25 Reasons Peter Was NOT The First Pope!

The doctrine of the papacy is central to the Roman Catholic Church, and is supported by their claim that Peter was installed by Jesus as the first Pope or head of the one true church. Todd lays out 25 reasons that make clear why, biblically speaking, this claim cannot be true.
--
Wretched TV and Radio are hosted by Todd Friel. On the show, you will see and hear live witnessing encounters, discussions of tough theological issues, and Christian commentary on current events. We might even make you laugh.
WATCH FULL WRETCHED TV EPISODES:
wretched.org/tv/
LISTEN TO FULL WRETCHED RADIO SHOWS:
wretched.org/radio/
VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
wretched.org/
SUPPORT WRETCHED:
wretched.org/donate
FACEBOOK:
Wretched: / wretchednetwork
TWITTER:
Wretched: / wretchednetwork
Todd Friel: / toddfriel
INSTAGRAM:
Wretched: / wretched.network

[@WretchedNetwork]

Please be aware that there are spam accounts named Wretched commenting on this and other videos. We are doing our best to delete and report these accounts, and would ask you please do the same - make sure you don't fall prey to their scams! - Ethan from Wretched

[@thehuguenot5615]

RIP Ethan

[@transformers_quotes5738]

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9“for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:13

[@jedimasterham2]

I hope you please speak against Calvinism. It's a cult, and people need to get out of this. And please stop referring to followers of Jesus Christ as "protestant."

[@sweetlikechocolate437]

I am considering about converting to Catholism.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@sweetlikechocolate437 very foolish in light of this video

[@sallyhart1576]

I've got a hymn: My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness . . .

[@WretchedNetwork]

Amen, Sally! - Ethan from Wretched

[@Nathan-mf2yz]

“I dare not trust the sweetest frame”

[@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ]

Amen sister in Christ! 💯

[@brotherjonathan1ACTS238]

FATHER JESUS CHRIST IS TRULY GOD ALL BY HIMSELF AND ALWAYS WILL BE AMEN!!!!! GENESIS 1 26 GOD HIMSELF SAID LET US CREATE MAN?!? ALL PRESENT....NO! THE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURE PROVE FATHER JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF CREATED US AND ALL THINGS BY HIMSELF!.... Genesis 1:27 King James Version 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them FATHER JESUS CHRIST ALONE IS GOD! THE BELIEF OF trinity is humanistically IDOLATRY and rooted satanically to mock AND FAIL ADHERENCE TO OBEYING ACTUAL HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAME ONLY PLANNED SALVATION OF ACTS 2 38 OF THE APOSTLES REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST! DAY OF PENTECOST AS APOSTLE PETER OBEDIENTLY PREACHED AS LORD JESUS CHRIST HOLY INSTRUCTED SO.... UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATE OF hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT!! EVEN NOT HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAMED RELIANCE IN CLOSING OR OPENING PRAYER BUT INSTEAD QUOTING TITLES OF FATHER AND SON AND HOLY GHOST HINDERS HOLY SPIRITUAL TRUE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF WHOM IS THE ONLY ONE LORD GOD OUR SAVIOUR ALMIGHTY LORD JESUS CHRIST! AMEN! FATHER JESUS CHRIST FORBID ANY HINDERANCES OF FATHER JESUS CHRIST NAMED SINCERE SOULS ZEALOUSLY PRAYERFULLY SINCERE! That vatican false teaching of trinity according titles of FATHER and SON and HOLY GHOST TO BAPTIZM IS A LIE THAT CAME out falsely from JOHN Tertullian and was backed by vatican souls to control the masses and THEREBY claim obedient rule and lawful oversight.... FOR MANY MANY SADLY SO YEARS!!!! MATTHEW 28 19 EVEN CLEARLY READS LORD JESUS CHRIST SAYING BAPTIZING THEM IN MY NAME!!!!! NOT titles OF FATHER AND SON AND HOLY GHOST! HOLY RESPECTFULY! AUTHORITY IS ONLY DELGATED OFFICIALLY BY BIENG IN THE NAME! LORD JESUS CHRIST IS SALVATIONS ONLY NAME! ACTS 2 38 AND YEA EVEN ACTS 4 12 FOR NIETHER IS THERE ANY OTHER FOR THERE IS NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED! IN HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAME ACTS 4 12! PLEASE PRAYERFULLY READ!!!!! JOHN TERTULLIAN AND the INFAMOUS VATICAN?! THIER LYING infamous claim of the AFORE ALLEGED STATED trinity EVEN dogma OF trinity is humanistically IDOLATRY and rooted satanically to overall mock AND FAIL HOLY SPIRITUAL TRUE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD HIMSELF THE ONLY LORD GOD OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST! THAT VATICAN TEACHING OF trinity CAME FROM JOHN Tertullian and his infamous claim of the lie of trinity only as a matter of HISTORICAL REFERENCE IS AS follows! Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology". Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas) ADVANCING NOT THE TRUTH NOR LORD JESUS CHRIST NAME THAT ONLY AUTHORS HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAMED SALVATION! THEREFORE.... AUTHORING THE LIE OF 1 GOD IN 3 PERSONS! ALL LIES! ALL IDOLATRY! ALL HISTORICALLY REFERENCED REFLECTIVELY VOLUMISED IN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA FORMAT AND BEYOND SETTING FALSE TEACHINGS WITHIN the EARLY GROWING VATICAN YEARS! AND THIS lie had been zealed MANY MANY YEARS AFTER GODLY CALVARY WHEREIN GOD IN CHRIST ROBED IN FLESH AS JESUS CHRIST ALONE HIMSELF ZEALED ALL LOVING MIRACLES UNTO REDEMPTION OF ALL SOULS UP TO AND EVEN BEYOND THE CRUCIFIXION OF HIS LOVING SACRIFICE UNTO AGAIN BY HIS OWN POWER PROMISED ROSE FROM THE DEAD THAT WHOSOEVER WILL WOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND ALL BELIEVING WOULD RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST!!!!! ACTS 2 38 PLANNED SALVATION ZEALOUSLY! HOLY JESUS NAMED ONLY PLANNED SALVATION!!!!! FATHER JESUS CHRIST ORDAINED ACTS 2 38 AS HIS HOLY ONLY PLANNED SALVATION TRUTH! ADVANCING NOT THE TRUTH NOR LORD JESUS CHRIST NAME THAT ONLY AUTHORS HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAMED SALVATION! THEREFORE.... AUTHORING THE LIE OF 1 GOD IN 3 PERSONS! ALL LIES! ALL IDOLATRY! ALL HISTORICALLY REFERENCED REFLECTIVELY VOLUMISED IN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA FORMAT AND BEYOND SETTING FALSE TEACHINGS WITHIN the EARLY GROWING VATICAN YEARS! AND THIS lie had been zealed MANY MANY YEARS AFTER GODLY CALVARY WHEREIN GOD IN CHRIST ROBED IN FLESH AS JESUS CHRIST ALONE HIMSELF ZEALED ALL LOVING MIRACLES UNTO REDEMPTION OF ALL SOULS UP TO AND EVEN BEYOND THE CRUCIFIXION OF HIS LOVING SACRIFICE UNTO AGAIN BY HIS OWN POWER PROMISED ROSE FROM THE DEAD THAT WHOSOEVER WILL WOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND ALL BELIEVING WOULD RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST!!!!! ACTS 2 38 PLANNED SALVATION ZEALOUSLY! HOLY JESUS NAMED ONLY PLANNED SALVATION!!!!! FATHER JESUS CHRIST ORDAINED ACTS 2 38 AS HIS HOLY ONLY PLANNED SALVATION! THE 1ST CHRISTIANS WERE NAMED SO IN ANTIOCH NOT rome!

[@dr.waffle245]

@@Nathan-mf2yz " but wholly lean on Jesus name"

[@mattmoeller1105]

Acts 10:25-26, "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am just a man." It doesn't sound like Peter wanted to be worshiped either, along with Paul (Acts 14:13-15 ), or even an angel sent by God (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). None of Jesus' followers seem to want to be worshiped once they have had direct contact with Him. They all seem to know there is only One worthy of worshiping: Jesus! Mary is no exception. She is blessed by God, but she is not worthy of bowing down to.

[@NequeNon]

Here cause of Trent Horn. Have a public discussion with him, be really great and we can all benefit! God bless you all!

[@1234poppycat]

All you have to do is look up on you tube "25 Reasons Peter was not the First Pope ! (Rebutted)" He would not dare to debate with Trent

[@capellihairextsny]

Jesus is always king ❤🙏🏼

[@believer431]

Amen amen

[@PInk77W1]

Jesus picked 12 men. Jesus said to them “He who hears YOU hears me He who rejects YOU rejects me” Lk 10:16 We are commanded to listen to men

[@feelyoung79]

We are not commanded to listen to men! We're to follow Christ and do the will of the Father. We have His Word which was used when satan tried to tempt Christ which satan used actual scripture word for word but used it out of it's CONTEXT! Christ refuted him with the Word in it's true meaning. It's obvious satan's old tricks still work. Narrow is the gate to heaven not wide.​@@PInk77W1

[@YeshuaIsTheTruth]

To quote David, "Who is a rock but Our Lord?"

[@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ]

@RoboMint, AMEN!

[@bigfootapologetics]

To quote Jesus, "You shall be called Cephas ("Rock")."

[@lightninlad]

God called Abraham a rock: (Isaiah 51:1-2) “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; 2 look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth. When I called him he was only one man, and I blessed him and made him many."

[@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ]

@@bigfootapologetics, Peter is NOT the Rock that is the foundation of the Ekklessia of Christ. Jesus Christ ALONE is the Rock, the Cornerstone, the solid foundation of His Church. So just stop it already with your Catholic blasphemy. You worship your goddess, your “Queen of Heaven”, Semiramis, and her son, Tammuz, which is why you celebrate the birth of Tammuz on December 25. Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25. Jesus was born around the feast of tabernacles, when God came to earth to tabernacle with mankind. Mary of the Bible says she’s a sinner who needs Jesus as her Savior too, but the “Mary” of the RCC is made to be a “god” by the pagan Church of Rome, which declares their “Mary” ascended to Heaven on her own righteousness, which is something ONLY OUR SINLESS CREATOR, YHVH INCARNATE IN CHRIST, CAN DO! Mary is a sinner, like all mankind, and she’s awaiting the resurrection of the dead in Christ, like all those who died in Christ. She’s not sitting on the throne of Heaven, YHVH is. She’s not a “mediatrix”, because Jesus Christ is the ONLY MEDIATOR between YHVH and mankind. She’s not a co-Redeemer with Christ, because our Redeemer is sinless and perfect in righteousness, and He is YHVH manifest in Christ ALONE, and NOT “MARY”! You simply ignore the truth of God’s Word, because your religion is your “savior” in your brainwashed mind, and not Jesus Christ, the One who died for your sins. That’s why your Pope carries a bent cross to mock the crucifixion of Christ, and it’s why throughout the Vatican, the crown is on “Mary’s” head, and not Christ’s. You choose to cling to your false, pagan, idolatrous religion, and you deny Jesus Christ.

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ Jesus Christ named Simon "Rock." I'll take the words of Christ over the words of Protestants who want to deny what the Bible plainly says any day. Catholics don't worship Mary - the Church teaches that will land you in hell. "Semiramis, and her son, Tammuz" are not and have never even been brought up by Catholics. This is false witness concocted by Protestants out of thin air. If you really think we worship them, then it should be fairly simple for you to find any official Catholic teaching referencing them, right? Show me a single document concerning their worship from the magisterium. Similarly, the traditional date for the birth of Christ comes from the idea that the sons of Abijah ministered in the eight month of the Jewish year, between mid-October and mid-November. Elizabeth was in seclusion for five months. After the sixth month of her pregnancy, Mary conceived Christ. This would land us between mid-March and mid-April; traditionally celebrated on March 25th. Nine months would bring us to December 25th. You can bring your pagan gods into it, but Catholics stick to Christian tradition here. Again, your various claims about us considering Mary to be a god or goddess ascending on her own righteousness (as opposed to Christ's) are false witness. We don't teach or believe that. We don't believe she's on THE throne of heaven, although we recognize her as the human, infinitely less mother of the King of Heaven. We don't believe she is equal to God or God manifest in any way. We DO believe Jesus saved her from sin, although you disagree with us on the means. Jesus Christ is our savior, and was nearly 1,600 years before the first Protestant put pen to paper. The Pope doesn't carry a bent cross to mock the crucifixion of Christ, and we have LOADS of art featuring Jesus wearing the crown of thorns and more glorious ones! Please, if you care about your soul, either research this stuff first or stop lying--it's a serious sin.

[@cronicreas]

In Christ and in Christ alone.

[@believer431]

Forever

[@amalp9784]

In Christ and with his one Church alone.

[@eddieboggs8306]

@@amalp9784 Individual Christians are the church not a denomination.

[@CopperheadAirsoft]

protestant

[@cronicreas]

@@CopperheadAirsoft you can call me whatever you want to. I am Christs so..... are you?

[@DentGal83]

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[@jackieo8693]

Then why did Jesus give the apostles authority to forgive sins? Jesus can do whatever He wishes.

[@TheRealCSD6]

Jesus is the one mediator between God and man in the sense He is the only one that can save you. The only one that can redeem man with the Father. This is much different from intercession.

[@jackieo8693]

@@TheRealCSD6 exactly

[@jackieo8693]

@@alimeryssaaljazairi7692 Jesus told them whatever sins you forgive shall be forgiven. Of course the apostles forgave in Jesus name. But Jesus gave them the authority right after the resurrection. Read your Bible

[@jackieo8693]

@@alimeryssaaljazairi7692 well, right. The apostles received the authority to forgive sins from Jesus, not on their own. Where did anyone say they did it on their own!?

[@thomaswhite8822]

Just saw a rebuttal of this video by Trent Horn. It was very compelling. I would love to hear you two debate the issue.

[@waseemhermiz7565]

He wouldn't dare. Protestors are scared of informed Catholics

[@SethRLewis]

@Mthf I agree. I would be a great video.

[@michellebryan8148]

@@waseemhermiz7565 Agreed.He's all blabber, attached with his evilish smile just to hide his biblical ignorance.

[@39knights]

I don't think Todd would even consider such a debate. He would be forever exposed for the flake content he dishes out. Trent graciously but firmly wiped the floor with him.

[@jimmu2008]

I don't think Todd could hold a candle to any Catholic apologist that I know of.

[@thetanker5653]

Charles Spurgeon said it best "Popery is contrary to Christ's gospel and we ought to pray against it." Edited to add: Glad Todd included this quote!

[@chuckdeuces911]

You should have just deleted the comment. It looks smug.

[@chuckdeuces911]

@Sinful Bastard Child 100%

[@robertabrao7785]

The Tanker Beautiful May I use Spurgeon’s words with a bit changed. “Trinity is contrary to Christ’s gospel and we ought to pray against it.” The Trinity doctrine comes from the Catholic Church

[@eddieboggs8306]

@@robertabrao7785 It is in the Bible.

[@robertabrao7785]

Eddie Boggs And my friend, I’m supposed to take your word for it? JESUS taught that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22) the apostles said the same, that the oracles were given or entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:1, 2) find out what the Jews believe about God and accept Jesus as the Christ and you’ll have truth. Paul kept nothing back from Jew or Gentile, Paul declared the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:20-31) The Jews don’t believe in a 3 in 1 God (Trinity) and the only thing the Jews had to be convinced or persuaded to believe, the only teaching that was new, is dietary/ceremonial laws and circumcision was done away with. And there are plenty of scripture to convince and Persuade the Jews of this. (Circumcision: Acts 11:2, 3/Acts 15/Romans 2:25-29/1 Corinthians 7:17-20/Galatians 2:3-10/Galatians 5:1-6/Galatians 6:12-15/Philippians 3:3/Colossians 2:11-14) (Dietary/ceremonial laws: Mark 7:14-23/Romans 14:1-9, 17/1 Corinthians 8:8/Colossians 2:16-23/Hebrews 13:9) You see all these scriptures to convince the Jews and nowhere in the word of God is even the slightest attempt to convince the Jews that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity nor that God is a 3 in 1 God, nor that Jesus is God.

[@VespasianOfTheThird]

Just a quick reminder: if your attack on a fellow christians position requires you to mock Peter like that, your probably wrong.

[@samtschannel6164]

This video was posted the day after I prayed to Jesus asking if Peter was the first pope or not. Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I always found it strange that a man other than Christ was the head of the “christian” church. Thank you so much for this video

[@samtschannel6164]

@Sinful Bastard Child Just thanking God for answering this prayer and the prayer of many others. It’s not about me but Christ through me

[@chill4322]

​@@samtschannel6164 it's great your prayer was answered It helped me too

[@seektruth7]

Praise God!

[@chuckdeuces911]

It's not even a question and if people really got into their bibles like they should they would easily know all of this....

[@ifthatthenthis3797]

God is good I can't wait to meet him in person. Thank you for answering his prayers

[@robertjordan7280]

Thank you for teaching the truth! There is one mediator! The Son of Man sits on the throne!

[@PInk77W1]

You don’t have a pastor ?

[@TheRealCSD6]

A lot of this video isn't even about Peter and instead a bunch of spouting misconceptions of Catholicism. It seems the subject of the video was lost in the script writing.

[@SolaScriptura94]

Thumbnail is pure gold!!!

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

[@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630]

Actually Jesus said in the hopes of John that his prayer is for ALL believers. And clearly all of the authors of the New testament strengthened the brothers. And Paul wrote far more than Peter. Peter was not the pope.

[@jordanmunk3041]

Could Jesus's words strengthen others in that they were full of grace and mercy toward Peter in that He fully forgave Him after he denied Christ three times? So, Peter's testimony becomes a gift for countless others, not because of Peter, but because of Jesus Christ.

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 The authority of St. Peter as the first pope was exercised on several occasions, as recorded in the Bible. He presided over and opened the first council of Christianity, in Jerusalem (see Acts 15:7-11). He was the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (see Acts 8:14-24). His proclamation at Pentecost concerning the “house of Israel” (Acts 2:36) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision, and a disciplinary decree (see Acts 2:14-41) - an example of “binding and loosing” (see Mt 16:17-19). He had the authority to judge the first recorded case of Church discipline (see Acts 5:1-11). Jesus prayed for Peter “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:33). God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7). The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26). Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14). Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15). Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11). Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3). After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18). Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just “Peter and the twelve. ” Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together. Jesus’ chief disciple, Peter (also called Simon Peter or Cephas), has been associated with Rome for nearly 2,000 years. The earliest testimony to the apostle Peter’s presence in Rome is a letter from a Christian deacon named Gaius. Writing probably toward the end of the second century C.E.-so, around 170 or 180 C.E.-Gaius tells about the wondrous things in Rome, including something called a tropaion (see below for more) where Peter established a church-in fact, the Church, the Roman Catholic church at the site where St. Peter’s Basilica is today. Gaius, Roman jurist (130-180 AD) “It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

Why did Jesus still give Peter the Keys to the True Church , Protestants were taught lies

[@conniecondra4535]

@@jordanmunk3041 Having been raised in the catholic cult, it took me awhile to recognize that Peter's confession of faith rather than Peter was the rock on which Yeshua's church is build. I thank God every day that He gave me this realization.

[@CaptainPantys]

Love the thumbnail! You guys always brighten up my day lol

[@WretchedNetwork]

And you brighten ours! Thanks for watching! - Ethan from Wretched

[@1234poppycat]

yes a lot of people like fiction .... Now for faith and fact .... I will start with the passage in Question . Matthew 16:17-19: In the middle of a longish statement about Peter why he would break mid sentence and put a bit in about himself ???? .. It is linguistically poor to say the least and not in the style the Synoptic gospel writers have Jesus talking !! ,,,,,,,,,,, """""And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”""" ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Secondly , this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ-the authority of heaven-over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Thirdly, The substitution of small rock big rock " ...“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church.” The first rock, petros, you claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a large rock that is Jesus . The argument concludes that Jesus built his church not upon St. Peter, but upon himself ........ The Gospel of Matthew, we have solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly-and more certainly-Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language. ,,,,,, Fourth ,,,,,,, We have biblical evidence-John 1:42-that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter).,,,,,The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. ,,,,,,,,,, Fifth ......Even well respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,.......The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (Thanks to CA)

[@beccaevans6184]

Flesh and blood didn't reveal this to you, but MY FATHER in HEAVEN! On this ROCK I will build MY CHURCH! REVELATIONS from our FATHER!

[@randycarson9812]

Donald A. Carson (Baptist) “On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368) "The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

[@patrikioskoskinas3308]

My first language is greek and I can guarantee you there's no such distinction in Petros and Petra. Jesus changes the name to Petros since it doesn't make sense to call someone Petra as their name. I'm sure someone will quote strongs greek lexicon, but that is the only place it is ever said to be a small vs a large rock and is such an outdated and incorrect lexicon that the only reason to use it is to push a point.

[@jbchoc]

These guys love the cool aid and do not care about grammar or language or truth.

[@digitalnomad9985]

So, why didn't He use Petros twice?

[@patrikioskoskinas3308]

@@digitalnomad9985 cause that's not how the greek language works. He is changing his name to Petros, and not Petra because Petra is the feminine.

[@patrikioskoskinas3308]

@@digitalnomad9985 think of it as similar to Spanish. The word for rock is roca, which has the feminine article "la". So if you were to change a person's name to rock and they were male you would have to change the gender of the word. So it would be changed to el rock

[@jbchoc]

The original sentence was in Aramaic Kephas for Rock, not masculine or feminine as there is no such distinction for nouns in this language.

[@shaunsteele6926]

I don't recall Peter taking on any "leadership" role of the entire church, or leaving a successor to this supposed role.

[@Cato_the_Christian]

The council of Jerusalem, you know from the Bible. Judas was given a successor clearly in the scripture (Matthias), but you think Peter did not because it is not explicitly said in the scripture, but it is contained in the sacred Christian tradition.

[@shaunsteele6926]

@@Cato_the_Christian the same "tradition" handed down by evil men who blasphemed God at every turn? right

[@Cato_the_Christian]

@@shaunsteele6926 2 Thessalonians 2:14: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” What is easier for you to believe that Judas the traitor had a successor or Simon Peter?

[@christiancrusader9374]

​@@Cato_the_ChristianMathias didn't succeed Judas in the traditional sense. The disciples voted to have him replaced.

[@randycarson9812]

I'll discuss the idea of a successor first. Because heresies were rampant in the early Church, much care was taken to ensure the credentials of a Church leader. This is called apostolic succession, and it works like this: Jesus named Peter as the head of the Church (Mt 16:16-18), and Protestant scholars confirm that yes, Peter is the rock in that context. Paul named Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus was made the first bishop of Crete. Here is what the Early Church Fathers wrote: Clement of Rome (cf. Phil 4:3) "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). Irenaeus of Lyons "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21].

[@Vlabar]

Peter is not but if he was it wouldn't matter. Their church has gone off the rails from the faith Peter walked and taught.

[@user-AllenE]

It would matter because it’s scripture and Jesus is the Cornerstone of the faith, not Peter!

[@sandstorm7768]

If Peter truly is the first pope, your arguement insinuates that Jesus failed, that He was unwise and mistaken to select the disciples that He did. You insinuate that Jesus did not do a good enough job at establishing His church here on earth. Is that the right arguement to make? Moreover, in that same verse where Jesus said "On this rock I will build my church," He also says "and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. What you loose/bind here on earth will be loosed/bound in Heaven."

[@rlhicks1]

@@sandstorm7768 Jesus was talking to the disciples and not just Peter. You argument makes not sense and scripture does not teach "papacy".

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

@@rlhicks1 Jesus was not talking to all of the disciples. He was clearly only talking to Peter. I'm not saying he was the pope, but let's not play dishonest games with the scriptures here.

[@Billyjoe78517]

What I’m confused about is that 1500 years of Christian theologians and saints and doctors of the church never had an issue with this doctrine.

[@duckymomo7935]

The reality is that it’s much closer to really no one having a problem with it for only 200-500 years and it had to do with historical instability. It wasn’t always the same papacy we see today but rather progressed to some head figure The first ‘offficial’ pope came about in 5th century the same time of the fall of the Roman empire only out of necessity for stability and protection of the church after Constantine made Christianity the official religion Over the next few years you gave the warring states of Germanic tribes and Viking invasions all over western Europe (Lombard’s, visigoths, saxons, etc) It wasn’t until the 8th century that the pope becomes a relevant political figure under Charlemagne where he asks for the popes blessings to become emperor of the HRE unifying many of the warring states From there you begin to ramp up papal doctrines up until we have unam Sanctam 14th century The reformation only happens soon afterwards starting with Tyndale But the pope continues to this until they finally invent the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870 So notice the pope wasn’t really the pope until 1300s and then reformation happens shortly soon after. Do also note, most believers had no clue there was even a pope.

[@woolgloves]

@@duckymomo7935 so which faith is the right one?

[@duckymomo7935]

@@woolglovesI support the reformation

[@Billyjoe78517]

@@duckymomo7935 we have a complete list of popes since St. Peter

[@User_Happy35]

If you study the church fathers you actually see there is disagreement. The Carholic church also didn't tolerate much dissent

[@PInk77W1]

Jesus said to Peter “WHATEVER YOU loose” Jesus said to Peter “Feed MY sheep”

[@caughtupone]

Peter was married

[@cjb7185]

I came here from Counsel of Trent's video.

[@hopenavajo1391]

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him,and fell down at his feet,and worshipped him. And as Peter took him up,saying,Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25,26 The papacy takes in worship as if he was God.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

👆 Christ did NOT at any time, in any way, instruct any apostle to- Make himself a king Take titles/names of God Usurp authority from God Satan wanted to be equal to God, to be a “god” too. Popes ~ Satan-like OR Christ-like ?

[@naelbi8870]

😂

[@francisgoin3112]

And here we have the truth: authority and worship belong to God alone. Jesus Christ is our LIVING God; we have no need of any specific man to take the place or act in the stead of Jesus. Jesus said more than once "follow me." He did not command people to follow his students; he did not command his students to teach and act that people were to follow them; Jesus taught explicitly that all of us are to follow him as he alone is the way, truth, and life. RCC is so strange. RCC is neither the way, nor the truth, nor the life. The church is the body of believers in Jesus as God. Jesus established that belief in him as God is what the church should be. RCC twists this. Paul warned us against any who teach a Gospel contrary to what we received from Jesus - not a Gospel from Peter, from himself, or even from another angel, but from Jesus. Literally, everything is Jesus alone. The arrogance and pride of RCC is astonishing.

[@naelbi8870]

@@francisgoin3112 😂 another one who doesnt know anything about the Roman Catholic Church The pope is not the Christ, he's His vicar on Earth for the new alliance as the great priest was for the 1st 500 years of protestant lies and deceit, so sad

[@francisgoin3112]

@@naelbi8870 As RCC uses "vicar" in relation to the position of the pope: a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God's vicar on earth. Jesus is our living God. Jesus isn't on Earth, but he's alive. I turn to Jesus rather to a man who claims to act in the stead of Jesus. I understand this well. If you yearn to acknowledge an entity that places itself between you and God, that's on you. Again, Jesus said to follow him. There is no instruction or statement from Jesus, his father, or the Spirit, implied or explicit, that any other entity takes the place of Jesus - at any time or in any place. I don't follow the bandwagon quips that choosing the teachings of Jesus over the arguments of man suggests a specific denomination, but if it comforts you to behave intentionally that way, feel free. It seems we differ on the Gospel truth that Christ supersedes man; I gleam from your language that you may not be choosing God first in favor of choosing whatever the RCC teaches; that's your choice. Still, I hope you come to place Jesus above the church, friend. I hope you look to God always rather than look to the church. The church (the body of believers that Jesus is God) is a wonderful place to fellowship; let it be that, but look to God over man and what he may say. You're welcome to respond, and I suspect you will, but I have nothing else save Jesus alone to point you to. I can make no further response to you that isn't redundant of what I've already presented. Work it out for yourself, as Paul said. Good luck to you.

[@lightv114]

The best think what Peter said: " Don't bow down to me, I'm only man ". and also, Peter is not first Bishop, because, when Peter arrived in Rome, the church had already been established for a long time, and he did not establish the church in Rome ,as some in the Catholic Church claim.

[@_official_miniminter]

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊

[@Totem360]

I missed that verse in the Word of God where Peter visits Rome. Where is it? Can you help?

[@lightv114]

@@Totem360 After Jesus crucifixion and death, Peter travelled to Rome between 42 and 54 AD, during Claudius and Nero Emperor's reign. In the Eternal City, he managed to spread the faith. That is not in the Bible, but it is according to historians. And also, problem is disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox about what happened. Catholic claim that Peter established the church in Rome, but other sad that according to some text, Peter come in Rome to speak with some church members. So the church was already there before Peter come.

[@henkaistudio]

@@lightv114Peter is buried in Jerusalem not Rome as The Roman Catholic Church claimed and here’s the problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it’s this The Roman Catholic Church lied to people saying he was buried in Rome but If you read The Bible nowhere does it ever says he was the first pope all it says is that he was a Christian and an apostle of Jesus and also he was buried in Jerusalem too.

[@mil-ns3rc]

It called Roman Catholic Church. Because Rome was in power when the Christian church started

[@TheHoggopogo]

About half of these reasons are a complete mischaracterization of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy, and the other half are just plain false, be it by a lack of applied logic and/or a non-exegetical interpretation of the Scriptures. 1. Jesus was more than likely teaching in Aramaic, not Greek. There is no modulator for Cephas: “you are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my Church.” The reason the Greek translation modified it was *not* because “Petros = pebble” but because it would be absurd to give a man a feminine name (Petra). But Jesus’ own language would explicitly allude to Peter being the rock in that particular analogical image; Jesus, rather, is the BUILDER, not the rock, in that image. 2. You can use the same imagery in different analogies: the Epistles and Prophets use the image of a rock to represent the Messiah, while Jesus elsewhere used the image of a rock to refer to His teaching (rather than Himself). 3. Imperfect Popes don’t disqualify the office of the Papacy. Peter’s failures are a great case study on how low a Pope can go in terms of his personal sin and still retain his office as Pope. What the Pope CANT do is bind the Faithful to heterodoxy, which if you bother to read the Patristics before the 4th century (the first receptors of Scripture who have a far better interpretation of it than any of us) you’ll notice veneration of the Blessed Virgin, purgatory, submission to the Bishops… the first Christians believe things you don’t, and reject things you do. Catholics didn’t add books to the Bible, Protestants took them out. You believe in a different Gospel-we believe in the OG Gospel. BTW, I was an evangelical Calvinist that championed all 5 points of TULIP and all 5 Solas, I rejected feminism, yadda yadda yadda, I have a degree in ministry, and I was an anti-Catholic much like you are, Bill Nye the Wretched guy… and I converted to Catholicism because every inch of the evidence pointed towards it. Martin Luther was a disturbed schizophrenic who’s spiritual cowardice led to *actual* reform in the Catholic Church, and all the other reformers wanted to be popes themselves, just didn’t want to submit to the Chief Steward of the House of David. Popes have certainly been bad, but that doesn’t mean you schism. You trust that Jesus will protect you from being led astray-which Jesus did with the Council of Trent, and always has protected His flock from wicked pastors that He instills (even the Papacy). I’m realizing how long this comment already is, but if you understand Isaiah 22:22, Jesus *clearly* makes Peter the Chief Steward of His Davidic Kingdom. Probably shoulda mentioned that before, but I like getting carried away. Point being it’s so clear you haven’t read a lick of Catholic Theology, and thus you actually mischaracterize our teaching in the matter. If I sound mean it’s because I have no patience for people who have every resource to put on a show that actually informs people of good scholarship but instead opts for catchy thumbnails (which is actually dope, by the way) and comedic quips (I actually do find you funny). You have presented ZERO reasons why Peter wasn’t the first Pope. No logic, no exegesis, no honest representation of Church history or teaching. Wretched: 0; Catholicism: 25.

[@justinharris6486]

I used to believe all of this nonsense until I was baptized in the Holy Spirit shortly before Easter and I promise you Christ got me out of the catholic church quick it was hard to leave but it was the best thing I could have done

[@Golfinthefamily]

what was it like to be baptized by the spirit? What happened? What was your experience?

[@justinharris6486]

At first heart breaking when he showed me id been practicing idolatry along with all my other numerous sins and I realized how wretched I was how none of my confessions to a priest had ever removed a single sin it involved a lot of weeping for a couple of days and the scriptures came alive the same Bible i have been reading for years but all of a sudden it was alive to me and made sense and my soul sucked it up like a sponge and the love I never knew that kind of love existed and it took all the joy out of sinning all of a sudden my sin cut me to my heart deep it would be impossible to explain it all because it was more then just an experience and continues in my life to this day it is beautiful and couldn't imagine life without him

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@justinharris6486 amen brother! Praise the Lord!

[@askag11]

Are You sure about that?

[@TheRealCSD6]

This list is full of ridiculous arguments. You mean to tell me because Paul had a disagreement with Peter, that means he isn't the pope? Like are you honestly serious. The bible passage is about Paul wanting Peter to sit with Gentiles and not switch to sitting with Jews when they arrive.

[@johnelusiyan1]

The Matt Walsh reference is killing me😂. It's so deep on many levels

[@Johkah]

What reference? Pls tell me

[@johnelusiyan1]

@@Johkah 3:17

[@richardounjian9270]

Actually, it is quite shallow. See my other comments. Thanks

[@eddieboggs8306]

If Peter was the first pope he was married for the Bible says Peter's mother in law was sick and Jesus healed her. So why do popes not marry?

[@IpCrackle]

Because celibacy is not an innate function of the priesthood, but a policy deemed useful and a tradition highly valued

[@koki1829]

@@IpCrackleand we can see how that turned out with the common “jokes” specifically about catholics, their leaders, and children.

[@IpCrackle]

@@koki1829 That’s actually a terrible point. Celibacy has nothing to do with child abuse. Ask any woman: would they trust or marry a man who they know would act this way if they weren’t in the picture. No - and this is because something like marriage doesn’t solve the problem. There’s actually been a corruption and infiltration of the church hierarchy, as many Catholics have been pointing out.

[@IpCrackle]

@Belam Visinni I’m sorry for your tragedy. God have mercy on an deal justly with your abuser, he will have to answer for it. I don’t blame any bad feelings you have towards the institution. But as far as Paul’s words go, they are admonishing single Christians to marry to avoid lust. It wouldn’t help a homosexual.

[@jacobalexander4167]

@Belam Visinni so if the church should come together and pass out a law, you are suggesting the break this law because of the lust of some certain people. If your hands would lead you to sin, cut it off" if you know you can't cope without being married, why decide being a priest in the first place, isn't it better to go to heaven married than to go to hell single. The office of a priest is that of holiness and chastity and if a certain person can't keep to it because of lust, would you blame every single priest for one person's lust?

[@thefightfanlc3673]

Bruh this video was so horrible and filled with obvious lies it makes me want to become catholic.😂😂😂😂

[@MakeRoomForGod]

Well before you convert, maybe research the below. Why did the Roman Catholic Church completely "remove" the second commandment from their Catechism (and then split the 10th into two)? Please read what God Himself gave us in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 and then compare that to what you see in the Catechism. Most Roman Catholics I've asked have no idea about this, and I've yet to even hear an explanation on "why".

[@Andromedon777]

Thank you for opening up your videos for commenting

[@WretchedNetwork]

Thanks for watching and commenting! - Ethan from Wretched

[@kiwi-xl1vl]

If Jesus built His Church on Himself, why did Jesus pray for Peter? It's just twist and turn & mental gymnastics

[@johnw4227]

this one drives me nuts, shouldn't even be a question. basic language 101. When Jesus says "on this rock" (on this solid truth), he directly refers to the statement of Peter's "you are the Christ". Jesus is giving Peter a reassurance for understanding His divinity.

[@jacobalexander4167]

"Peter, ( who was once simon) I call "YOU" rock and on THIS rock I shall build MY church " why didn't that say "Peter, I am the rock and I shall build my church on my rock "

[@johnw4227]

@@jacobalexander4167 - paraphrase for clarity... peter (small rock - for importance comparison) you are correct, I am the Son of the living God, and on that truth (large solid rock) I will build my church.

[@HG-ow9jn]

@@johnw4227 no. Remember that Matthew was written in Koine Greek. Petros and Petra both literally mean "rock" in Koine Greek, not "little rock" or "big rock". So your argument is invalid.

[@johnw4227]

@@HG-ow9jn my explanation is a reference to the greek definitions and you would be incorrect on that one. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immov­able rock. This indicates clearly that Christ's church is built on petra and not on petros.

[@HG-ow9jn]

@@johnw4227 again, you're referring to Attic Greek, an archaic Greek that would've been unfamiliar to the Apostles. I'm referring to Koine (common) Greek, which is what the Apostles wrote in. Even D. A. Carson, who has a far greater knowledge of Greek than Todd Friel does, admits this. Like I said before, *petros* and *petra* mean the same thing in Koine (common) Greek.

[@jackieo8693]

This video is a bunch of nonsense. Jesus called Peter cephas, which means Rock. Even John Calvin said there is no difference between Petra and petrus. Jesus can rebuke His Pope with whatever language He chooses. Protestants don't even know that the Bible is a Catholic book. The line of Popes is unbroken. What about the laying on of hands, which is ordination? Friel doesn't look into any of this.

[@michellebryan8148]

See?You have MORE wisdom than this man:)

[@TheRealCSD6]

Quoting protestant preachers saying that the papacy is anti-christ doesn't somehow prove that Peter wasn't the first pope and it also doesn't mean anything. That's like me saying that slaves are ok because old presidents said they were. It's a really bad argument using the fallacy of authority

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Priests were commanded to wear ornate sacred vestments. So much for humility! Then again, ornate sacred vestments do not negate humility! Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS, as the Son of Man shall give to each according to one's works or lack of works! Todd is one of those false teachers that Saint Paul warned us about! Todd is in my prayers as he journeys toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@l-Arm.of.God-l]

Mathew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven

[@IpCrackle]

Sorry, gotta go tell my dad that I can’t call him father anymore

[@chuckdeuces911]

@@IpCrackle ok, you know better than that. You know what they mean. Your father is your father but another man? Are you guys like strippers calling random men daddy? Your arguments are laughable. They are grasps of desperation.

[@dman7668]

He wasn't talking literally micro brain.

[@Yurzys]

@@IpCrackleit refers to spiritual fathers such as rabbis.

[@l-Arm.of.God-l]

@@Yurzys Someone gets it. Heavenly Father, Pope likes to try to assume the role of ultimate authority, which we ALL are Nothing compared to A Holy God. We ALL deserve to go to hell, its only by the grace of God by sending His Son for us are we saved.

[@carlfernandes1275]

Jesus said You are Peter the rock and upon this I will build my church 😇

[@henkaistudio]

Peter is buried in Jerusalem not Rome as The Roman Catholic Church claimed and here’s the problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it’s this The Roman Catholic Church lied to people saying he was buried in Rome but If you read The Bible nowhere does it ever says he was the first pope and he’s a Christian and an apostle of Jesus and he was buried in Jerusalem too.

[@mil-ns3rc]

You have to continue with the scripture where Jesus tells Peter to you I give the keys,you don't give keys to just anyone.Matt. 16 : 18 -19

[@jeffrachelburkhalter3783]

The RC church is not 'The Church' and Peter was not the first pope, in fact he never even went to Rome, Paul did. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Peter is a foundation stone as are all of the apostles and prophets. It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Stone who is the Rock upon which He is building His Church ("for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4b). The Church is not a man-made organization, it is a spiritual temple made up of lively stones which is everyone who belongs to Christ..>>>>"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a Chief Corner Stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the Corner, And a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. 1 Peter 2:5-9

[@jeffrachelburkhalter3783]

@@mil-ns3rc The keys symbolized authority to preach the Gospel and explain the Gospel, and if you keep reading you will see that all the apostles were given that authority clearly showing us that they keys were not just given to Peter.

[@Shawney-jf6kc]

And upon this rock, I will build My church. Meaning himself. What version are you reading? Go back to an old King James Version.

[@user-vo3ou4nv9r]

Peter was the first pope, but that’s just the Catholics line of apostolic succession, same with us orthodox we can trace our history and succession back to the apostles. We say the rock is Peter’s confession

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

It"s Peter’s dependence on Christ that makes his role as rock more secure. Christ works through Saint Peter. And after his commissioning in John 21 after the resurrection Christ builds His Church on Peter.

[@Vitamortis.]

Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Cor3:11

[@IpCrackle]

Good thing there are multiple senses of Scripture, so that you can have Christ be the Rock, Peter himself be the rock, Peter’s faith be the rock, and all the apostles be the rock, and they are all valid interpretations and should all be taken into account and not held as competing against each other.

[@Vitamortis.]

@@IpCrackle good thing none of that is in the Bible as it only refers to God as the rock

[@davidsinclair47]

@@IpCrackle 2 Peter 1:20 Peter expected scripture to interpret scripture not the pope who rejects scripture.

[@IpCrackle]

@@Vitamortis. not in the Bible? It’s all in the Bible.

[@IpCrackle]

@@davidsinclair47 If Scripture interprets Scripture, and not the reader, how do you know that you are interpreting that verse correctly? 2) The verse specifically refers to prophecy and to private interpretation. It doesn’t actually refer to Scripture interpreting Scripture.

[@ScottJ5860]

It's sad how many Catholics are willing to snub Christ, who suffered and died for their sins in order to show their devotion to a mere mortal man.

[@user-mv7kd7og5w]

The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talk about.

[@randycarson9812]

Like Billy Graham, John Piper, John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, Jimmy Swaggart, Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Jim Bakker... C'mon. You can do...er...you NEED to do better than that.

[@ASMRyouVEGANyet]

I've never known Catholics to "snub" Christ, they seem to just add more to the gospel than what's needed.

[@user-mv7kd7og5w]

@@ASMRyouVEGANyet Would love to hear how - in your view - Catholics add more to the gospel ("good news")

[@mrtoadslove]

@@user-mv7kd7og5wyou have pretty much everything wrong here

[@jonathanraven5939]

Exceptionally well presented

[@dougdoan9190]

Everyone knows the Rock is Dwayne Johnson

[@hatepaste]

I can think of 2000 denominations that prove he is.

[@cfG21]

Quick! Trent horn on the phone! Or father Luis Toro! Wait Trent already created a video rebutting you.

[@martyshrader661]

Protestant here, but maybe not for long. Videos like this move the needle towards Catholicism. The playing with the Greek, cherry picking scripture, bad exegesis, etc. too many things to write about.

[@TheRealCSD6]

I honestly am stunned that the argument being used here is that Peter can't be the pope because in the bible it shows that he sinned. That is one of the most asinine arguments I have ever heard. He denied Jesus 3 time? I'm sorry should we remove every single priest, pope, pastor, and any other religious leader that exists because at some point in their lives they denied Jesus? Do u have no idea that God molds people into better people? How many leaders in the bible had sinned pretty big yet God still chose them?

[@JaddenSinn]

Tell me you dont understand Catholic doctrine without elling me you dont understand Catholic doctrine... This video is a prime example of a protestant attacking a caricature of Catholic beliefs, not the actual beliefs themselves. I encourage anyone who watches this video to watch Trent Horn's rebuttal of this guy's nonsense.

[@MakeRoomForGod]

Why did the Roman Catholic Church completely "remove" the second commandment from their Catechism (and then split the 10th into two)? Please read what God Himself gave us in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 and then compare that to what you see in the Catechism. Most Roman Catholics I've asked have no idea about this, and I've yet to even hear an explanation on "why".

[@crystalblueturtle1016]

"i" before "e" except after "c" = receiving. Sorry, can't help it. Message still good and true.

[@mistymountains9968]

Yes, I was going to type the same message! It's number seventeen.

[@Ironica82]

Except when your foreign neighbor Keith received eight counterfeit beige sleighs from feisty caffeinated weightlifters...weird

[@mistymountains9968]

@@Ironica82 Love your social media name.

[@Ironica82]

@@mistymountains9968 Thanks. Have a whole story on why I chose it but that never panned out and I just kept it.

[@JohnDoe-ou7br]

Peter was the first Pope as he was the first Bishop of Rome, his presence at the Council of Jerusalem should be evidence of that. Sure I do not agree with the RCC viewpoint of Papal Supremacy but this title is outlandish and contrary to history

[@liammurphy3513]

Formerly Reformed fan of this channel here, now Roman Catholic. Disappointed with the quality of these objections. Some of them do merit further discussion, especially the first few, but most are at best dismissible and at worst laughable.

[@4309chris]

hmm I'm more inclined to accept Suan Sonna's arguments. they seem more thoroughly researched

[@TheProdigalCatholic]

Because it is

[@kurtgundy]

What are her arguments? Please list them. 26-50.

[@TheProdigalCatholic]

@@kurtgundy Suan is a man. And you can find his KZbin channel called “Intellectual Catholicism”

[@theknight8524]

Dr.Ortlund rebutted it wonderfully

[@4309chris]

@@theknight8524 Dr. Ortlund rebutted wretched or Suan? Suan is head and shoulders above Dr. Ortlund intellectually, and he also has truth and reality in his corner so I'd find that surprising.

[@danielkahoe510]

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[@juanmanuelbeltran01]

Very good video. Good explanation. I enjoyed the video and the humor. Good job. :-)

[@1234poppycat]

I will start with the passage in Question . Matthew 16:17-19: In the middle of a longish statement about Peter why he would break mid sentence and put a bit in about himself ???? .. It is linguistically poor to say the least and not in the style the Synoptic gospel writers have Jesus talking !! ,,,,,,,,,,, """""And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”""" ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Secondly , this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ-the authority of heaven-over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Thirdly, The substitution of small rock big rock " ...“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church.” The first rock, petros, you claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a large rock that is Jesus . The argument concludes that Jesus built his church not upon St. Peter, but upon himself ........ The Gospel of Matthew, we have solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly-and more certainly-Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language. ,,,,,, Fourth ,,,,,,, We have biblical evidence-John 1:42-that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter).,,,,,The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. ,,,,,,,,,, Fifth ......Even well respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,.......The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (Thanks to CA)

[@1234poppycat]

I found this on Catholic Answers .......For Catholics, Matthew 16:18 is a key passage when establishing a biblical basis for the papacy: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Catholics argue that because Jesus makes Peter, the first pope, the rock of his Church, his papal successors, as Peter, remain head of the Christian Church on earth. For wherever the foundation is, there is the true Church of Jesus. But Protestants offer a series of counter arguments. One that some find compelling is the fact that Jesus begins with a personal address directed to Peter using the second personal pronoun you, “And I tell you, you are Peter,” but then switches to the demonstrative adjective this, “and upon this rock.” It’s argued that because of this switch Jesus must have been referring to something other than Peter, like his declaration of faith in verse sixteen (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”). For if Jesus intended “this rock” to refer to Peter, he would have continued to use the second personal pronoun and said, “You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build my church.” Does this argument prove that Catholics are wrong about Peter being the rock upon which Jesus established his church? Here are few reasons why the answer is no. First, just because the pronoun “this” is used rather than the personal pronoun it doesn’t follow that it must be referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding statement. To use an example from apologist David Palm, a prime minister might speak of a famous humanitarian saying, “You are a Beacon of Hope, and to this beacon all Europe will look as a source of comfort in these dark days.” When we hear this solemn pronouncement, we don’t think “this” refers to some separate thing besides the person who is addressed. To suggest otherwise would be to undermine both the plain meaning of the statement and its rhetorical force. We see elsewhere in Scripture where “this” is used in reference to a person. For example, in Matthew 21:44, Jesus says, “And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” What does “this stone” refer to? The answer is Jesus, who is “the very stone which the builders rejected” and “has become the head of the corner” (v.42). Notice Jesus doesn’t say, “And he who falls on me, the stone, will be broken to pieces”? According to the logic of the objection, this is what he’d say if he intended “this stone” to refer to himself. But he doesn’t. Must we conclude, therefore, that the demonstrative “this” in verse forty-four can’t refer to the person of Jesus? Of course not! Since “this” can be used to refer to the person who is addressed in the preceding phrase, the argument that says Jesus can’t be referring to Peter as the rock because he uses “this” fails. A second response is that Peter’s declaration of faith is two verses removed from the pronoun “this.” So, when we read “this rock,” it’s natural to think the pronoun refers to Peter because he is the nearest thing for the pronoun to refer to. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, reformed theologian J. Knox Chamblin argues along the same lines: The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v.18) than to the more remote confession (v.16). The idea that “this” refers to Peter becomes even clearer when we consider that Peter’s name literally means rock. This serves as a third response. If we translate Peter’s name (Petros) literally in Matthew 16:18 it reads, “You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.” This makes Peter a prime candidate for being that to which “this” refers to. Once again, in Matthew 21:42-44 Jesus says, The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner . . .And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him. No Protestant would argue that “this stone” in verse forty-four doesn’t refer to the stone spoken of in verse forty-two. If Jesus speaks of a stone in verse forty-two, and then speaks of “this stone” in verse forty-four, it’s natural to conclude that “this stone” in verse forty-four refers to the stone in verse forty-two. The same line of reasoning applies to Peter and the rock in Matthew 16:18. If Jesus speaks of a rock in the first part of the sentence in this verse, and then speaks of “this rock” in the second part of that same sentence, then it’s reasonable to conclude that “this rock” in the second part of the sentence refers to the rock spoken of in the first part of the sentence, namely, Peter. One last response is taken from apologist Jimmy Akin. If we look at the context in which verse eighteen is embedded, we notice a structure of three essential declarations that Jesus makes concerning Peter, each of which is followed by a longer explanation that unpacks the declaration made: 1. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona (v.15) 1a. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (v.17a) 1b. By my Father who is in heaven (v.17b). 2. And I tell you, you are Peter (v.18a) 2a. And on this rock I will build my Church (v.18b) 2b. And the gates of hades shall not prevail against it (v.18c). 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (v.19a) 3a. And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (v.19b) 3b. And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (v.19c). Given this structure, it becomes clear that the phrase “and on this rock” must refer to Peter. Why would every other statement that Jesus makes explain his main declarations to Peter except that one? To suggest that it doesn’t is to introduce something into the context that doesn’t fit, which is not good exegesis. ************** you could also go to ""25 reasons why Peter was not the first pope (Rebutted) "" on you tube

[@muddyboots7753]

Please do a quick segment on the Salvation Army. Where I am from the SA stands alone as another denomination.

[@WretchedNetwork]

Interesting - we will look into it. Thanks for watching & commenting! - Ethan from Wretched

[@verntoews6937]

Muddy boots . would you believe the red shield of the Salvation Army is actually the red shield of the Jewish Rothschilds . Elite central bank Jews who do not represent the Jewish nation

[@TheRealCSD6]

So language lesson from a guy who actually grew up with gender form language, the reason Peter is called Petros not Petra in Greek is because Simon was a man. In languages with gender a Man like Simon was called Petros which is the masculine form. It's why in Spanish he is called Pedro not Pedra but in Spanish he is still known to be "rock" even though the "pedro" wouldn't be used necessarily when referring to a rock in a sentence yet he is called that because he is a man. And as explained by theologians, when the Gospel was written in Greek, the writers translated Kepha into Petros (not petra). This was done to masculinize the name of Peter as Petros. Because petra in Greek can mean a small rock and the translation reads Petros, Protestants attempt to say that Jesus was calling Peter a small rock, in order to diminish Peter’s significance. But if Jesus wanted to call Peter a small rock, the translation would have read “lithos” (meaning small pebble in Greek), not “Petros.” Nevertheless, Jesus said Kepha (not “evna” meaning small pebble).

[@cjr4497]

Great explanation. Trent Horn's rebuttal to this make the man look silly. He needs to delete this video

[@jimmu2008]

@@cjr4497 Nah, he should examination his logic and then his better informed self should give a rebuttal to his earlier self.

[@jordanmunk3041]

Peter's significance? Doesn't the Bible state that no man should boast? Can you address other points?

[@ManofSteel007]

"There is no difference in meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra..." - John Calvin (commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, pg. 295)

[@hirakisk]

I have heard scholarly arguments on both sides of the "petros/petra" debate. It is a moot point either side of the debate because it is important to also note that the early church fathers when taking their writings as a whole talk about the "rock" as a reference to Peter's confession or to Jesus himself. (over 80%). This research was actually done by Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick in 1870 and was to be delivered to the Vatican but never was (In 1870 at Vatican I Pope Pius IX proclaimed: “I am tradition” and hence, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope (Ex Cathedra) emerged). It was eventually published. Kendrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith. As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admitted: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome. ”In fact, no one before Callistus used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope” as Rome call it)-no one.

[@IpCrackle]

@@hirakisk Concerning the study you’re referring to, if it is the same one I’m thinking of, I believe it has been well argued that the survey was too simplistic. While the majority of the fathers’ *emphasis* might be on the rock as being Peter’s confession, many of them actually refer to Peter himself also being the rock, even in the same paragraph. It’s not a simplistic “either/or.” Think about it: Peter’s confession is what made him a rock in the first place, of course the confession of Christ is the primary part of the picture. Peter is the rock, the confession is his “rockiness.” This is what many of the fathers are basically saying. As a Catholic, I have no issue with Murdock’s point. A doctrine like that doesn’t need to be argued for until it’s challenged.

[@IpCrackle]

@Ethan Meyers This is a fantastic comment.

[@hirakisk]

@@IpCrackle I don't know if it is or not. There have been other scholars who have also done a wide survey and reached the same conclusion. Even though some did believe that Peter was "the rock", they didn't believe that it gave him special status. Even the gospels note that after this there were disagreements on who was the greatest amongst them. But, In the older one I cited by the Catholic Bishop. He was actually supposed to speak at Vatican I on this issue. The RCC actually prohibited ANY private printing of materials that challenged the view. They also prohibited ANY of them speaking at this event when they were originally supposed to. 1871, is the same year is when the RCC declared that the Pope was infallible even though this was not a universal or widely held opinion. They HAD to have their interpretation held to pass their new dogma of infallibility.

[@richardounjian9270]

It's a moot point. Jesus knew that his Church needed a leader once he ascended back to heaven. Jesus was GOD incarnate. He could see the future. If he did not want unity under the Pope he would have said so. However, Jesus knew full well how things would unfold and, obviously, was satisfied with it. With respect to the supremacy of the Pope this was established long before Vatican I. Henry VIII couldn't get any of the bishops in England to grant him a divorce. He appealed to who? The Pope! We all know how that worked out. Which brings us to: Jesus was not pleased with how the Faith would splinter. First with the great schism (It should be noted that even the Orthodox consider the Bishop of Rome to be "first among equals, primus inter pares") and then the total train wreck brought by the protestants. On the cross Jesus prayed that all would be one as He and the Father are one. Please see my other comments about this video for more information. Thanks

[@Kabooshnoury]

You have the qualities of a stand up comedian. Lol

[@TheRealCSD6]

This video is a prime example of how protestantism just creates more and more interpretation rather than sticking to what was always believed. A single person who gave himself the title of pastor under no authority at all has convinced himself that his ideas of the Bible are what is really true and admits the source for all of this stuff is his own head because they were "obvious" to him. Because this here everyone, this man, is totally the source to go to on what scripture means because his source is also none other than himself.

[@Panwere36]

The *_Rock_* is the belief that Jesus Christ is the only Way, Truth, and Life.

[@danielkahoe510]

Catholics don't equate the pope and Jesus. Which is 90% of this strawman argument.

[@sulongenjop7436]

The catholics do not equate the pope with Jesus but they elect a pope to lead the church as they need a man to head the church on earth while Jesus is spiritual head.

[@francisgoin3112]

@@sulongenjop7436 ... except Jesus is alive. Jesus is literally alive, the same as man. Jesus is the head of the church.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

I think the rock is the literal rock (mountain) that they were standing on which was known as the "gates of hell"

[@cosmictreason2242]

Then why would he have said he was building his church on the gates of hell? You didn’t think this through

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

@@cosmictreason2242 No, He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He's taking back the world and is starting at ground zero.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@RealCaptainAwesome he said “on this rock I will build my church.” Was that’s not the rock youyou were referring to in your first comment?

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

@@cosmictreason2242 Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi to a place called Mount Hermon. And the belief at that time was that was where God sealed His covenant with Abraham but that is more speculation. But the point is playing games and trying to figure out who the rock is when they are literally standing on one is silly. Look up Dr Michael Heiser, he breaks this down really well.

[@KakutoKishi]

I would love to interview you on my podcast

[@Slit-dl6gl]

Trent is right. This Todd is more of a comedian than a theologian

[@TheRealCSD6]

Do you honestly believe being catholic means you believe the pope is salvation instead of Jesus? This video shows drastically poor education on being catholic

[@asdlkj9911]

Thank you for making all of your arguments. I had just made a list of the same ones. You saved me a lot of typing.😊

[@TheRealCSD6]

@@asdlkj9911 yup alot of comments to make when every single thing said is wrong in a video

[@jembenjamin]

I would be interested to see you in a debate with the Catholic apologist on this issue. Perhaps some of the grounds can be on the Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 parallels, as well as several passages from the early church fathers.

[@andonedave]

Yep. I’d suggest Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@andonedave LOL. Apostates.

[@chdwck493]

I would too, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it!

[@joycegreer9391]

Isaiah is not a parallel. Jesus identifies that as Himself in Revelation 3:7. A poor interpretation of Matthew is the ONLY scripture "Catholicism" has to stand on. There is nothing in scripture or history that Peter ever fulfilled what "Catholicism" claims. Early church fathers, like Ignatius, used the word catholic in its true meaning of universal. The Gospel is universal. Peter was prominent among the apostles as he was very bold. John and Paul were also very prominent. Ignatius was a disciple of John. Paul was most prominent in founding or teaching churches outside of Jerusalem, including Rome. That Peter was ever even in Rome is only tradition. No Apostles were ever bishops; that was not in their mission. They were only to make disciples.

[@jembenjamin]

@@joycegreer9391 words with symbol imagery in the Bible can be used for more than one thing. Christ is clearly listed as the foundation several times in scripture. But in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 20 we have the apostles and prophets listed as foundations. We have the church listed as a pillar and foundation of truth. In first Timothy chapter 3 verse 15. As for Ignatius, you may be extrapolating a context on how he used the word Catholic based on a post 16th century hermeneutic. Ignatius specifically referred to the church in Rome, as chief of all of the churches that presides in love over them all. As for Isaiah, not being parallel, it might be worth looking at KZbin videos on that Isaiah passage Suann Sonna. He quotes maybe half a dozen protestant theologians, who affirm a parallel between the passage from Isaiah 22.

[@lisadooley3872]

I had a dream that I got to meet the pope and I was polite and offered a hand shake but he asked me why I didn’t kiss his hand and call him Holy Father and I told him because you are not my Holy Father Jesus is m Savior and God is my Holy Father! I told him I will not bow to any person who elevates themselves to Jesus and tries to take Glory from Jesus to whom it rightfully belongs to!!! I hope that if God gives me this opportunity in real life that I will respond like I did in my dream!!!

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

[@thehuguenot5615]

God is perfect. But why did he make Todd so freakishly tall? It's unreal.

[@Vitamortis.]

Frielkishly tall*

[@Golfinthefamily]

at least his fingers have never touched nicotine

[@stefanmorris652]

Dude is built for basketball for sure who knows he could've played in college or high-school.

[@WretchedNetwork]

It's so Todd can change our fire alarms in the office! - Ethan from Wretched

[@aaronrogers6619]

@@WretchedNetwork😂😂😂

[@Reubinv]

Mark 3:16, dont know if he said this because I didn't watch the whole video but Peter was named Simon, Jesus renamed him Peter. Hence the passage he's referring is actually a naming ceremony

[@bigcountrymountainman9740]

Jesus didn't name him peter. His name was simon, also called peter. It stated in the gospels twice and in the Epistles of Paul. Jesus renamed people in the Old testament several different times but he did not rename Peter. If you remember he would even say peter, also called Simon Peter. It's according to what part of the country they were in. It's also according to who is saying it. Whether they're speaking Aramaic or greek. Technically Koine Greek which is what the New testament is written in.

[@Reubinv]

@@bigcountrymountainman9740 did you read Mark 3:16?

[@IpCrackle]

@@bigcountrymountainman9740 actually, he did name him Peter, in John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

[@jacobalexander4167]

@@IpCrackle they wouldn't want to hear that cuz' it just debunked what they want to preach

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

@@bigcountrymountainman9740 Wrong. Mark 3:16 explicitly mentions that this particular Simon was renamed "Peter": "Simon, to _whom He gave the name 'Peter_ '". The name "Peter" was a title that was used in the ancient world to signify someone as being the leader of a religion. I'm not arguing that Peter was a pope, but it certainly means he was chosen to be the lead apostle when combined with Jesus' words in Matt. 16:18.

[@sbukosky]

I came across this just today. for the record, I'm a lifelong Catholic by birth, which would be 72 years ago. I have seen and heard a lot. My schooling was Franciscan up to high school graduation. Matthew 16:18-19 has been centrol to my religious concerns since high school. I read some compelling arguments in these comments. I think Matthew 16:19 must be part of this discussion. As compelling at the 25 reasons are against a papacy, Matthew 16:19 is the elephant in the room. One of the reasons is indisputable. That the fruit of the Catholic Church has not been very tasty.

[@SanctifiedLux42]

Why does Darth Peter go so hard?

[@joshuamclean4588]

Very well put together

[@_official_miniminter]

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊

[@drakefs_]

F for Theological and Historical Claim A+ for Content Marketing

[@latter-daysaintbatman2679]

F - for your false claim A+ for the accuracy of the man who spoke historical truths and facts in the video above No comment for financial gain. It has nothing to do with that.

[@DavM310]

@@latter-daysaintbatman2679 Mormon detected, opinion rejected

[@michaelbanda9993]

Catholicism is false

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

Never seen Todd debate a serious Catholic or orthodox. Probably never will since he knows he can’t misrepresent them and get away with it.

[@drakefs_]

@@jesuschristsaves9067 No mainstream Protestant will (except James White in the 90s ... and he won't let you forget it)

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

[@justincameron9661]

Very informative

[@verwesne8121]

It would be so neat to see Friel debate a catholic apologist like trent horn, jimmy akin etc. and have it streamed and make it available for your audience to see. Would be very informative especially for the Protestant audience you keep “in check” with the stereotypical bad arguments and misrepresentations by Protestants. Contact Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn, i would watch this debate or even simply a open dialogue with excitement. Blessings

[@bradk7310]

He will never do it!

[@peterhenryzepeda3484]

Sadly he wouldn’t because he would loose. Todd would much rather rehearse the same tired arguments.

[@floydlooney6837]

There is no Pope in the Bible. The Catholic Church was just a repainting of the Roman Pagan Church led by the Pontinfex Maximus

[@markmeyer4532]

Why? Catholics speak for another religion and moral code, so even if Todd debates someone like Trent Horn, Trent speaks for his own religion: Catholicism; whilst Todd speaks for Christianity, and there can be no unity or compromise between religions, especially when Catholics places their papacy, magesterium and ancient traditions above all else and for the Christians it's scripture above all else. Catholics will answer from the answers provided by their religion and their own read-in interpretations of scripture to justify their religion which Christians wont, and Catholics wont compromise or change their views to match scripture, so they can't unify or find common ground.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

I’ve watched debates & rebuttals. After many, one realizes a fact. 👉 Irreconcilable Differences Can’t Reconcile. Too Different. Catholicism is a religion quite different than Christianity. Until both Foundation & Authority errors are corrected, any debate will most likely end just as it started. Irreconcilable differences. May every serious Truth Seeker find Holy Scripture and receive Holy Spirit, who can lead one to all Truth.

[@molallamerica896]

Anyone else wondering what Wretched looks like in a t-shirt? 😂

[@TheRealCSD6]

Jesus said "get behind me Satan" to Peter because it was the devil who was tempting Peter to speak out on Jesus not dying. All the deciples were scattered and ran from persecution when Jesus was taken. All the disciples sinned by running from Jesus. But Peter at that exact time was not the man yet that God would make him. Saying Peter is not the pope because of this moment is like saying Paul wasn't the apostle to the Gentiles because he killed Christians. God makes people into new people. Why would this need to be explained?

[@SoldierofChrist9]

One would think that all this had been cleared up.. guess not. LOL

[@_official_miniminter]

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊🎁

[@joycegreer9391]

Obviously not as the RCC is as strong as ever.

[@user-oh5gz4ue6r]

i'm surprised no one mentions Peter sympathized with the judaizers, and only changed hia mind because of Paul and the other apostles

[@faith1614]

According to who? Paul? I wonder why Peter made no account of this in his words to confim or deny this. It’s a shame so many written books were lost or destroyed but TMH preserved his gospel as this is bigger than Peter and Paul. They are mere vessels who do not give salvation. Salvation only comes through one, our Lord and our Saviour.

[@user-oh5gz4ue6r]

@@faith1614 so you believe Paul might have lied? you believe Scripture isn't infallible? I wonder why you trust the gospels then

[@faith1614]

@@user-oh5gz4ue6r Are you implying that Paul was perfect and did not sin? Also Paul wrote epistles not the gospels.

[@user-oh5gz4ue6r]

@@faith1614 ?? It's basic christian teaching that Scripture is infallible. The Gospels are Scripture. So you're saying the Gospels could have lies as well.

[@faith1614]

@@user-oh5gz4ue6rAlot of Christians teach that HaMashiach was born at Christmas when he wasn’t. Your point doesn’t change the question i asked.

[@kobeymatt4062]

Did the church finally say in 1870 the pope is infallible?

[@nunyabiznaz1352]

Two big arguments would be that if Peter was the Pope of Rome, why was the book of Romans written by Paul? If Peter was the authority, why did Paul write the majority of the New Testament? Additionally, as mentioned Paul had to correct Peter, and Peter himself confirmed that the writings of Paul were indeed Scripture. Even if Peter was the first Pope, where is the Biblical instructions that this was a position at all ( all ministry positions are named in the Scriptures) and even if it was , where it was supposed to be passed down? Paul even said that there was not one man who had all the answers including himself, as that would invite arrogance. There were 12 apostles for a reason.

[@lightninlad]

You wrote: “…if Peter was the Pope of Rome, why was the book of Roman’s written by Paul?” To say that we have a written address from Paul to the Romans is not to say that Peter did not also address the Romans. They could have been oral addresses as opposed to written ones. Paul seems to be alluding to that here: (Romans 15:20-22) “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about Him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22That is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.” So Paul was “often being hindered” from coming to the Romans because they had already been preached to by “another” who had laid a foundation there before Paul. Which is of course, referring to Peter-according to the traditions of the church: “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.” -(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]) You wrote: “Additionally, as mentioned Paul had to correct Peter…” Yes, and yet in spite of that we still consider Peter’s epistles the infallible word of God. This means that Peter was only infallible under certain conditions, which actually supporting the Catholic position regarding Papal Infallibility. You wrote: “Even if Peter was the first Pope, where is the Biblical Instruction that this was a position at all?” The instruction is derived from Matthew 16:18-19 and the way it was foreshadowed in the events of Isaiah 22. The problem is NOT that there is no scriptural backing for this instruction, the problem is that not e everyone UNDERSTANDS these passages to mean that. Or as St.Vincent explains: St.Vincent Of Lerins[died 445AD]: “But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.” -For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies.

[@1234poppycat]

If someone else was the Authority under Jesus in the bible other than Peter then why did Jesus speak to Peter 10 times more than he spoke to other named individuals in the Gospels ??

[@officialkodhark1075]

As a Catholic my comment will be “LOL”

[@ryanpierce5460]

As a fellow catholic this guy is making an argument on a house of cards. He's refuting the Bible, which we gave them. We defined it in the 4th century. Check mate.

[@hgji7381]

@@ryanpierce5460 also as a Catholic it never surprises me how ignorant of Christianity Protestants can be

[@bradwhitt6768]

@@ryanpierce5460 and bastardized it every century since then.

[@Saint_nobody]

As a (jack) Mormon. I'm sitting here, quietly studying, musing, mayhaps taking notes...

[@David-hw8hi]

Obviously no catholic here has looked at the rule book of their church, the Roman Catechism. Such foolish people played right into Satan would you say? No, your stubbornness will attack back at me and not even look into it.

[@danielfedele]

Unfortunately this video has many errors. And in order to have a truly close personal and direct relationship with Jesus Christ you have to be Catholic... Because... the Eucharist is in its substance Jesus's body and blood... and FYI every Protestant whether Evangelical or otherwise follows the Holy Catholic Church and it's teachings every single time you read the Bible.... The entire New Testament was 100% written by the Apostles and the Earliest Christians who are All part of the Holy Catholic Church. AND THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME was PETER the APOSTLE whose body is found in VATICAN HILL do you know who the current BISHOP of ROME is? POPE FRANCIS. And The Bible was canonized by the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Please read "Rome sweet home" and "Crossing the Tiber".. I was once a Protestant and then I learned the History of Christianity and the Bible. And I learned more about scripture and it's actual meaning in the proper context. And I had to become Catholic. As it is the Only Church that JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF established. May God bless you and may all Christians be one, once again as Jesus Christ Himself prayed and may all Protestants return home to the Holy Catholic Church. Merry Christmas! .✝️⛪

[@LordDirus007]

James the Just was the First Leader of the Church and the center of Power was Jerusalem. The only Reason The Roman Catholic Church says that Rome and Peter is because they had to justify their Power over the Church. I mean ask yourself, Why would Rome be the Seat of Power for the Church when Jesus never stepped foot in Rome? Also wouldn't it make more sense that the Brother of Jesus would take over as Leader of the Church.

[@rubenschoeman4880]

Reason 26 2 Timothy 2:5 Also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.

[@latter-daysaintbatman2679]

So those fake women who are actually men are not winning anything because they are not following the rules by entering into the Women's Only Sports teams. Haha, Timothy sucker punched the predicted "transgender athletes" of truthphobia, Christophobia and Heterophobia.

[@roninway29]

Old and recycled criticism, rebutted again and again even by protestants themselves. Moving on…

[@paul_321]

Thank you for reaffirming my Catholic faith. You just strengthened a lot of Catholics with this video.

[@ryanpierce5460]

Amen. As a fellow Catholic, I'm grateful to be in the one true church.

[@Spainkiller]

This is the stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time. You get 25 undeniable arguments and it STRENGTHENS your false beliefs? You lack intelligence, humility and a desire for truth.

[@paul_321]

@@Spainkiller your comment adds to my faith, keep your cantankerous comments coming 🙏. Become a Christian and join the church that Christ founded not Martin Luther.

[@Spainkiller]

@@paul_321 And, again, logic is not found within your comment; merely an equivalent of “la la la I’m not listening”.

[@rosskrizevac9777]

@@Spainkiller Matthew 16:19 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” He missed/ intentionally left out this verse ;-) Clearly all authority is given to Peter.

[@WillyG0508]

Is it just me or did Wretched use lights from Sims 4?

[@turtlegrams6582]

👁️👁️✝️⚖️🩸👑🕯️🍞💧🌡️😡🌪️🌋👀👂🙏⏳, Solid Biblical TRUTH ! Preach Brother Preach , PRAISE GOD, THANK YOU JESUS CHRIST !

[@johnpasquet9422]

Why does ONLY Matthew record the part about Peter and the Rick? Mark (Peter’s scribe) omits it, as does Luke, but they both include Peter’s confession. One other includes him being called Satan. If this were truly of such momentous importance as the installation of the first pope, how could Mark and Luke leave it out?

[@lightninlad]

Who knows? If they had been the same then some atheist would have accused these texts of not being true eyewitness accounts since there is no variation amongst them. The bottom line is that Our Lord DID install Peter as the Chief Bishop and Peter’s Chair 🪑 has enjoyed this standing within the Catholic Church from the very beginning.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@lightninlad If everything was the same, then the Gospels would look suspicious. But, the most important information would be in all the Gospels. Apparently this verse regarding Peter was minor to the whole of Christianity. RCC myth does not equal fact. Peter never did what RCC claims.

[@lightninlad]

@@joycegreer9391 No, that’s just your arbitrary evaluation. No one knows why the Spirit inspired one author to write what they wrote in the way that they wrote it.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@lightninlad Not really. If something as major as Peter establishing The One Official Church for all believers was true, it would be in more than one verse in one Gospel account.

[@lightninlad]

@@joycegreer9391 Sorry, but you’re not the interpreter of the scriptures.

[@chrisclayton584]

This is good stuff! More facts like this!

[@WretchedNetwork]

Thanks Chris! Hope it can encourage you. - Ethan from Wretched

[@chrisclayton584]

@@WretchedNetwork Hey go through each denomination and lay out the facts. This video taught me a few things I never knew.

[@henkaistudio]

@@WretchedNetwork​eter is buried in Jerusalem not Rome as The Roman Catholic Church claimed and here’s the problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it’s this The Roman Catholic Church lied to people saying he was buried in Rome but If you read The Bible nowhere does it ever says he was the first pope and he’s a Christian and an apostle of Jesus and he was buried in Jerusalem too.

[@capecodder04]

@@chrisclayton584 you have thousands of denominations because you have no one in charge and no one to properly interpret the Bible which the Catholic Church put together.

[@capecodder04]

@@henkaistudio The Fisherman's Tomb: In 1939, a team of workers beneath the Vatican unearthed an early Christian grave. This surprising discovery launched a secret quest that would last decades a quest to discover the long-lost burial place of the Apostle Peter. From earliest times, Christian tradition held that Peter a lowly fisherman from Galilee, whom Christ made leader of his Church was executed in Rome by Emperor Nero and buried on Vatican Hill. But his tomb had been lost to history. Now, funded anonymously by a wealthy American, a small army of workers embarked on the dig of a lifetime. The incredible, sometimes shocking, story of the 75-year search and its key players has never been fully told until now. The quest would pit one of the 20th century's most talented archaeologists a woman against top Vatican insiders. The Fisherman's Tomb is a book that tells the story of the triumph of faith and genius against all odds. A Texas oilman. A brilliant female archaeologist. An unknown world underneath the Vatican.

[@Kunoichi139]

My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

[@riskyrymes]

Happy to see that Wretched is now letting people give their opinions in the comments section. There was a time when comments were turned off on Wretched videos, and you couldn't even state your disagreements with the video.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Freedom of Speech is important. FYI~ Some folks are reporting they’re being censored/blocked from specific podcasts IF /when their comments don’t agree with Host. Protestant “heretics” are being deleted, blocked or corrected via onslaught of verbal violence by Catholics. Disagreeing with Catholics can result in responses of Hostility + Hubris + Hypocrisy.

[@_lolipop_]

The editors deserve a raise 😂 Thanks for not only making good content but making it enjoyable for the younger generation too!

[@finallythere100]

But Trent Horn rebuts this very effectively. I took the long dive into Protestant theories some time ago. It’s good to question but you just can’t prevail. it all comes down - always - to applying your own interpretations when the other side has all the real evidence. Instead of making so much of a ruckus to buck and resist and twist and guess w/o real basis for anything trumping any dogma - and if you instead just stood still and listened - and allowed the Holy Spirit in…

[@mitchellosmer1293]

@@finallythere100 The why not quote what Trent said instead of giving opinions???