin the Martyr. Your point that Peter and Paul disagreed on matters does not justify Protestantism one bit. Peter and Paul had considerably less access to the Bible and church history than possibly billions living today. The Catholic Church was always a consistent and authoritative guide and has had unchanged doctrine for nearly 2000 years. Jesus Christ didn't just come to finish off the Bible, but to also establish a church for all. I may also add that the early church believed in purgatory, in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, and baptised infants. All these teachings have been destroyed by American protestantism and protestantism in general because people think that they can interpret the Bible by themselves.
@@illinoiszoomer2415 Mary was a sinner, and she says as much in the Bible. In Luke 1:46-47 Mary Said "My soul magnifies the lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Now if Mary was blameless and hadn't sinned then she wouldn't need a savior and Jesus says this numerous times through the gospels that it is because of our sin that we need a savior. Paul also states that for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. He doesn't say except Mary. And confessing sins to each other is much different than having to go to a church elder to confess sins which they did not do. It was between brothers in Christ. And by most scholars, Paul is considered to be the Apostle who spread Christianity the farthest and the widest among the Roman Empire and he was not subject to Cephas or Peter which is stated in Galatians because Paul would confront him about his sins. And I don't know what you are talking about when you say they had "less access to the bible and church history" they literally wrote the bible and Paul started the Church's in the Roman empire. The early church going to Peter and Paul definitely did not believe in purgatory and didn't mention it once throughout all of their epistles. And neither did secondary church documents from the period.
Jesus saying “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s.” has nothing to do with a secular state. It is foreshadowing his demise at the hands of the Romans because of the Jews. He willing turns his body over to the Romans to be crucified, but his soul returns to be seated at the right hand of the Father. The idea that this had anything to do with a secular state is an Enlightenment, Protestant misinterpretation, most likely planted by Jews who were constantly informing Protestant ideology to subvert the Catholic order which followed Logos. Also, most people misunderstand Catholic Theocracy. They think it was oppressive and murderous. The Catholic Church demanded that governments provide protection to all citizens regardless of their religion and forbid religious persecution. However, they also demanded that citizens of these nations respect Catholic morality and obey their laws and the laws of God. They had zero tolerance for subversion and wizardry. Here is an official Papal Bull regarding the treatment of Jews in the the Holy Roman Empire; “We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.” It condemned forced conversion and religious persecution, but also affirmed Catholic supremacy over their own nations and law. They also forbid Jews from testifying against Catholics in court for good reason. They recognized that to be part of the society and determine how society should run, you needed to be Catholic. They recognized that they are benevolent supremacists. When they call the shots, they are fair, just and merciful. When the Jews or Protestants get it their way, the favor is never returned, so we need to make sure they have no influence. It’s kind of like whites and blacks. Any sane person would rather be a black person in a white country than a white person in a black country.
The Catholic Church was not fair to its subjects at all. We all have to remember that it’s God who gives us our freedom and controls our lives. The Catholic Church (not all the members) are ungodly and unbiblical. I’m an independent Baptist, but I choose to follow gods word instead of a corrupt church/nation
Was it not the Catholic Church who reinterpreted the Bible and claimed to change the Sabbath, a holy day marked by God and he alone, to prove they have Ecclesiastical powers? Didn't the church also create futurism, and false denominations? Or how about the Jesuit Priests, whose sole mission it is to undermine rebellion and criticism against the false teachings of the church? The church is at best compromised and at worst, the very Antichrist it was created to go against.
That verse about giving to Cesar which is Cesar's does not mean having church and state separated. That's absurd! That guy didn't get the bigger picture. I would bet that he did not read the full chapter where that verse is.
I’m curious what Nick has to say about Popes/Catholic figures in high positions who blatantly go against scripture - for example if a Pope were to say homosexuality isn’t sinful
he explains his stance on that in his interview with Mr. Metokur, basically says the pope was not speaking infallibly when he said that, which was a bit of a cop out
Also, the Pope is not claiming homosexuality is sinful, he is taken out of context. It all stems from getting asked about the legalization of civil unions in Argentinia, after that happened. Those civil unions made the blaspemy of homosexuals getting married redundant, which is a good thing. Also, there was no enforcement of anti-sodomy laws. When this is the case, you basically need a legal framework, to protect people from even more sin. For example: Sodomizers live together for ages, then they split and one party takes all the stuff. It's basically a matter of property law. This is the situation and i see where the Pope is coming from, you HAVE to keep injustice as low as you can. This is FAR from endorsing homosexuality. For quick reference on the Pope's stand, go to PONTIFEX twitter and look at his St. Valentines Day tweet, it wouldn't be like that if he was anything near pro-sodomy.
Popes and Catholic figures are human, Catholic doctrine no where states that they can't make mistakes or do things wrong. Your statement is like saying that the Israelites in the Bible or Jesus' disciples can't make big mistakes. Peter, who was the first Catholic Pope was far from perfect. Everyone needs Christ as a savior. If you want to talk about Papal Infallibility, it has only been used once in church history and has Biblical support for this ability. If you are going to consider the few bad apples that call themselves Catholic (wolves in sheep's clothing), why ignore the good that the church has done and the saints that are apart of the church?
0:54 -- FIRST attempt at a Gotcha question by whoever LeoPirate is, who, incidentally, has a PUNCHABLE voice. I never thought that was possible. Catholicity absolutely REQUIRES the believer to possess "liberty of conscience", hence, the pre-Confession REQUIREMENT for the penitent to do a clear examination of conscience before even entering the Confessional. It's written all over The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Mr. Pirate would have known that had he taken the time to learn what the hell he's talking about.
God's will belongs to God. any undertaking of God's will, is not rendering to him what is his. only he can judge and deal out punishment, for our only purpose is to accept our persecution and be the ones who profit from God's vengeful justice.
lmao it has to be a Hebrew to english translation what a joke. Firstly they didnt even speak Hebrew back then. Secondly the gradual translations from the old languages would be much more accurate and preferable
Render unto Caesar is about taxes being paid. Also, what, exactly doesn't belong to God? The conscience is internal to the person, not external. Vulgate not Septuagint, big difference. The rock is Peter's confession of Christ, not Peter himself. The two words for "rock" are different in the text. The RCC is full of factions, sects, divisions, and heresies. The only head of the body (the church) is Jesus: he is the source of true unity and he is the head of the hierarchy, both in his church as her head and bridegroom and in the state as king of kings and lord of lords.
Nick has talked many times on his show of the betrayals of Novus Ordo. Pre-Vatican II Mass is obviously his preference and as Saxum mentioned, Novus Ordo has caused significant damage.
@@pretz5584 1-not all NO masses are heretical 2-There have been WORST Popes in history then Francis. Popes who have been complete degenerates, etc. There have been graver crisis in the church. Still, Catholics throughout all history have respected the office of the papacy as decreed by our Lord. Our lady predicted the troubles and plights of the church, and she did not tell us to abandon ship, but pray more and stay faithful to her. 3- You are not in communion with the pope. You the see of Peter. You think you know better then the church, which you claim is corrupted. What difference does this have with Martin Luther? Because I see no difference, only pride 4-If you are not in communion with the pope, you deny the see of Peter, therefore deny papal authority and apostolic succession. You are not Catholic. You are in schism. Whilst I agree with you that modern lithrugy is borderline pathetic and not pleasing to God as TLM, you suffer the same error as the Orthodox church, and Protestants. We are to condemn error, pray for the church, but not abandon it and openly deny the papacy.
Lol the septuagint is the Greek, not the Latin. You don’t believe in the earliest translation from the oral Hebrew of the New Testament? This stream needs orthodoxy
Nick lumps Sedevacantism in with false traditionalists as being outside the church, which sucks because he'd be super based if he knew about manifest heresy and whatnot. Vaticancatholic seems to support him on their website though. I hope they're not wrong about him.
I’m a Christian but his commentary about India is wrong. The southwest, known as Kerala, is actually majority Hindu with a large Christian and Muslim minority, and the Muslim minority is bigger. The only regions of India that are Christian are a few states in the northeast, which are the most impoverished and backwards states in the whole country. Also he butchered that conversation about Jesus and the Pharisees. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
Daniel D'Souza Goa isn’t majority Christian either, it’s about 25% Christian today because of the fact that many Goan Christians have left. The only majority Christian states in India are in the northeast
@@canuckman6040 But just because the demographics have changed doesn't mean he wasn't talking about that geographical region. Had he made the statement a few decades ago he would have been correct.
Daniel D'Souza not a few decades, 120 years ago. In 1900 Goa was 50% Hindu and 50% Christian and since then has been majority Hindu, with a steadily increasing Hindu population. If he was referencing Goa he would still be wrong to say it’s majority Christian, it hasn’t been for over a century
1:58 -- ANOTHER, well, just flagrant misrepresentation of Sacred Scripture. Our Blessed Lord WAS NEVER ASKED if He believed that His inscription[?] be put on any coin, rather, He was asked if He believed Roman taxes should be paid by the Jews. Furthermore, referring to the "render unto Cæsar what is Cæsars..." words of our Blessed Lord as some type of blanket mandate for the MYTHICAL "separation of Church and state" is a cherrypicked New Testament confirmation bias, at LEAST.
Nick would call him a grifter for jumping on the catboy drama to get attention and Leo would act like an edgy entitled prick making an attempt to justify Nick going out with friends being "gay". Boring
Neither of them argued their points well tbh. I like Nick but don't agree with his stances on that papacy. The other guy made some really stupid points though so idk what to say.
Both Catholics and protestants exegises of this text is wrong! Modern textual criticism scholarship, along with ancient near eastern studies/contexts of cosmological geography, the oldest greek text of the matthew makes the subject of Jesus's focus clear about the rock, which was in cosmogeographical terms mount hermon, which in second temple Judaism the bottom of mount hermon had the ancient theological understanding that it was literally in the spiritual sense the gates of hell. I recommend all of the tradcatholic larpers and protestants to read up on some modern biblical scholarship, from scholars like Michael Heiser and the like
@Bestpossible World whether your catholic or orthodox, your traditions that contradict the actual doctrines in scripture was clearly mentioned by Christ in Mark 7:13, which those traditions come from the Byzantinization of the early church by constatine when he secularized and paganized christianity and most of the churches like the Coptic, Armenian, Roman, Greek, etc. Modern Scholarship uses valid and the best epistemological methods (and sometimes those most straightforward without any a priori tradition except for the pursuit of truth) to understand the context of scripture, as well as utilizing the best and most accurate manuscripts which even the protestants are [_>., @,. ¥ for using the talmudic medieval masoretic. It's not hard to see that Christ is the best one to appeal to rather than fallible men, as scripture for the believers is infallible, and if we cannot understand it rather than through an oral tradition like the talmud to understand and interpret it, then you can't even trust your own interpretation of the interpretation of scripture which would lead to an infinite epistemological agnostic regression. Even the Catholic Raymond E Brown understood the mediocracy catholic blind faith on dogma without having an accurate and rationally robust reconciliation between his tradition and the infallible truth of scripture. Just go on ahead and prove my point that you trust your tradition over scripture in your list of priorities, that you don't really care for objective truth and only have blind faith in your paganized revisionist church history and thinking that said tradition supersedes scripture and minimize scripture as being incomplete in order to justify to yourself of ignoring it and being scared of really understanding it. Btw the )£\/\/$ infiltrated the catholic church long ago through the jesuits , even pope sixtus required the |
Classic Nick was a different guy entirely from the man he is today. Watching him dismantle Leo Pirate is depressing because you realize Nick actually had potential.
They are not recognized as Christians by the rest of the Christian church, and does not subscribe to historic protestant confessions of faith either. Neither have they branched off from any protestant groups (like methodists branched off from Anglicans) but started way outside the protestant church. They deny key protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide, thereby not being protestants
@@timee3221 just because they're different to most protestant churches doesn't mean they're not protestant, protestant is a description, not really a denomination, in the word "protest", it means a western church, that is also non-Catholic. They are protestant.
From the Latin Peter = Sasso, Rock = Roccia, two different things! In Greek Petros & Petra, two different things! Jesus is the Rock, full stop. For Catholics the authority is a sinner man, for Bible believing Christians it is the Inspired Holy Scriptures. Pick one. Nick Fuentes projects his own pitfalls on the guests. By commenting on his opponents after he had already left, using strawmen, he showed his own defeat in the exchange.
The Catholic Church was the Church with saints closer to the time of Jesus than the protestants today. If you do disagree about the papacy at least be an eastern orthodox, dont go with these enlightenment ideas that led to the atheism and degeneracy we see now.
@@Sergedb74 what protestants view as biblical text is so debatable since it's up to personal opinion in Protestant churches. The Catholic Church is the Church that assembled the Bible. Protestantism is based on interpretations of a Holy Book that defy the very people who put it together
Marlon Munguia. You've made a few assumptions already especially in your first comment. Besides you seem to idealize the Roman Catholic Church or as option number 2, the Orthodox Church. The romanticized vision of your Church and reality are 2 different things. That's probably why you are Catholic; you see the façade rather than the substance, but correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion what you are looking for is exactly what you are criticizing. No one ever mentioned the Protestants in this exchange. You indicated that the Catholics assembled the Bible but that that same Holy Book goes against those who put the Book together?! I agree: even your own Catholic Bible can't keep up with Traditions any more...
@@Sergedb74 I'm sorry for assuming, due to your claim I assumed you were a protestant. Also you do realize can have different interpretations. The fact is that most contemporary interpretations of the Bible defy the reality, they dont take into context the past and they do not read the biblical scholar who would have lived closer to the time of Jesus than any other scholar. I would say the Bible went away from Tradition instead of the other way around since any book with metaphors and other rhetorical devices can have different interpretations. Also keep in mind the Church was made first, not the Bible. The fact is that Jesus sent the Apostles to lead his Church, he did not tell Christians to create the Bible. I am not saying though that the Bible isn't holy. Its holy because it describes the life of Christ and the Jews but we should not act as if God us gave this book to be the only authority since we were already given the Apostles
Being a catholic is a self-defeating position. Nick Fuentes is 20 years old yet seems to have lots of wordy answers about morality yet when it comes to something as basic as "purgatory" of which nothing is written in the bible about that... we understand that bsing and making things up are included in Nick's moral outlook on life. Sorry you're not old enough to be taken seriously on any level whatsoever Nick.
@@henrywinstone9176 The teaching of "purgatory" was so important in the bible that it was mentioned by the Son of God exactly zero times. And you'd have to have more worms in your brain than an InfoWars reporter to believe purgatory is real.
@@campsitez2355 Pay attention, I never said any verses explicitly mention purgatory. There are some verses, such as Rev 21:27 which we can say implies the existence of purgatory, since most of us aren't truly purified/clean at the time of death. Ball's on your court. I've answered your question, now answer mine.
The pharisees didnt ask Jesus if they should put his inscription on the coin, they asked if they should pay taxes to caesar and he said they should give Caesar what he is owed and to God what he is owed. This is in no way a rejection of a Christian state.
It literally just means be moral and pay your taxes, but it doesn't disqualify doing the two of those together under one political system in which there church is parallel, but not subservient to the state. Moreover, it doesn't mean that the state should have agency or power over the church as people like to interpret.
Separation of Church and state is nothing more than a cover for elevating the state above the Church and ultimately God.
Corvo@AZ in the end, He always does. But he always gives everyone many many chances to pick the good over evil.
don't know if "nothing more" is reasonable or accurate but whatever floats your boat.
@DangerBrighton The church is fallible, that's why they were separated from each other as Nick stated in the video to keep the church from being corrupted (as it has today). But the state should always be informed by Christian doctrine as it has throughout history. Again, only now when we part from this influence do we see our society break down like it has.
@DangerBrighton the institution of the (Roman) catholic church today as is presided over by the pope. I think Nick believes in a sense that the pope is infallible, but as all human beings are tragic and flawed, so is the pope. Only God is infallible.
@@Wilantonjakov Perfect argument for the Catholic Church. The room for fallcy is VERY small. The magisterium is bound to tradition as well. This tradition goes back to Peter. If you start a Church today from scratch, the only thing there is is scripture, interpreted by people removed 2000 years from Christ.
This dude sounds like a Freemason
Wow i thought i was the only one who noticed
Also getting that vibe when people start talking all these denominations and things like that are just the same.
My thoughts exactly as I'm listening
"What are you, a Mason?"
33 likes
Most of the crummy Millennial doomsday churches of the 19th century were founded by Freemasons.
*googles furiously* 4:00
Lmao
AhahhHhahaha
2:00 Leo totally butchered the story here. They weren't asking to put a religious inscription on the coin, they were asking whether they should pay taxes to the existing secular government. Our Lord's response was deep, and there are several layers there, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the separation of Church and state. The entire Christian church, both east and west, taught that confessional states were ideal. The idea of an explicitly secular state where you can do whatever you want would have been absurd to everyone pre-1750. This idea originated in the Satanic "Enlightenment" and was first instituted in 1776.
I'd say it was enforced during the French, not American Revolution. The Founders still did see Christianity as the moral code to follow in America
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."
- Patrick Henry
"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"
- John Adams and John Hancock (April 18, 1775)
The idea of a minarchist constitutionalist government also used to be absurd
@@CaptainBones222 The idea is still absurd. It's a failed experiment.
@@whitemakesright2177 I could say the same thing about having a religious society.
“We worship a triune God on Sunday! See? We’re all the same!”
-This guy
At 6 minutes in Nick absolutely destroyed this fella
Separation of church and state is ant-Christian. It is used as an attack on Christians. So for example, we can no longer pray in schools, our accurate history is destroyed while schools push for and teach alternative religions: Islam, yoga, spiritualism, secularism, atheism, etc. - these are all forms of religions and have values attached to them; and these same people push for taking down the Ten Commandments in places like courthouses, while demanding equal rights to erect satanic statues like Baphomet. This is wrong. It's immoral, and in no way represents how our Founding Fathers created the country.
Imagine not accepting the Septuagint even though it's accepted as the source of quotes used in the epistles. What a joke.
And how it often, (but not always) produces a translation of the Old Testament that is more in line with how the Hebrew Old Testament was during that time. Most manuscripts of the OT are from the second millenium AD and those contain many accidental and perhaps intentional errors. The few ones that survive from the BC and early AD years actually agree more with the Septuagint. For example, in the later manuscripts Goliath was an absurd six cubits and a span, or 12'6'' tall, which is impossible, but in the early versions and the Septuagint he was only four cubits and a span. Still almost 8' or very large, but not impossible.
The numbers in the later MSs are also inflated to match medieval battle numbers whereas the earlier ones are more realistic. For example, the number of war-chariots in Solomon's army is said to be 5000, the equivalent of a massive force of cavalry for a medieval army. The earlier MSS give us a more realistic 500, which is more than enough to harm an army of that era and geography.
There are many things, such as the pre-Christ manuscripts reflecting the interpretation of the prophecies quite fittingly in the earlier manuscripts whereas in the latter ones the reference and translation is a bit more obscure. Psalm 22 and lions in his hands come to mind.
I'm not sure about quoting in the NT, but the septuagint makes it appear as if Methuselah survived the Great Flood.
LXX says Meth. was 167 at Lamech's birth and Lamech 188 when Noah was born. The Masoretic Texts numbers are 187 and 182 respectively.
Both agree that Meth. lived to 969. Both agree Noah was 600 when the flood began.
But how old was Methuselah when the flood began?
LXX: 167+188+600=955
MAS: 187+182+600=969
So you see how the LXX is wrong and clearly not inspired or divinely preserved, at least in totality.
The name 'Methuselah' means 'his death will bring it' or 'when he is dead, it shall be sent'. LXX says he hadn't died, and the flood came anyway.
@@voyager14 I see that there is variation in both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in these ages. My Septuagint in Greek says Metuselah lived 187 before he begat Lemech and he lived 188 before Noah. This means Metuselah died 6 years before the flood.
The variation across manuscripts suggests scribal errors or corrections. I suspect the Masoretic numbers are a later attempt to make the numbers fit perfectly, not the original text.
Because overall the Septuagint agrees more with the ancient Hebrew mss in key texts whereas the 1000+ years younger masoretics are all over the place, and especially inaccurate and heavily edited when it comes to numbers.
I would submit that for Goliath for example the earlier Hebrew and the Septuagint contain the original correct height of four cubits and a span, or 245 cm or 7'2". Goliath was of the Philistines, the Sea People who were warriors with Greek influence, so his challenge and desire to face a champion would be perfectly in line with his culture. If he was 3m tall, that is strange as no skeletons of that height among that people have been discovered.
Messianic prophecies are heavily altered in Masoretic Mss almost to the point of not being legible. This is obvious evidence of scribal editing and tampering to cover up messianic prophecy after the fact.
They never asked Jesus if his inscription should be on the coin...this guy is a typical lieing protestants.
Protestants really do love to use Matthew 22 21 to attack catholics. If only you guys applied such literal interpretation of the gospel when doing all the things that you guys do and that are so blatantly heresy perhaps we would be on better terms.
What do Prots do that is blatantly heresy?
@@mattg6186 reject the church that Jesus Christ established, reject the literal Eucharist, misinterpret baptism, don't have confession to priests, reject papal authority, not to mention that people who are sola scriptura are total hypocrites as no where in the Bible does it say to use the Bible alone
@@illinoiszoomer2415 If I followed the original church that Jesus established, it would look nothing like the Catholic church. Peter had a wife, and Paul was the one that setup most of the church and was considered the church leader. Also, there weren't any confessions or anything like that in the original church. And the original church did not consider communion to be the actual blood and flesh of Christ in multiple documents they had explained to the Romans who called them cannibals for doing it that it was symbolic. And Peter and Paul disagreed on a lot, Paul even called Peter out by name in Galatians and said that he was only meeting with Jews and rich people initially.
@@mattg6186 Haha so you think that priests should be allowed to get married? Peter is considered to be the first leader of the early church, not Paul. I'm not sure where you get that from. Once priests came about in the early churches, there was confession. You can read Origen, Cyprian, Basil the Great, or Augustine's writings on it. Before there were official priests, early Christians still confessed sins to each other. Many early church fathers also considered the Eucharist to be literal, most notably Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin the Martyr. Your point that Peter and Paul disagreed on matters does not justify Protestantism one bit. Peter and Paul had considerably less access to the Bible and church history than possibly billions living today. The Catholic Church was always a consistent and authoritative guide and has had unchanged doctrine for nearly 2000 years. Jesus Christ didn't just come to finish off the Bible, but to also establish a church for all. I may also add that the early church believed in purgatory, in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, and baptised infants. All these teachings have been destroyed by American protestantism and protestantism in general because people think that they can interpret the Bible by themselves.
@@illinoiszoomer2415 Mary was a sinner, and she says as much in the Bible. In Luke 1:46-47 Mary Said "My soul magnifies the lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Now if Mary was blameless and hadn't sinned then she wouldn't need a savior and Jesus says this numerous times through the gospels that it is because of our sin that we need a savior. Paul also states that for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. He doesn't say except Mary. And confessing sins to each other is much different than having to go to a church elder to confess sins which they did not do. It was between brothers in Christ. And by most scholars, Paul is considered to be the Apostle who spread Christianity the farthest and the widest among the Roman Empire and he was not subject to Cephas or Peter which is stated in Galatians because Paul would confront him about his sins. And I don't know what you are talking about when you say they had "less access to the bible and church history" they literally wrote the bible and Paul started the Church's in the Roman empire. The early church going to Peter and Paul definitely did not believe in purgatory and didn't mention it once throughout all of their epistles. And neither did secondary church documents from the period.
Reformed and couldnt agree more that liberty of conscience has brought about degeneracy of society.
Protestantism is cringe
@@james8816 lol you’re denomination has no apostolic succession and is half the age of the Catholic Church but I’m the one going to hell
@@james8816 just so you know I don’t think you’re going to hell so maybe you could chill
@@TJ-mg2mp you all worship some jew. Does it really matter at the end of the day the minor differences?
@@attackmaster519 such a dumb comment that it’s not even worth responding to lmao
@@TJ-mg2mp Almost as dumb as worshipping the people who wish to destroy everything you love?
Jesus saying “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s.” has nothing to do with a secular state.
It is foreshadowing his demise at the hands of the Romans because of the Jews. He willing turns his body over to the Romans to be crucified, but his soul returns to be seated at the right hand of the Father.
The idea that this had anything to do with a secular state is an Enlightenment, Protestant misinterpretation, most likely planted by Jews who were constantly informing Protestant ideology to subvert the Catholic order which followed Logos.
Also, most people misunderstand Catholic Theocracy. They think it was oppressive and murderous. The Catholic Church demanded that governments provide protection to all citizens regardless of their religion and forbid religious persecution. However, they also demanded that citizens of these nations respect Catholic morality and obey their laws and the laws of God. They had zero tolerance for subversion and wizardry.
Here is an official Papal Bull regarding the treatment of Jews in the the Holy Roman Empire; “We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.”
It condemned forced conversion and religious persecution, but also affirmed Catholic supremacy over their own nations and law. They also forbid Jews from testifying against Catholics in court for good reason. They recognized that to be part of the society and determine how society should run, you needed to be Catholic.
They recognized that they are benevolent supremacists. When they call the shots, they are fair, just and merciful. When the Jews or Protestants get it their way, the favor is never returned, so we need to make sure they have no influence. It’s kind of like whites and blacks. Any sane person would rather be a black person in a white country than a white person in a black country.
Based
The Catholic Church was not fair to its subjects at all. We all have to remember that it’s God who gives us our freedom and controls our lives. The Catholic Church (not all the members) are ungodly and unbiblical. I’m an independent Baptist, but I choose to follow gods word instead of a corrupt church/nation
Was it not the Catholic Church who reinterpreted the Bible and claimed to change the Sabbath, a holy day marked by God and he alone, to prove they have Ecclesiastical powers? Didn't the church also create futurism, and false denominations? Or how about the Jesuit Priests, whose sole mission it is to undermine rebellion and criticism against the false teachings of the church? The church is at best compromised and at worst, the very Antichrist it was created to go against.
Oh shit this still exists on CZcams? I assumed it would have been memory holed by now
That verse about giving to Cesar which is Cesar's does not mean having church and state separated. That's absurd! That guy didn't get the bigger picture. I would bet that he did not read the full chapter where that verse is.
I don't agree with Mr. Fuentes on a few issues, but he did I good job defending the true faith.
I’m curious what Nick has to say about Popes/Catholic figures in high positions who blatantly go against scripture - for example if a Pope were to say homosexuality isn’t sinful
Ah yes, but I couldn't imagine a pope saying such a thing...........
he explains his stance on that in his interview with Mr. Metokur, basically says the pope was not speaking infallibly when he said that, which was a bit of a cop out
Also, the Pope is not claiming homosexuality is sinful, he is taken out of context.
It all stems from getting asked about the legalization of civil unions in Argentinia, after that happened.
Those civil unions made the blaspemy of homosexuals getting married redundant, which is a good thing.
Also, there was no enforcement of anti-sodomy laws.
When this is the case, you basically need a legal framework, to protect people from even more sin.
For example: Sodomizers live together for ages, then they split and one party takes all the stuff.
It's basically a matter of property law.
This is the situation and i see where the Pope is coming from, you HAVE to keep injustice as low as you can. This is FAR from endorsing homosexuality.
For quick reference on the Pope's stand, go to PONTIFEX twitter and look at his St. Valentines Day tweet, it wouldn't be like that if he was anything near pro-sodomy.
Popes and Catholic figures are human, Catholic doctrine no where states that they can't make mistakes or do things wrong. Your statement is like saying that the Israelites in the Bible or Jesus' disciples can't make big mistakes. Peter, who was the first Catholic Pope was far from perfect. Everyone needs Christ as a savior. If you want to talk about Papal Infallibility, it has only been used once in church history and has Biblical support for this ability. If you are going to consider the few bad apples that call themselves Catholic (wolves in sheep's clothing), why ignore the good that the church has done and the saints that are apart of the church?
U should look up Intellectual Conservativism and the argument for catholicism based on scripture. The pope is saved by the holy spirit from error
Both are gentlemens with honor and dignity.
imagine being a seventh day adventist. most cringe shit ever.
When the great Catholic monarch comes we will have a Catholic world may not be to far off
0:54 -- FIRST attempt at a Gotcha question by whoever LeoPirate is, who, incidentally, has a PUNCHABLE voice. I never thought that was possible.
Catholicity absolutely REQUIRES the believer to possess "liberty of conscience", hence, the pre-Confession REQUIREMENT for the penitent to do a clear examination of conscience before even entering the Confessional. It's written all over The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Mr. Pirate would have known that had he taken the time to learn what the hell he's talking about.
Liberty of conscience means doing whatever u want. Being a slave to your desires can be this
This guy sounded like a Christian AIU
7th day adventists dont even hold the sunday sabbath day lmao
wow, we can only agree on 3 Persons in 1 God, and Sunday worship? See why Catholicism is so necessary?
21:04
This was a good debate. I agree with both sides
God's will belongs to God. any undertaking of God's will, is not rendering to him what is his. only he can judge and deal out punishment, for our only purpose is to accept our persecution and be the ones who profit from God's vengeful justice.
I don't think the papacy is biblical, but LeoPirate just had bad argument
What? The 2 first popes were alive when Jesus died LMAO
lmao it has to be a Hebrew to english translation what a joke. Firstly they didnt even speak Hebrew back then. Secondly the gradual translations from the old languages would be much more accurate and preferable
Render unto Caesar is about taxes being paid. Also, what, exactly doesn't belong to God?
The conscience is internal to the person, not external.
Vulgate not Septuagint, big difference.
The rock is Peter's confession of Christ, not Peter himself. The two words for "rock" are different in the text.
The RCC is full of factions, sects, divisions, and heresies.
The only head of the body (the church) is Jesus: he is the source of true unity and he is the head of the hierarchy, both in his church as her head and bridegroom and in the state as king of kings and lord of lords.
Daniel Adrean our souls belong to the lord
Is Nick a real trad Catholic or does he submit to the novus ordo?
Yessssss something I’ve wondered myself - It would be good to pick his brain and see where he really is with true Catholicism
Nick has talked many times on his show of the betrayals of Novus Ordo. Pre-Vatican II Mass is obviously his preference and as Saxum mentioned, Novus Ordo has caused significant damage.
Liturgy of crysostom beats both tridentine and N.O.
Sedevacantists aren't Catholics.
@@pretz5584 1-not all NO masses are heretical
2-There have been WORST Popes in history then Francis. Popes who have been complete degenerates, etc. There have been graver crisis in the church. Still, Catholics throughout all history have respected the office of the papacy as decreed by our Lord. Our lady predicted the troubles and plights of the church, and she did not tell us to abandon ship, but pray more and stay faithful to her.
3- You are not in communion with the pope. You the see of Peter. You think you know better then the church, which you claim is corrupted. What difference does this have with Martin Luther? Because I see no difference, only pride
4-If you are not in communion with the pope, you deny the see of Peter, therefore deny papal authority and apostolic succession. You are not Catholic. You are in schism. Whilst I agree with you that modern lithrugy is borderline pathetic and not pleasing to God as TLM, you suffer the same error as the Orthodox church, and Protestants. We are to condemn error, pray for the church, but not abandon it and openly deny the papacy.
This guy leo is lame
Lol the septuagint is the Greek, not the Latin. You don’t believe in the earliest translation from the oral Hebrew of the New Testament? This stream needs orthodoxy
"orthodoxs" are cringe
Nick lumps Sedevacantism in with false traditionalists as being outside the church, which sucks because he'd be super based if he knew about manifest heresy and whatnot. Vaticancatholic seems to support him on their website though. I hope they're not wrong about him.
The popes are proud.
yes and
I’m a Christian but his commentary about India is wrong. The southwest, known as Kerala, is actually majority Hindu with a large Christian and Muslim minority, and the Muslim minority is bigger. The only regions of India that are Christian are a few states in the northeast, which are the most impoverished and backwards states in the whole country. Also he butchered that conversation about Jesus and the Pharisees. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
He's talking about Goa.
Daniel D'Souza Goa isn’t majority Christian either, it’s about 25% Christian today because of the fact that many Goan Christians have left. The only majority Christian states in India are in the northeast
@@canuckman6040 But just because the demographics have changed doesn't mean he wasn't talking about that geographical region. Had he made the statement a few decades ago he would have been correct.
Daniel D'Souza not a few decades, 120 years ago. In 1900 Goa was 50% Hindu and 50% Christian and since then has been majority Hindu, with a steadily increasing Hindu population. If he was referencing Goa he would still be wrong to say it’s majority Christian, it hasn’t been for over a century
1:58 -- ANOTHER, well, just flagrant misrepresentation of Sacred Scripture.
Our Blessed Lord WAS NEVER ASKED if He believed that His inscription[?] be put on any coin, rather, He was asked if He believed Roman taxes should be paid by the Jews.
Furthermore, referring to the "render unto Cæsar what is Cæsars..." words of our Blessed Lord as some type of blanket mandate for the MYTHICAL "separation of Church and state" is a cherrypicked New Testament confirmation bias, at LEAST.
is this guy acoustic lol ill never understand how people outside of apostolic churches are even taken seriously
do sda’s deny Christ’s divinity?
I dont like what's going on. I've got a really bad feeling something horrible is always about to happen to your show physically.
7th day adventists are insane rip
inquisition torture and witch burning is totally bs
Oh my would love to see these two have a chat especially after the catboy drama
Nick would call him a grifter for jumping on the catboy drama to get attention and Leo would act like an edgy entitled prick making an attempt to justify Nick going out with friends being "gay". Boring
What drama? You mean the entirely manufactured "drama" which was laundered by professional commie liars like Vaush?
Aah Rags.
is leon still alive?
Not really he’s become another irrelevant alt righter from the old days
@@MrJamesBourne ripperoni
Neither of them argued their points well tbh. I like Nick but don't agree with his stances on that papacy. The other guy made some really stupid points though so idk what to say.
What exactly is your problem with the papacy?
Coomer cope.
Seventh day adventist 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Head and pure jesus lizard
I told you about king David's stone. I dont want it . I never did.
Seventh Day Adventist!!
Seventh Day Adventism is a cult😂
Both Catholics and protestants exegises of this text is wrong! Modern textual criticism scholarship, along with ancient near eastern studies/contexts of cosmological geography, the oldest greek text of the matthew makes the subject of Jesus's focus clear about the rock, which was in cosmogeographical terms mount hermon, which in second temple Judaism the bottom of mount hermon had the ancient theological understanding that it was literally in the spiritual sense the gates of hell. I recommend all of the tradcatholic larpers and protestants to read up on some modern biblical scholarship, from scholars like Michael Heiser and the like
@Bestpossible World whether your catholic or orthodox, your traditions that contradict the actual doctrines in scripture was clearly mentioned by Christ in Mark 7:13, which those traditions come from the Byzantinization of the early church by constatine when he secularized and paganized christianity and most of the churches like the Coptic, Armenian, Roman, Greek, etc.
Modern Scholarship uses valid and the best epistemological methods (and sometimes those most straightforward without any a priori tradition except for the pursuit of truth) to understand the context of scripture, as well as utilizing the best and most accurate manuscripts which even the protestants are
[_>., @,. ¥ for using the talmudic medieval masoretic.
It's not hard to see that Christ is the best one to appeal to rather than fallible men, as scripture for the believers is infallible, and if we cannot understand it rather than through an oral tradition like the talmud to understand and interpret it, then you can't even trust your own interpretation of the interpretation of scripture which would lead to an infinite epistemological agnostic regression. Even the Catholic Raymond E Brown understood the mediocracy catholic blind faith on dogma without having an accurate and rationally robust reconciliation between his tradition and the infallible truth of scripture.
Just go on ahead and prove my point that you trust your tradition over scripture in your list of priorities, that you don't really care for objective truth and only have blind faith in your paganized revisionist church history and thinking that said tradition supersedes scripture and minimize scripture as being incomplete in order to justify to yourself of ignoring it and being scared of really understanding it.
Btw the )£\/\/$ infiltrated the catholic church long ago through the jesuits , even pope sixtus required the |
In practice, would anyone want to live under this authoritarianism?
I'd like to toss it to the pope . Think he can catch it better than goliath? I'll toss it soft like the boss.
Classic Nick was a different guy entirely from the man he is today. Watching him dismantle Leo Pirate is depressing because you realize Nick actually had potential.
Dude prots don’t agree on the trinity Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses don’t believe in the trinity
Mormons and JWs are not protestants. Not being catholic is not the same as being protestant
@@timee3221 Protestant means non-Catholic, western church, how are they not?
They are not recognized as Christians by the rest of the Christian church, and does not subscribe to historic protestant confessions of faith either. Neither have they branched off from any protestant groups (like methodists branched off from Anglicans) but started way outside the protestant church. They deny key protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide, thereby not being protestants
@@timee3221 just because they're different to most protestant churches doesn't mean they're not protestant, protestant is a description, not really a denomination, in the word "protest", it means a western church, that is also non-Catholic. They are protestant.
@@timee3221Bruh oneness Pentecostals, many different Unitarian sects, I’ve even heard of mainline denominations denying Christs divinity.
damn very soy boy to say we should let the papacy dictate anything...
Nick says Catholics follow interpretation from Pope. So does he agree with all the interpretations of the pope?
No I would doubt he agrees with all of the current political stances of pope Francis. Many Catholics do not
Yes, pope is right.
Nick's lack of Bible study really comes through
So true, he should have used the one true KJV written by Christ himself even though He didn't know English
@@illinoiszoomer2415 its the true english version no one said it was written by christ himself thats a massive strawman
@@havefaith4382the KJV is missing 7 books.
@@TomBrennan183 they are not divinely inspired just like the gospel of thomas is not divinely inspired also the 7 books were in the original kjv btw
@@havefaith4382 you just proved my point saying that they were in the original KJV. Meaning that they were removed.
Love nick but, Leo got him here.
Leo believes in that Catholicism is illegitimate despite the first 3 popes being alive when Jesus was living
From the Latin Peter = Sasso, Rock = Roccia, two different things! In Greek Petros & Petra, two different things! Jesus is the Rock, full stop. For Catholics the authority is a sinner man, for Bible believing Christians it is the Inspired Holy Scriptures. Pick one. Nick Fuentes projects his own pitfalls on the guests. By commenting on his opponents after he had already left, using strawmen, he showed his own defeat in the exchange.
The Catholic Church was the Church with saints closer to the time of Jesus than the protestants today. If you do disagree about the papacy at least be an eastern orthodox, dont go with these enlightenment ideas that led to the atheism and degeneracy we see now.
It seems that what you are describing is in line neither with what we observe of reality nor with the biblical text's.
@@Sergedb74 what protestants view as biblical text is so debatable since it's up to personal opinion in Protestant churches. The Catholic Church is the Church that assembled the Bible. Protestantism is based on interpretations of a Holy Book that defy the very people who put it together
Marlon Munguia. You've made a few assumptions already especially in your first comment. Besides you seem to idealize the Roman Catholic Church or as option number 2, the Orthodox Church. The romanticized vision of your Church and reality are 2 different things. That's probably why you are Catholic; you see the façade rather than the substance, but correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion what you are looking for is exactly what you are criticizing. No one ever mentioned the Protestants in this exchange. You indicated that the Catholics assembled the Bible but that that same Holy Book goes against those who put the Book together?! I agree: even your own Catholic Bible can't keep up with Traditions any more...
@@Sergedb74 I'm sorry for assuming, due to your claim I assumed you were a protestant. Also you do realize can have different interpretations. The fact is that most contemporary interpretations of the Bible defy the reality, they dont take into context the past and they do not read the biblical scholar who would have lived closer to the time of Jesus than any other scholar. I would say the Bible went away from Tradition instead of the other way around since any book with metaphors and other rhetorical devices can have different interpretations. Also keep in mind the Church was made first, not the Bible. The fact is that Jesus sent the Apostles to lead his Church, he did not tell Christians to create the Bible. I am not saying though that the Bible isn't holy. Its holy because it describes the life of Christ and the Jews but we should not act as if God us gave this book to be the only authority since we were already given the Apostles
Boring
Being a catholic is a self-defeating position. Nick Fuentes is 20 years old yet seems to have lots of wordy answers about morality yet when it comes to something as basic as "purgatory" of which nothing is written in the bible about that... we understand that bsing and making things up are included in Nick's moral outlook on life. Sorry you're not old enough to be taken seriously on any level whatsoever Nick.
Probably coming from some fucking Evangelical. Lol if anything being a Protestant is a self-defeating position.
@@henrywinstone9176 The teaching of "purgatory" was so important in the bible that it was mentioned by the Son of God exactly zero times.
And you'd have to have more worms in your brain than an InfoWars reporter to believe purgatory is real.
@@henrywinstone9176 One thing at a time, what verses about "purgatory"?
@@campsitez2355 Pay attention, I never said any verses explicitly mention purgatory. There are some verses, such as Rev 21:27 which we can say implies the existence of purgatory, since most of us aren't truly purified/clean at the time of death. Ball's on your court. I've answered your question, now answer mine.
@@henrywinstone9176 no it doesn't