James White - Peter & The Papacy

[@ApologiaStudios]

Get more sermons from Apologia Church by signing up for Apologia All Access. Click the link for more info! apologiastudios.com/all-access-sales/

[@dougy6237]

Take the time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@KingJames-xs1tp]

I hear no hatred for Roman Catholics or anyone else in this video. What I hear is a call for Protestants to steer clear of the works-based salvation of Roman Catholicism. This is highly relevant these days, when so many young, ignorant Protestants are getting caught in Rome's snares. ​@@dougy6237

[@michaelmcgehee9523]

Thank you, Apologia leadership, for contending for the faith.

[@matthewzmarzley]

This was outstanding Thank The Lord for men like James White

[@t.d6379]

Agreed! He made me Catholic!

[@jeremycremeans1854]

@frankvw4819 not really, nothing catholic do actually is biblical. They add the priests, which isn't biblical. They make up the ability to transform bread into flesh and wine as blood, which isn't biblical but mocking Christianity. They add purgatory within the usages of the Sacrament, which is wholly unbiblical. So yeah, Catholics are throughly unbiblical and in every way.

[@joelcarter2535]

​@t.d6379 I hope one day that the Holy Spirit will intervene and open your eyes to the truth in God's word. 🙏

[@MRW-oz2vy]

Simply, Thank you for remaining faithful to Scripture. Your life dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ has helped both myself and numerous others! The crowns you will have to throw at the feet of our Lord!

[@DD-bx8rb]

White is ignorant of Scripture regerding Peter: 1. The Gospel of Matthew, we have pretty 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. Moreover, 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. 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. 2. In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition: rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either. So why did Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter. It follows that when Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie” or “Priscilla” in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name. 3. There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large” or “small” with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone. Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states, “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period.” D.A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra. One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes: The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. 4. If Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks” in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone” when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.” Here we have one Greek word that, unlike lithos and petra, always has a connotation of “small stone” or “pebble.” 5. A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19, 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.” Jesus uses the second-person personal pronoun seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter. Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He says, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter. 6. A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”), Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). In fact, there is an interesting parallel here between Abraham and Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read, Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father. Jesus here makes Peter a true “father” over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father” in the Faith (see Rom. 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope” or “papa,” as was Abraham (see Luke 16:24). 7. When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David” who came to restore the prophetic kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the king of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister” among his ministers-the apostles-in the kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister” in ancient Israel: Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.” No Christian would deny Jesus is the king who possesses the keys. Whom does he give the keys to? Peter!

[@NowayJose-d3b]

*DID YOU KNOW* If Mary named Yahshua (Jesus), the *proper* name: *"Rock"* , Christ's name would have been *"Cephas"* (John 1:42, 1Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, Gal. 2:9) in the Aramaic and *"Petros"* in the Greek, and "Peter" in the Greek to English. There is only ONE way to Say the *proper* name ROCK and that is CEPHAS in the Aramaic and PETROS in the Greek. If Mary had named Christ "Rock" we would all be calling Christ *"Cephas or Peter"*

[@ChristisLord2023]

​@@NowayJose-d3band why is that relevant?

[@milesrupert4815]

What a blessing to send! I am with you there. Christ has used this church, especially Jeff, to bring me to my knees!

[@albusai]

God is the rock there's no one else say scripture​@@milesrupert4815

[@jeffgihring7648]

Thanks James

[@gregwilliams4599]

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

[@bridgefin]

You: For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. Me: Jesus RENAMED Simon to Cephas and immediately said upon THIS cephas I will build my church. In Aramaic "cephas" only means "rock". And then he gave him the keys to the kingdom. And when God changes one's name it means that they have a new mission in life as did Abraham and Jacob.

[@theaaronrunningpodcast]

Thank you for your ministry on Catholicism, Dr. White. I have really benefited from it.

[@DD-bx8rb]

When Judas defected and killed himself, the disciples chose a successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), and the Bible actually uses the word episkopos (“bishop”) to describe the office involved (a key argument for apostolic succession). So why wouldn’t Peter, similarly, also have a successor? How is that parallel or analogy overcome?

[@joelcarter2535]

​@@DD-bx8rb because they were only for the foundation of the church(Ephesians 2:20) and after we see the church finally being established in 1st Corinthians we never see anymore scripture of signs and wonders that the apostles did why? Because they were for a specific purpose and that was to validate that they were the Apostles of Christ which in turn validated the message that they spoke.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@joelcarter2535 Read the Bible! Throughout the NT there is no talk of this one day being replaced by "Sola Scriptura". Your tradition, your practice, is post-apostolic. The NT hardly even contemplates life after the apsostles, but on the rare occasions when it does it talks about the continuation of the authority of the church through apostlic succession. St Paul refers to the first 4 generations of that apostolic succession; himself, Timothy, those he teaches, and those they teach. “You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2). The Holy Spirit does not impart thousands of versions of "truth". He is not the confusor! You can bang on all you like about the Catholic Church. We know you reject her authority, but the fact is your "solution" to her perceived "problems" does not work. You can see the problem you have.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@joelcarter2535 Jesus Christ gave real divinely-appointed authority to the apostles on many occasions. And the apostles passed on their authority to successors such as Timothy, Matthias, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos etc. The NT clearly shows the three-fold paradigm of oral teaching, written scripture, and church as final authority. Nowhere in the NT does it teach that this will one day be replaced by a practice of arriving at doctrine through Bible reading under the Holy Spirit and ditching church as final authority. Your Sola Scriptura practice is a post-apostolic assertion without any authoritative source from the apostolic age.

[@joelcarter2535]

@DD-bx8rb So christ gave all of his apostles to cast out demons and all these signs and wonders with power and authority. Where did you see philip or timothy or titus ever doing any of these? And where is your scripture for all of this? because when someone says, "The NT clearly shows the three-fold paradigm of oral teaching, written in scripture, and church as final authory" is nothing more than an assertion, opinion, and is automatically eise-Jesus. The bible never teaches that there was an "apostolic succession" because they were for the foundation of the church(Eph 2:20), which is Christ Jesus and no other foundation can be laid expect that of which has already been laid, and so it is done and we no longer have any more big "A" Apostles like the 12 we saw in the bible. Peter said he believed the scripture more than his experiences. The Bereans tested Paul's words against the scripture and came to the conclusion that he indeed speak with infallibility because of the power of the Holy Spirit. And I could go on and on about how many times we told to be in the scriptures studying it and taking it to be our life guide and to live by the commands that the Lord Jesus Christ gave us. 🙏

[@paulgemme6056]

Religion will save no one from the sin of unbelief, only faith in the blood of Christ Jesus who died on the cross, was buried and rose on the third day, conquered death and gives the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, to all those who believe (have faith) and are born again, born of the Spirit (Holy Spirit), born from above. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.

[@DD-bx8rb]

Jesus Christ founded His Church on fallible men to teach his infallible truth. You are misunderstanding apostolic successsion. It refers to the passing on of authority and not a "replacement". Remember in this discussion there were the '12 apostles plus a few more'). Now, these apostles passed on their apostolic authority to hundreds of men by the laying on of hands, and not with the intention to simply replace the '12 and few more'. These men were not apostles, but they recieved the authority of the apostles. After the end of the apostolic age, the office of apostle ceased, but their authority did not. Note, if the apostles only replaced themselves, today we would only have '11 and a few' bishops world-wide and one Bishop of Rome! The office of Peter of course survives in a direct and singular succession, and logically must, because whilst the all members of the group that was the apostles recieved the Keys, only the individual Peter was the Rock, the Chief Apostle. I was baffled when I read your comment "there is no biblical evidence that the role of apostle was meant or expected to be transferred to a successor". On the contrary, the postion of apostle was to cease, but not the authority. First remember that the NT does not even really contemplate life after the end of the apostolic age. But on the rare occasions that it does, it specifically plans for the succession of apostolic authority. THE OFFICE OF APOSTLE WILL CEASE, BUT THE AUTHORITY AND TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES WILL CONTINUE IN A SUCCESSION: (i) St Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first 4 generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the gen. he will teach. (ii)St Iranaeus in AD 189, likewise puts your accusation to rest: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). Finally this issue is of great significance to you as a Protestant because you believe all apostolic teaching is passed on only in NT Scripture. So you would need to ask yourself how do you know there were to be no more aposltes, after the end of the apostolic age??? Why don't you keep having Apostles in you Protestant organisations if the NT had aposltes??? Catholics and Protestants believe this, so where do we get this belief from which you take for granted??? We cannot just believe "a vibe". It must be apostolic teaching. And it is. It is Oral Apostolic Teaching, passed on and written down by the Early Church Fathers(that next generation who knew the apostles). Thus, we see how Protestants do rely on Oral Apostolic Tradition to know there will be no more apostles. Pax

[@paulgemme6056]

@@DD-bx8rb Religion will save no one. We are saved by grace through faith it is not of ourselves lest any man should boast. It's a free gift to all who believe in the blood of Christ and the finished work that he completed on the cross. One must recognize their own sinfulness and their need for grace and mercy. Christ Jesus died for all so we can know him (by faith) and enter into the kingdom of light (spiritually - be made alive - quicken our spirit). One choosing to reject the free gift of forgiveness is their own choice because we are not robots, we have a free will to choose heaven (by grace through faith - believing) or hell (by unbelief - calling God/Jesus Christ a liar). Read your bible with a real desire to know the truth and you will be saved if you believe (have faith) that Jesus Christ is who he says he is.

[@fabianmalang]

Even demons believe and have faith in God but shudder. Is that the kind of faith that Christians ought to hold on to?

[@fabianmalang]

Yes, if we are to deny apostolic succession & passing on of apostolic authority, and if it is that way Jesus intended to be, He could have made the remaining 11 apostles immortal or give the keys of His Kingdom to the angels.

[@paulgemme6056]

@@fabianmalang No, the kind of faith one needs to be saved is to believe with the heart and not just the head which causes one to be born again, born of the Spirit (Holy Spirit), born from above. Jesus says what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of Spirit is spirit. One must be born again, have their spirit quickened (made alive). Study the scriptures (bible). We are saved by grace through faith, it is not of ourselves lest any man should boast. It's the free gift of God - Eternal life - to know him (Spirit to spirit). No religion needed. Just ask and you will receive. Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[@msmaina5036]

An eye opener.

[@middleDZ]

What always surprised me about “binding and loosing” being said to Peter, is that he says it over the others too!

[@theHermitofEngedi]

What always surprised me is that He never said it to Protestant leader.

[@bridgefin]

But only Peter got the keys of authority.

[@Cts_99]

@@bridgefinhow’d that authority work out when he endorsed a works based gospel perversion? Paul ripped him

[@bridgefin]

@@Cts_99 Peter did not do that and the pope is almost always open to criticism.

[@Sola_Scriptura_1.618]

When you do not believe in scripture and the word of God, you believe in the Word of man and his interpertaion.

[@mary-xk9dc]

yes

[@seviam]

Lol, did you really just say that and not see the irony?

[@Sola_Scriptura_1.618]

@seviam, there is no irony whatsoever. I love it when posters to comments do not justify their response. Moving forward, if there is no justification, no response. But who am I kidding? I loved embarrassing people into responding with an actual argument, not a half-backed response.

[@seviam]

@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 your self grandizement aside Is it not John Calvin's words and interpretation that you are following, or is it James White's, maybe Luther's... maybe your own ? The gospel was interpreted differently before them. So whose interpretation do you follow?

[@Sola_Scriptura_1.618]

@seviam I am a disciple of Christ and follow the word of God. I do my best to follow his teachings and commands (-: There is only one truth, and God is the only path to salvation!

[@Kylecombes4]

Thank you Pastor James

[@bryanoldenburg9870]

PS: The current "Pope" alone should stand as a glaring example that NO ONE should follow a mere mortal. Anyone who would willy-nilly ignore Scripture or alter it should be ignored.

[@hbviceroy7274]

Not even to mention what some of the so-called “Vickers of Christ” did to people Through the history of this Religion…..

[@bridgefin]

So the Israelites should not have followed Moses out of Egypt??? Moses was a mere mortal! No that is your agenda and no rule made by God.

[@Cts_99]

@@bridgefinMoses was chosen by God and confirmed by God. As were all prophets and apostles. Goofy

[@bridgefin]

@@Cts_99 bryan had said: NO ONE should follow a mere mortal. I showed why this is wrong You: Moses was chosen by God Me: I can say the same thing about the pope.

[@nickguerra3917]

I’m from east Texas and my wife’s family is full of devout Roman Catholics. I brought up Fiducia Supplicians when it was released and asked them a few questions about it all. Their were responses were unsurprising. They had no answer for it except this “Peter is the pope and the church has survived for 2000 years so we will be okay.” They are all terribly embarrassed of Francis as well. They are kind, lovely people but unfortunately have no answer for the progressivism within their church.

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

Protestants have no answer to their near multiple heresies. There are no solas in the bible or the church fathers or church councils prior to the reformation inventions.

[@randycarson9812]

I don't blame them. How would you feel if I brought up Jimmy Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Faye Baker or Joel Osteen, etc.? I'm not a Francis fan, either. So what? In time, we will have a new pope because Jesus established the perpetual office of steward when He gave Peter the keys. The man in that office may be good or bad, but it's still Christ's Church and has been for 2,000 years. And the answer for progressivism is that Satan is alive and well and attacking ALL of us. Just ask the Methodists, for example.

[@jackross5698]

James White is an excellent debater, which is why I will always recommend watching the opposing side and then watch those two opposing views when James debates folk like Catholic Apologists such as Trent Horn. James and Trent, for example, both have the same professional reputation in debating theological matters. I think it is extremely important not to be sold by one over the other without listening to both and discerning for yourself the truth.

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

White is excellent at antics during debates. He won't answer the arguments, but is expert at clutching pearls and ad hominem

[@SaltyApologist]

Regardless of the skill of the debater, it comes down to what is in scripture. Roman Catholic dogma is largely unbiblical, regardless of how well Horn presents it.

[@SaltyApologist]

@@rocketsurgeon1746which one of your favorites did White crush? I’m guessing you are either a Catholic, a Leighton Flowers fan or some other completely unbiblical perspective. White only debates false religions and perspectives.

[@thisisforgod868]

@@SaltyApologistit is unbiblical per your and your pastor’s interpretation .😊

[@ChristisLord2023]

​@@thisisforgod868 can you please give me a list of all the verses of scripture Rome has infallibly defined or interpreted? While your at it can you also provide a list of things the Apostles said that were passed down orally and not ever written down? I already know it's a really short list so it shouldn't take long. Since you are claiming someone else's interpretation is incorrect I would assume these things have been interpreted infallibly by Rome. Providing a link so I can be positive of authenticity would be a requirement. Thank you.

[@bryanoldenburg9870]

I've always interpreted Matthew 16:13-20 (where Christ asks Peter, "But who do you say I am?") as a pivotal passage of Scripture. Here, Peter gets it right by replying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” I've always interpreted the Lord's comment that "on this rock I will build my church" as meaning that this correct faith (this true view of Christ's identity) was the foundation of the church. Not Peter. Not any other mere mortal. There have been at least 8 truly awful "Popes," some of which would be in league with our most famous criminals. We're all to ask ourselves who Jesus is, then follow him and him alone. He's the only good shepherd, and told believers that they would know his voice and distinguish it from false ones... false voices from vile wolves in sheep's clothing.

[@kevinmurray8302]

For me it comes down to a question of authority and unity. If you don't have the Church as an authority on the liturgy, then you become the authority and can interpret Scripture as you like. And if you have no Church authority, you will have no unity, since people will constantly break off and either deconstruct or reinterpret certain things. I think it was Jesus' intention that the Church would be a mystical body and also a physical institution. Remember the Israelites... they had a priestly caste and also religious authorities. You can count on both hands the number of bad Popes, but you have to admit, it's pretty amazing that the Catholic Church has survived for over 2000 years with its core doctrines intact. Can you think of any other institution that has been around for so long? I have a soft spot in my heart for protestants, especially evangelicals. But I have to say, it is frustrating to watch Christians endlessly fracture and try to re-invent the wheel with their own interpretations of Scripture. We have over 2000 years worth of writing and teaching from the Church Fathers up to now, so take advantage and learn from the Church! More food for thought, doesn't it seem like God to turn the Empire that murdered his Son into the engine that spread the Gospel across the world? That sounds like God to me...

[@kevinmurray8302]

But also, Jesus is clearly talking about Peter haha. He renamed him Cephas which means rock... If he is only talking about his Faith, why does he call him rock?

[@brendanmassie9586]

I’m a Protestant but one thing to note is that Jesus changed Peter’s name to Cephas which means rock. This would support the catholic claim would it not?

[@enderwiggen3638]

Simon being renamed Cephas while Jesus was talking to them at Caesarea Philippi , a mountain covered with pagan idols and it had a cave that is so deep that the ancient people then considered it a gateway to hell which they used for sacrifices. So calling Simon Peter (a pebble) … Jesus was saying on this rock I will build my church … dual reference to little Peter being used to build the church vs the large rock covered in pagan statues.

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@utilyan]

What do you do when a minority group within your own congregation? Do you tell them hunker down and have faith in God as the protestants did not do with Catholics, or do you tell them leave the congregation and start your own religion?

[@MCNinjaDJ]

You disciple them and teach them the scriptures, appealing solely to the authority of the scriptures and the plain meaning thereof. If they reject scripture then they are excommunicated. They might well start their own "church" and worship in the way they deem fit, that's not to say they have authority to do so but we don't have direct authority over those who are not members of the church.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@MCNinjaDJ Do you understand apostolic successsion? It refers to the passing on of authority and not a "replacement". Remember in this discussion there were the '12 apostles plus a few more'). Now, these apostles passed on their apostolic authority to hundreds of men by the laying on of hands, and not with the intention to simply replace the '12 and few more'. These men were not apostles, but they recieved the authority of the apostles. After the end of the apostolic age, the office of apostle ceased, but their authority did not. Note, if the apostles only replaced themselves, today we would only have '11 and a few' bishops world-wide and one Bishop of Rome! The office of Peter of course survives in a direct and singular succession, and logically must, because whilst the all members of the group that was the apostles recieved the Keys, only the individual Peter was the Rock, the Chief Apostle. I was baffled when I read the above comment "there is no biblical evidence that the role of apostle was meant or expected to be transferred to a successor". On the contrary, the postion of apostle was to cease, but not the authority. First remember that the NT does not even really contemplate life after the end of the apostolic age. But on the rare occasions that it does, it specifically plans for the succession of apostolic authority. THE OFFICE OF APOSTLE WILL CEASE, BUT THE AUTHORITY AND TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES WILL CONTINUE IN A SUCCESSION: (i) St Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first 4 generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the gen. he will teach. (ii)St Iranaeus in AD 189, likewise puts your accusation to rest: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). Finally this issue is of great significance to you as a Protestant because you believe all apostolic teaching is passed on only in NT Scripture. So you would need to ask yourself how do you know there were to be no more aposltes, after the end of the apostolic age??? Why don't you keep having Apostles in you Protestant organisations if the NT had aposltes??? Catholics and Protestants believe this, so where do we get this belief from which you take for granted??? We cannot just believe "a vibe". It must be apostolic teaching. And it is. It is Oral Apostolic Teaching, passed on and written down by the Early Church Fathers(that next generation who knew the apostles). Thus, we see how Protestants do rely on Oral Apostolic Tradition to know there will be no more apostles. Pax

[@diegoroots4452]

Mr. White argues that in Luke 22:24 it is never appointed who is the leader of the apostles. Mr. White fails to mention that Jesus in fact does speak directly to Simon in Luke 22:31-32. In verse 31 the Greek reads "you" as plural (you all) , but then in verse 32 the Greek reads "you" as singular and instructs Simon to strengthen his brothers, thus giving Simon a leadership role. This is evidence that Peter is in fact the head of the apostles and thus the first Pope.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

I agree with you. As usual the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is in the middle of the Catholic-protestant divide. We Latter-Day Saints agree with the Catholics that Peter was the senior apostle (President of church) in his time with James and John as his first and second councilor. But we agree with the Protestants that Peter was not the first Pope. And that the Pope never had apostolic authority.

[@scase1023]

I think I’m on the right side of doctrine when the Catholics and the Mormons are in agreement against me

[@Sonicmax8728]

@@scase1023it’s a widely accepted Protestant view as well that Peter was the head of the apostles. So I’m reality your holding a rather minority view on it

[@scase1023]

@@Sonicmax8728well that’s false, but even if it were true does that make it right? It’s apparent and obvious that the papacy has been completely manufactured by the Catholic Church and none of the other apostles seemed to behave as if Peter was in charge of any of them. Paul openly rebukes Peter (Galatians 2:11-13), Paul saw no hierarchy in the church (Galatians 1:6), and all throughout acts only “church elders” are referenced. There’s not even any reference or evidence that Peter went to Rome, and there is no claim by Peter in 1st or 2nd Peter that he holds any such office. Christ has and will always be the head of the church. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher (Christ) and you are all brothers.”

[@Sonicmax8728]

@@scase1023 It’s not false, it’s a view certainly held by Protestant sects. I would disagree that none of the apostles see Peter that way. In fact we see several instances of respect given to Peter. In John 20: 3-5 we see John waiting on Peter to enter the tomb. In Acts 15, we see everyone go silent once Peter begins to speak at the council of Jerusalem. In Luke 22, Jesus tells Peter “ but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” . I fail to see how a correction makes someone not the leader? Where the heck does Galatians 1:6 equate to Paul not believing in a hierarchy? Elders and deacons would be considered a hierarchy so I’m not sure where you were going with that? Clement speaks of Peter being killed where Paul was, ignatius of Antioch mentions he couldn’t lead the church in Rome the way Peter and Paul did. Irenaeus noted that Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome while Matthew was writing his gospel. The list goes on really

[@vaekkriinhart4347]

It's disturbing just how often they say, "let him be anathema!"

[@joelcarter2535]

Yup your cursed at least like 100 times

[@theHermitofEngedi]

It's disturbing how often Protestants call Christ's Church Mystery Babylon, and the Pope, the antichrist.

[@bridgefin]

An anathema can apply only to a Catholic and not to a heretic since the heretic has already made himself anathema.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

I love how when it fades to black at the end the only things still visible are the window and James White's shiny bald head.👍🏻 (This is a joke, I'm a big fan of this Church.)

[@DeaconBeanCooter]

Praise God

[@Nolongeraslave]

He has upset you greatly, uh? Ask yourself why. I bet you have not heard a word he said. Just full of anger.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@Nolongeraslave I was trying to be funny. Sorry if it didn't come out that way. ❤️ Big fan of Dr. White.

[@VivianMValerii]

Does he preach the Word or just bash Catholics?

[@bridgefin]

Neighbor You: I'm a big fan of this Church. Me: I'm a big fan of Jesus' Church.

[@fayejurisich-nunn9709]

With "Revelation 17,18, & 19" just up ahead to take placee....this is really important to Grasp as we see the Catholic Church beginning to Ascend again....

[@TonysRagequit]

The reformers also identified the papacy as the antichrist, the little horn of Daniel 7 and first beast of Revelation 13. Today, we can be quite sure, that the false prophet stands for the USA, which will bring all churches together and enforce the rules of the Catholic Church.

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

"The great city" where the Lord was crucified (Rev 11.8, 17.5,18) rules out Rome and locks in Jerusalem alone, which also sits upon 7 hills/mts; the colors, jewels and names closely describe the high priest's garments from Exod 28, who also wore a crown with the name of the Lord on the forehead but in the spirit we see the true nature. Rev 18.24 = Mat 23.37 also locks in "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" as Christ said..

[@bulletproofcatholic2722]

Isn't this just an argument between Jesus and Mr White: Jesus: "I will build my house on Peter" Mr White: "You will never be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt" Jesus: "My Prophecy Church will back me up" Mr White: "My Church will call them liars" Jesus: "I will give my Church miracles to prove their truth" Mr White: "We will deny everything.....because real truth has 50000 versions"

[@ronaldfriedline9297]

Speter's peech?😂couldn't help myself on that one

[@juliang3995]

Q.: Did Jesus say He would build His Church on Peter? A.: Catholic says that the Pope, as successor of Peter, is the head and foundation of the visible Church, since Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built by Christ. THE FUNDAMENTALIST OBJECTION : In the Gospel we read: “Jesus answered him: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!…I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”” (Matthew 16:17-18) Now, the fundamentalist come and remark: The Greek word for “Peter” is “Petros” which means “a little stone.” The word for “rock” is “petra” which means “a Rock”. What Jesus said was “I will build on the Rock.” He Himself was the Rock, Peter was only “a little stone” that would be too faulty a foundation. SCRIPTURAL EXPLANATION To this we answer: The Gospel of St. Matthew, where these words are found, was originally written, not in Greek (as the fundamentalist objection supposed), but in Aramaic, towards the years 50-55 A.D. The Greek translation was probably made during the years 80-90 A.D. Aramaic was the language actually spoken by Our Lord and the Jews of Palestine of His day. And in Aramaic, the words used by Jesus for “Peter” and “the Rock in this passage, were not in Greek “Petros” and “petra,” but the Aramaic, single and identical word “KEPHA,” as Jesus Himself had previously announced to “Simon, the son of John: You shall be called “CEPHAS” (which means Peter).” (John 1:42) And thus the words that St. Matthew wrote in his Gospel were: “You are KEPHA (or CEPHAS), and upon KEPHA (or (CEPHAS) I will build my Church.” All the fundamentalist objections on the difference of “PETROS” and “PETRA” of the Greek translation was made 30 years latter cannot simply be applied to the original Gospel written by St. Matthew in Aramaic. “KEPHA” in Aramaic means only “ROCK.” Actually Jesus said, and Matthew wrote: “You are a ROCK, and upon this ROCK I will build My Church.” The translator of the Gospel from Aramaic to Greek found himself with an option. In Greek, the word KEPHA (ROCK) has two forms, different in gender: a masculine form, PETROS, peter, rock; and a feminine form, PETRA, rock. Among the classics the two forms may each have a slightly different meaning: PETRA, a massive, living rock, and PETROS, a detached but large fragment (not little stone) of a rock. This classic distinction of the two forms was not given any importance in the Hellenistic or Koine Greek used by the translator of the Gospel; in the common, vulgar Greek language, both forms PETROS or PETRA were equivalent to the Aramaic KEPHA, rock. The translator preferred to use the masculine form PETROS, an appellative name for persons, when referring to Simon, son of John; and the feminine PETRA, when referring metaphorically to the material foundation of the Church. But what He meant was simply what the original Aramaic said: You are a ROCK, and upon this ROCK I will build my Church.”

[@culturalliberator9425]

Gendered wording. Peter is a man, the Church is female. If we are to assume they were speaking not in Greek but their native tongue both words would be the same.

[@juliang3995]

@@culturalliberator9425 The Catholic Church is always defined in the feminine regardless.

[@culturalliberator9425]

@@juliang3995 Woops! We made the same point. My bad.

[@williamgullett5911]

All believers are the rock on which Christianity is built

[@AlexanderBrown77]

@@juliang39952 Corinthians 4kJV✝️ 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. ✝️ Gospel 🩸 1 Corinthians 15 kJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Romans 3 kJV 🩸 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

[@CatholicHousewife2017]

That is wild to me that James White thinks that when Jesus & His Disciples were alone that did Not speak in their native tongue, Aramaic, with each other, but instead spoke in Greek amongst themselves. Just wild.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Let's just suppose the discussion was in Aramaic. What words might he have used that correspond with the Greek? For πέτρος (petros), meaning a small rock, we have כֵּף (keph). For πέτρα (petra), meaning a large rock or foundation stone, we have צוּר (tsur). So why didn't Jesus use the same word for both if Peter was the rock?

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

Even if we use the Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta text (אנא אמר אנא לך דאנת הו כאפא ועל הדא כאפא אבניה לעדתי), the wordplay is apparent when Christ speaks directly to Keepha highlighting the prophetic significance of Shimon's new name predicting this moment and further says to him, "and upon THIS rock" (ועל הדא כאפא) to distinguish Shimon from the second Rock/Keepha (Christ Himself confessed by the Spirit, who often referred to Himself in 3rd person, as the corner stone and foundation upon which the apostles build the temple of believers who make this confession by the Spirit, Eph 2.19-22, Ps 118.22, cf. Rev. 21.14 for a visual representation.) This Apostolic authority was taken from the Sanhedrin/temple ministry and given to them, see also Mat 21.42-45. The Greek of Matthew 16.18-19 makes this interpretation even more clear by using different terms (petros vs petra) serving as a witness to this understanding that Christ was making a distinction; like the LXX for the OT, the Greek NT seems to have midrashic qualities, including translation notes not found in the Aramaic suggesting the Eastern Church traditions of their text's origins have validity and thus primacy.

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

I had this same discussion a couple days before this stream (2024-01-18) on a different platform. Here are some snippets: Re "keys of the kingdom of heaven." Peter is granted authority to admit others into the kingdom of God and this authority is later given to all the apostles. Compare this to the scribes and Pharisees who shut people out of the kingdom, neither enter it themselves nor allowing others to enter.

 Re "whatever you bind/loose, etc". This authority is extended to the others in Mat 18.18, John 20.23. [...] The keys are not literal, it refers to knowledge of heaven which fits the theme in the preceding verses of not understanding in verses 3, 9, 11 and 12 -- but in verse 17 the heavenly Father reveals knowledge of who Jesus is to Peter who is given more knowledge of heaven which comes with the authority which the other apostles also receive. This is opposed to those Torah scholars who took away the key of knowledge and so do not enter the kingdom and hinder others from entering (Luke 11.52, cf Mt 23.13, 21.43).

 "Then He opened their mind/understanding to understand the Scriptures.." (Luke 24.45)

 "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1Jo 5.20) [...] Again, the ekklesia is built on all the apostles Eph 2.20, Rev 21.14. 

The immediate context of the keys is referring to knowledge of the heavenly kingdom, and the authority taken from the pharisees and scribes and the opening/shutting language is used to describe it with the interplay between the texts already shown above. 

Isaiah 22.22 is a different theme or focus using similar language (this happens throughout scripture and even in Christ's parables, and extensively in Revelation in very close proximity) and is a messianic prophesy -- the key of the house of David is upon the Messiah's shoulder (cf Isa 9.6) -- not Peter's or the other apostles. Peter is not the Messiah ben David. It may mean that this opening/shutting into the kingdom is fully transferred back to Jesus when He returns and delegates as necessary, similar to meting out judgement with the council of 70 (like the Sanhedrin pharisees he took it from and gave to the apostles) for the 70 divisions of nations during the millennium, etc. (cf. Isa 1.26)

 Also the throne of David is on earth, not heaven, and was previously occupied by kings of Judah on earth. Acts 2.30 does not indicate that He sits on the throne of David yet, it's just reference to Old Testament promises which he is applying to Jesus. His kingdom come, and His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. When He returns with the physical resurrection, then He will inaugurate His reign on earth on the throne of David and allot the land among the faithful as shown in Ezk 47.21-23; 38.1-35. [...]

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

Even in the Aramaic use of the same term in the word play doesn't change the fact that the object in view is Peter's confession of faith that Yeshua is the Messiah - Christ speaks directly to Peter and goes from "you" to "this stone," not "and upon you" - which all the apostles ultimately confess which is positively proven not just from the wider context and logic but spelled out in Ephesians 2.20 where the ekklesia is built on all the apostles, not just Peter:

 "God's household having been BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.." (Eph 2.19-20)

 See also Rev. 21.14 for a visual depiction of the kingdom foundation stones built on the 12 apostles not just Peter:

 "the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the TWELVE NAMES OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb." (Rev 21.14)

 So we see on multiple counts this is not about Peter alone, grammatically, contextually, doctrinally (Eph 2.19-20), even visually in Rev 21.14. Not to mention Peter's headquarters was Jerusalem not Rome and his primary missionary work was to the scattered tribes, ie, Jews not Gentiles - that was Paul's main department, with some minor overlap.

 The fact that the early Greek manuscripts make the distinction only further clarifies this point and it is a witness testimony to this understanding.

 [...] 

(And read Isaiah 22 yourself, it is messianic and is about the future earthly kingdom, Peter is not the Messiah nor had the earthly kingdom come - nor does Isa 22 invalidate the above in any way.) [...] Changing Peter's name doesnt change any doctrine or Eph 2.20 and Rev 21.14, if anything it was prophetic for this event where he is first among the apostles to be given insight about Yeshua's identity (already realized by others before like John the Baptist) and confess/witness who Christ is - it's by this confession given by the Heavenly Spirit not flesh and blood that the kingdom is built upon with Christ as the corner stone. You're dead wrong on multiple fronts, again:
 Christ speaks directly to Peter and goes from "you" to "this stone," (ie, Christ is Messiah, who Himself is the corner stone the apostles build upon) not "and upon you" - which all the apostles ultimately confess which is positively proven not just from the wider context and logic but spelled out in Ephesians 2.20 where the ekklesia is built on all the apostles, not just Peter:

 "God's household having been BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.." (Eph 2.19-20, cf Ps 118.22)

 See also Rev. 21.14 for a visual depiction of the kingdom foundation stones built on the 12 apostles not just Peter:

 "the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the TWELVE NAMES OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb." (Rev 21.14)

 So we see on multiple counts this is not about Peter alone, grammatically, contextually, doctrinally (Eph 2.19-20), even visually in Rev 21.14.

 Not to mention Peter's headquarters was Jerusalem not Rome and his primary missionary work was to the scattered tribes, ie, Jews not Gentiles - that was Paul's main department, with some minor overlap.

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

Revelation reveals "the great city" where the Lord was crucified is Mystery Babylon (also S0dom and Egypt) at the end of the age ruling over the kings and great merchants (billionaires) of the earth : “And their dead bodies will lie on the street of THE GREAT CITY which spiritually is called S0dom and Egypt, WHERE ALSO THEIR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED.” (Rev 11.8) “The woman [Babylon per 17.5] whom you saw is THE GREAT CITY which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Rev17.18) ”And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth/land.” (Rev 18.24) ”Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (Mat 23.37) “for your [Babylon’s] merchants were the great men of the earth, for all the nations were deceived by your “PHARMAKEIA” (Rev18.23) Jerusalem also sits upon 7 hils/mts, and the colors and jewels and names (of tribes) she wears allude to the high priestly garments from Exodus 28, who also wore a crown upon the forehead with the name of the Lord but in the spirit we see the true nature behind the exterior (Rev 17.5). Much of the language, imagery and context is drawn from Ezekiel 16. Even Zech 12.2 describes end time Jerusalem as a cup of trembling, similar imagery Jeremiah 51.7 uses to describe historical Babylon conquering the region like the little horn Daniel describes in the vision. The AC Kingdom vid on my list has deep info..

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

The Babylonian Talmud and the Midrash discuss the idea that the Gentiles will keep torah law (613 commandments) when their ‘messiah’ comes, as in convert to Judaism. This is predicted in Rev 13 with the mark/name of the antichrist imitating the torah about receiving the name of the Lord upon entering the Sinai covenant (in defiance of the New Covenant) similar to the time when the Edomites were force-converted in the book of Maccabees and masses of Gentiles converted under duress in the book of Esther. _In the Bible the only usage of the phrases “in the hand” and “in the foreheads” [besides Rev 13.16] are all in the Law of Moses and refer to keeping the commandments, statutes, judgments and holy seasons or days given to Israelites in the time of Moses. The first reference is Exodus 13:9 where it states the Days of Unleavened Bread associated with the Passover were given “for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes [in the forehead].”_ _The word “sign” in the above verse is translated “mark” in its second occurrence in the Bible and it refers to the “mark” given to Cain (Gen 4:15). The biblical definition of the “mark” (or “sign”) in the hand and forehead is associated with holy days on the Mosaic calendar. The next usage refers to the commandments, statutes and judgments that the Israelites were to perform when they entered the land of Canaan._ _“You shall bind them for a sign [or mark] upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes [in the forehead].” Deut 6:8_ _The third reference is similar to this and is given in Deut __11:18__. The weekly Sabbath is described as such a “sign” (or MARK) in Exo __31:12__-17._ _If we let the Bible interpret the Bible then the MARK (or sign) in the hand and in the forehead of Rev 13:16-17 refers to the keeping of the Mosaic legislation - its holy day system and regulations for the people of Israel in the land of Canaan. And this is what the Antichrist will subject the world to when he commences his reign in Jerusalem just before the true Second Advent. He will display to the world his supposed divinity, the world will accept it, he will sit himself with great ceremony in the temple at Jerusalem, and then proclaim himself the true divinity come from heaven to reside among men (2Thes 2:4)._ From "The Antichrist Will Establish the Mosaic Law" by the late Ernest L. Martin.

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

More notes: In Revelation 13 we have the second beast/false prophet who comes imitating the signs of Elijah to do 3 important things the rabbis expect Elijah to do: 1) Renew the Sinai covenant marriage by imitation which in the Torah came with spiritually sealing the congregation with the mark of the Name of God in the forehead and hand in dedication of thoughts and works through the Aaronic Benediction; this is symbolized by the tefillin worn over the head and hand. (ie, the Mark of the Beast is an imitation of the Sinai covenant union with the false messiah as Lord). _“You shall bind them [commandments per Deu 6.1-7] for a SIGN/MARK UPON YOUR HAND, and they shall be as frontlets BETWEEN YOUR EYES [the forehead].”_ (Deut 6.8) 2) Restore the sacrifices which only those who enter the renewed covenant (take the mark of the name in covenant marriage) can participate in with the money-changers and merchants Yeshua Jesus threw out (ie, buying and selling); _"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were BUYING AND SELLING in the temple"_ (Mat 21.12) 3) Regather and number the tribes in a census as in the books of Numbers and Ezra by heads of family names (number of names/number of men); _”Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to THE NUMBER OF NAMES, every male, head by head”_ (NUMBERS 1.2), and, _"..The NUMBER OF MEN of the people of Israel.."_ (Ezra 2.2) These are expected by the rabbis for Elijah to perform before or with the arrival of their (false) messiah who will enforce the Sinai covenant marriage in defiance of the new covenant marriage announced by Jeremiah who said it would not be like the one at Sinai (Jeremiah 31). Hence, the law is for the lawless (1Tim 1.9) and we know the false messiah is also called the lawless one (2Thes 2.8).

[@paulfry5734]

Matthew 11:11 [11] Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Why isn’t Peter (or Mary) mentioned here.. ?🤔

[@michaellawlor5625]

William albrecht and Sam shamoun want to debate you James. Jerry debate is so old now.

[@douglasmcnay644]

The issues haven't changed for centuries, so no, that debate isn't "old".

[@michaellawlor5625]

@@douglasmcnay644 loads of new arguments mate.

[@kenid4144]

​@@michaellawlor5625Are you talking about Shamoun who has found conflicting facts between the claims of the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? Maybe he should make up his mind first on which group he wants to defend before engaging with JW.

[@haroldjones9321]

Simply stated, Perer confessed that Yahushua was the Messiah, the Anointed One who was to come to save all who are Israel. That was Pete r's confession. Messiah stated or confessed "You are Peter (a small rock or pebble)... upon this Rock (myself, perhaps pointing to himself) I will build my church. The Church is built on the Rock. The church is built on confession that Yahushua is that Rock, that he alone is the Anointed One who was prophesied to come.

[@bridgefin]

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. He renamed Simon to CEPHAS meaning only ROCK. Jesus said he was building his church on this cephas. Deal with it or walk away from him.

[@jamessheffield4173]

In Matt 16:18 Simon Bar Jonah is called the "Rock" and in Matt 16:23 Peter is called "Satan", now he can't be both, but if Jesus is referring to the different confessions as many Fathers and Protestants believe, no problem. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[@EatMyKos]

Yeah but Cephas does not mean satan so I think your point breaks down.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@EatMyKos I believe what Jesus said. Blessings.

[@EatMyKos]

@@jamessheffield4173 I think I'm confused, what view are you supporting here? Catholicism or Protestantism :)

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@EatMyKos Are you equating Rome with the Universal Church or Catholic? Alexander Stewart says in evaluating the Second Helvetic Confession that [i]t was based upon the First Helvetic Confession, in which Bullinger also had a share, but contains many improvements [that is, enlargements], besides being much more comprehensive. It has been described as ‘Scriptural and catholic, wise and judicious, full and elaborate, yet simple and clear, uncompromising towards the errors of Rome, Bing search

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@EatMyKos Read THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION. Peace.

[@niklewis952]

Peter tells us we are ALL tiny stones, yet no one believes. Jesus is alone is the cornerstone. Hold to your tradition, and be swept away. Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, no riches, no thrones. Those who know Him look for Him alone.

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@DD-bx8rb]

No reply to Dougy. It would appear he refutted your assertion

[@fearHim777]

"And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers."

[@jesusmagana2458]

and teacher

[@DD-bx8rb]

When Judas defected and killed himself, the disciples chose a successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), and the Bible actually uses the word episkopos (“bishop”) to describe the office involved (a key argument for apostolic succession). So why wouldn’t Peter, similarly, also have a successor? How is that parallel or analogy overcome?

[@cbtam4333]

@@DD-bx8rb I’ll take a stab at it. Wasn’t the choice of Matthias to replace the traitorous Judas within weeks of the resurrection done to fulfill the Lord’s will that He have 12 specially-appointed, devoted and faithful disciples during his ministry (12 being symbolically important as equal to the number of tribes of Israel) who would also be personal eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion, and who would thus be in an especially qualified position to serve as apostles and fulfill His commission to spread the gospel to the nations? There could only ever be a very small number of men who could qualify for this special role of one of the Twelve, and all of them would have to have been born no later than the early 1st century. Judas could not fulfill this role, not just because he was now dead, but because he had not been a faithful disciple, and so he had to be replaced for the mission the Twelve would have ahead of them. Given the qualifications above, it is no wonder that the number of potential successors to Judas had been whittled down to only 2. Nothing in Scripture, however, suggests that there was any expectation that once these 12 (Matthias included) began the great commission, they would have or need “successors” possessing the same special role, position, status or authority following their deaths. Indeed, the more years and decades that passed after the resurrection, the less likely any such men even existed who would have had the same qualifications to be one of the 12 (i.e., had been close and faithful disciples during Jesus’ ministry AND had been eyewitnesses to the risen Lord). It is therefore unsurprising that when James, son of Zebedee, one of the 12, died only a decade or so after the resurrection, no special council of apostles was called to appoint any “successor” as in the case of Judas. As others were martyred over the years, the pattern was consistently repeated-no successors appointed to keep the number at 12. As the 12 and other apostles, witnesses to the risen Lord, disciples and followers of Jesus were spreading the gospel and establishing communities of Christians throughout the Roman Empire, those communities established their own local leaders who, with the support and spiritual guidance through the writings and occasional visits of the apostles, were able to maintain and expand their churches without any apostles, apostolic successors or other ecclesiastical authorities being named by any central power to have jurisdiction over them. During the early decades of Christianity, the apostolic center was located in Jerusalem, with Antioch in Syria also becoming an important center as Christianity expanded beyond Israel. During this period, Christianity spread as far as Rome, but there is zero evidence that Rome was then the center of Christianity; at that point, it was much more on the outskirts of the Christian world. Leadership throughout the churches was decentralized and there was no formal head of all the churches. If there was any acknowledged, informal leader of Christians from the 40s to the early 60s AD, it would seem to be James, the brother of the Lord, although Peter, Paul and John were also clearly known as among the highest esteemed apostles. After the apostles died, local leadership in the church congregations and regions with Christian communities simply continued without any newly appointed, so-titled apostles or apostolic successors. All this can be seen by simply reading thru the book of Acts from start to finish. It wasn’t until a couple of centuries after the resurrection that the numbers and influence of Christians had expanded to the extent that church leadership began to take on more political overtones. Following the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, during the 4th and 5th centuries, ecclesiastical and imperial authority in Rome became so aligned as to produce a tremendous shift in the status of Christianity-from marginalized, persecuted minority to established, political powerhouse in just a few centuries. This shift prompted a revision of origin narratives within the empowered Roman church to provide spiritual justification for its attempt to assert authority over churches throughout the empire and the world. Peter as the 1st Pope appointed directly by Jesus, apostleship as an office with ecclesiastical and state power that could be transferred to a successor, an unbroken line of apostolic succession all the way from Peter, and Rome as the true center of spiritual authority over all of Christendom, were all ahistorical positions contrary to the Scriptural accounts of the early church. For this reason, these positions never represented the consensus of the actual Christian community as a whole throughout the world. Numerous early church fathers during this period left unambiguous writings to this effect. The outright refusal of Eastern churches to submit to the Roman church’s formal assertion (around 600 AD) of spiritual and temporal authority over all churches worldwide is further evidence of the widespread acknowledgment of the weakness of the Roman church’s position, despite its continued power and influence in much of the area formerly controlled by the Roman Empire. Much the same can be said for the eventual formal split of the Eastern and Western churches in the 11th century and the splits within the Western church in the 16th century as a result of the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church’s consistent claim over the past 14-17 centuries that it has always been the only true church since the time of Jesus is simply not historically or biblically supported. Since the 3rd century, there has never been any consensus within Christianity as to the authoritative ecclesiastical center of Christianity, and before the 3rd century it wasn’t even an issue. There were then only persecuted, decentralized but growing communities of Christians centered around the teachings and writings of the 1st century apostles that collectively made up what was to become known as the New Testament. So the short answer is, Peter never had any higher spiritual position or authority than the other apostles, even if he was initially considered a leader among the 12. There is further no biblical evidence that the unique role of apostle in the 1st century was meant or expected to be transferred to a successor. Leadership in the early church was able to function and flourish without apostolic succession, just as is true today.

[@DD-bx8rb]

​@@cbtam4333 You are misunderstanding apostolic succession. It refers to the passing on of authority and not a "replacement". Remember in this discussion there were the '12 apostles plus a few more'). Now, these apostles passed on their apostolic authority to hundreds of men by the laying on of hands, and not with the intention to simply replace the '12 and few more'. These men were not apostles, but they received the authority of the apostles. After the end of the apostolic age, the office of apostle ceased, but their authority did not. Note, if the apostles only replaced themselves, today we would only have '11 and a few' bishops world-wide and one Bishop of Rome! The office of Peter of course survives in a direct and singular succession, and logically must, because whilst the all members of the apostle group recieved the Keys, only the individual Peter was the Rock, the Chief Apostle. I was baffled when I read your comment "there is no biblical evidence that the role of apostle was meant or expected to be transferred to a successor". On the contrary, the postion of apostle was to cease, but not the authority. First remember that the NT does not even really contemplate life after the end of the apostolic age. But on the rare occasions that it does, it specifically plans for the succession of apostolic authority. THE OFFICE OF APOSTLE WILL CEASE, BUT THE AUTHORITY AND TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES WILL CONTINUE IN A SUCCESSION: (i) St Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first 4 generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the gen. he will teach. (ii)St Iranaeus in AD 189, likewise puts your accusation to rest: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). Finally this issue is of great significance to you as a Protestant because you believe all apostolic teaching is passed on only in NT Scripture. So you would need to ask yourself how do you know there were to be no more apostles, after the end of the apostolic age??? Why don't you keep having Apostles in you Protestant organisations if the NT had apostles??? Catholics and Protestants believe this, so where do we get this belief from which you take for granted??? We cannot just believe "a vibe". It must be apostolic teaching. And it is. It is Oral Apostolic Teaching, passed on and written down by the Early Church Fathers(that next generation who knew the apostles). Thus, we see how Protestants do rely on Oral Apostolic Tradition to know there will be no more apostles. Pax

[@cbtam4333]

@@DD-bx8rb Apostle simply means “sent out one” in the general sense. Jesus commissioned his 12 disciples as apostles with a very special role of leading the mission of evangelizing, making disciples, accurately passing on His true teachings and shepherding the new believing communities all by the power of the Holy Spirit. Their authority came as a result of Jesus specially commissioning them as members of His inner circle of disciples and witnesses of His resurrection. Beyond Matthias, there is no biblical evidence that they passed this authority down to anyone, or that it was even possible to pass down such authority to later “generations” if their authority was based on their own personal experiences of being inner circle disciples of Jesus witnessing Him risen from the dead who were specially called by Him to evangelize, qualifications that simply could never apply to later church leaders, however upright or capable they might be. One could make an argument for James being called by the Lord for his role in leading the early church as the 12 apostles clearly acceded to his leadership according to the Scriptures (Acts 15). Paul was also called directly by the Lord for his apostolic mission, which mission the apostles likewise acknowledged. Other than that, there is no Scriptural evidence of either the possibility or the actuality of transfer of the authority of their special role to any “successor.” The verse you quoted in 2 Timothy does not indicate any transfer of authority to a successor. It simply confirms the apostles’ own authority in what they were teaching and instructs Timothy to teach others who are faithful disciples the same message so that they can then faithfully teach more people themselves. This is a perfectly natural and effective way of church-building and evangelizing. Obviously Paul knows he won’t live forever, and he wants the true gospel message as taught, preached (orally) and written (in Scripture) by the apostles to be faithfully and accurately carried down to new converts and future generations. Ensuring that future church leaders and teachers carefully keep to the original teachings of the apostles was necessary to prevent the false teachers they were constantly dealing with from adulterating the gospel. All of this could be accomplished by choosing faithful, disciplined, upright, knowledgeable, capable and mature men as leaders who could be counted on to teach the original gospel they heard/read from the apostles. None of this required a transfer of a formal office or status of spiritual authority based on their own unique roles of being specially called by the Lord. More to the point, there’s simply nothing the Bible about apostolic authority being passed on to apostolic successors. Or Peter as Pope or even any office of pope or bishop of Rome exercising the kind of authority you’re talking about. These things may be found in Roman Catholic writings written centuries after the apostles, but they aren’t in Scripture, so I don’t see what relevance they have to non-Catholic Christians beyond being historical information about the church centuries after the apostles. How do we know there were to be no apostles after the apostolic age? By the very nature of their special apostolic role as commissioned by Jesus himself: Men of later ages could not have been commissioned by Jesus during his time in earth (during His pre- or post-resurrection appearances). Paul even goes so far as to identify himself as the last divinely appointed apostle to see the risen Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

[@True_Patriotx]

Who is Mystery Babylon from Revelation?

[@AlexanderBrown77]

Let’s look 👀 together ♥️ Revelation 17 kJV 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: Cardinals and bishops are arrayed in purple and scarlet. ✅ They are decked in gold and precious stones , Gold woven into their robes.✅ The pope has a golden cup in his hand .✅ Revelation 17 kJV 9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. Vatican city, and Rome sit on seven hills . ✅ Revelation 17 kJV 18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. Vatican city is definitely a great city that has reigned over the kings of this earth . ✅ 1 Corinthians 15 kJV ✝️🩸 1-4 Romans 3 kJV 🩸 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

Revelation reveals "the great city" where the Lord was crucified is Mystery Babylon (also S0dom and Egypt) at the end of the age ruling over the kings and great merchants (billionaires) of the earth : “And their dead bodies will lie on the street of THE GREAT CITY which spiritually is called S0dom and Egypt, WHERE ALSO THEIR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED.” (Rev 11.8) “The woman [Babylon per 17.5] whom you saw is THE GREAT CITY which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Rev17.18) ”And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth/land.” (Rev 18.24) ”Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (Mat 23.37) “for your [Babylon’s] merchants were the great men of the earth, for all the nations were deceived by your “PHARMAKEIA” (Rev18.23) Much of the language, imagery and context is drawn from Ezekiel 16. Even Zech 12.2 describes end time Jerusalem as a cup of trembling, similar imagery Jeremiah 51.7 uses to describe historical Babylon conquering the region like the little horn Daniel describes in the vision. Jerusalem also sits upon 7 hills/mts and the colors, jewels, and names (of the tribes) she wears are allusions to the high priestly garments from Exodus 28 who also had a golden crown with the name of the Lord, but in the spirit we see the true nature. The AC Kingdom vid on my list has deep info..

[@AllOtherNamesUsed]

"The great city" where the Lord was crucified (Rev 11.8, 17.5,18) rules out Rome and locks in Jerusalem alone, which also sits upon 7 hills/mts; the colors, jewels and names closely describe the high priest's garments from Exod 28, who also wore a crown with the name of the Lord on the forehead but in the spirit we see the true nature. Rev 18.24 = Mat 23.37 also locks in "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" as Christ said.

[@Sonicmax8728]

@@AlexanderBrown77Vatican city does not sit on 7 hills. It sits on 1 hill and it’s on the other side of the tiber river where the 7 hills that Rome resides on are

[@DD-bx8rb]

When Judas defected and killed himself, the disciples chose a successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), and the Bible actually uses the word episkopos (“bishop”) to describe the office involved (a key argument for apostolic succession). So why wouldn’t Peter, similarly, also have a successor? How is that parallel or analogy overcome?

[@BenDickerson-x6t]

What books would you recommend on this topic?

[@joelcarter2535]

Mike grendon has some pretty good books like "preparing for eternity."

[@danielmalo4097]

Dr. James White is thee leading debator in our time! Catholics can't even come close.

[@willw1753]

HAHA, bro, he's been destroyed in many debates.

[@stjepanodak5834]

Why isn't he debating catholics then?

[@danielmalo4097]

@stjepanodak5834 If you go to his KZbin channel and look in his playlist, you will find a ton of debates against Catholics touching many topics.

[@danielmalo4097]

@willw1753 send me the link in an entire debate. Not just some edited cherry-picked clip

[@joelcarter2535]

​@@stjepanodak5834 he has 🫠

[@thermionic1234567]

Doesn’t it actually make better sense theologically to instead say “Newman apostatized from Christianity” rather than saying he converted to Catholicism? Isn’t conversion going from one sect of Christianity to another?

[@americantruth12]

I don't recall in any of my studies of any of the early discussing Peter being a church father or a pope. It just wasn't a necessary topic because it was probably something once universally understood until Rome corrupted and twisted the meaning.

[@DD-bx8rb]

Clement “Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]). Ignatius of Antioch “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1). Dionysius of Corinth “For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]). Tatian the Syrian “Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]). Tertullian “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]). The Clementine Homilies “[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]). Origen “Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

[@culturalliberator9425]

Rome didn't do anything. They were divided from their brothers by barbarians and waters. Whole the rest of the Patriarchs were in closer connection being part of the same empire Rome was not. As such over time the division formed more naturally. This was more a frustration due to bad communication then malice.

[@alejandroumaslay3657]

sorry dudes, but you can’t twisted what Jesus said to apostle peter, Matthew 16:17-20

[@stevenlindsey2056]

​@@alejandroumaslay3657Yes the Holy Spirit revealed who Jesus was and the church was built upon the confession that Jesus is the Messiah.

[@williamgullett5911]

@@stevenlindsey2056you are glossing over that the church doctrine of Peter being the rock is one verse not corroborated anywhere in Scripture and corroborated only by the church itself. You can’t vouch for yourself

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@kofi7110]

You were right when you said apostles are called Sheperds but how do you go from that to Peter being the head of the church? Burden of proof is on those who make this claim when the total reading of scripture both old a new suggests that it was the Christ himself who is the head of the church and local leaders were themselves are subject to him.Remember nothing can be exalted above God's word. Key watch word is consistent interpretation of scripture no conjecturing which leads to myths and tales.

[@dougy6237]

@@kofi7110 So you agree the Apostles are Shepherds? By your Protestant rationale you are saying Christ is not the Good Shepherd! ...Catholics do not say Peter is the head of the Church above Jesus Christ. Peter is the head of the Church on earth. ALL Apostles got the keys, and of them ONLY PETER got the keys, fool.

[@ujunwadike8746]

Please, what books has James White written? I need to lay my hands on them, he sounds very much like a great scholar.

[@Fassnight]

I'm sure there is a list on their website (alpha and Omega ministries) but you could also just Google "James R. White books"

[@utilyan]

if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. -- 1 corinthians 13. Love is THE good work without LOVE faith alone is worthless and evil.

[@Fassnight]

Love is not a work... It defines the work we do, but it in itself is not a work

[@jacobtnp4906]

Im about to finish "The Roman Catholic Controversy" Its fantastic and I highly recommend it

[@danielmalo4097]

Where that found?

[@DD-bx8rb]

I'm glad when Protestants mention the Bereans. The fact that the Bereans searched the Scriptures (OT) is NOT a proof-text for their Bible-alone practice, and is instead the opposite. Yes certainly, the Bereans searched the Scriptures (a very worthy practice indeed!). But look what they did NEXT. Unlike the Thessalonians who stuck to their "Bible-alone", the Bereans did the OPPOSITE to "Bible-alone". They accepted the Oral teaching of the Church through St Paul IN ADDITION to their Bible, they got baptized, and they submitted to the Church as their Final Authority. The Bereans were the Catholics, because their authority-paradigm was the Catholic paradigm: Written Tradition(Scripture), Oral Tradition, and Church as Final Authority.

[@rebuildspirit]

If the Pope claims infallibility in spiritual matters, how can he justify actions that contradict biblical principles, like condemning people to death for heresy only to later canonize them? Additionally, papal actions, such as altering the Sabbath and venerating relics, seem to stray from core teachings. The Pope, despite being revered, remains a fallible human amid an institution often criticized for its wealth, scandals, and internal contradictions. Does this setup align with Christ's example, or does it highlight deeper inconsistencies within the institution?

[@Burberryharry]

Where dose sola scriptura and a 66 book cannon come from?

[@nightowl7066]

How many books are in the OT and NT ?

[@leahunverferth8247]

A messenger with a letter from the King who guards and protects said letter doesn't somehow have authority over the King's word.

[@nightowl7066]

@leahunverferth8247 who's the King?

[@leahunverferth8247]

@@nightowl7066 Jesus Christ

[@nightowl7066]

@leahunverferth8247 amen, so we all know and accept that the scriptures is the Word of Jesus. How do we know that Pope or Magisterium is ???

[@ps0195]

I’m from Tyler. My kids go to Tom Bucks church. East Texas is full of Roman Catholics. Strickland was removed. It’s like a bomb has gone off in Tyler among the Catholics. He’s very supported in the community, Strickland that is.

[@michelleheltz6116]

He left the part out in the Old Testament the King gave keys to the Kingdom to his assistant. That is what Jesus was doing with Peter to establish the Church till Jesus physically comes back. The OT and NT merge - it is called typology.

[@kenid4144]

If what you've said is true, do you think the earliest Christian church in the books of Acts of the Apostles forgot that Peter was given a key? Did you leave out the part where Dr JW said Acts debunks RCC claims? Or you think the Antioch church didn't know what "typology" is?

[@williamgullett5911]

Did you just try and use the Old Testament to define what the church is doing?

[@scase1023]

Nothing in the old or New Testament even hint at the papal teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s clear and obvious dogma, not scriptural.

[@williamgullett5911]

@@scase1023 the catholic church had to get REALLY creative to cobble together all those single uncorroborated verse doctrines to control and manipulate its people. And then, like those being kidnapped and defending their kidnappers, the people got Stockholm Syndrome

[@williamgullett5911]

@@scase1023 They have Stockholm Syndrome. Defending their kidnappers

[@roguecalvinist]

Fell asleep in my own stream LOL I'm going to listen to this and go back

[@mcfarvo]

So then is the Apostle Paul anathema?! Lol

[@joelcarter2535]

Why would Paul be accursed?

[@logofreetv]

@@joelcarter2535 Because he rejected Peter as head of the church, clearly.

[@joelcarter2535]

@@logofreetv probably because both he and Paul knew that Jesus was the head of the church?

[@burnsy1943]

The "Revalation " that Peter got from God, is the "rock" upon that Christ is going to build His Church. And further in My American standard bible, in John Cephos is translated as "Stone" not rock.....

[@timboslice980]

James white was one of the main reasons I became catholic last year! I used to believe everything he says about the church and one by one every single one of those doctrines got reversed. Just had to study history and listen to what the apologists say. Peter was obviously our first pope, you guys have to distrust so much church history to get around it that it’s a little bit laughable. The reason the Catholic Church is growing in popularity is because people want truth. You use straw man arguments like “they worship Mary” when every catholic in history condemned worshipping her. Imagine how angry Mary would be as a god at Catholics if they only worship her in secret? Imagine publicly renouncing your god in every document, assuring new converts that we don’t worship her, and then all of secretly doing it anyway! What if a Protestant said ok I don’t think you worship Mary, but here’s why you shouldn’t venerate her? I’d be so much more likely to listen to that Protestant than the one who insists all 1.2 billion Catholics are just lying. The third option is to explain why our theology is wrong, why no matter how hard we’re trying not to worship her we still are. You guys’ arguments are old, debunked, and are not helpful in stopping people from converting. As soon as you look at any church history before the 16th century it becomes painfully apparent nobody believed the man made traditions of Protestantism. No church fathers came up with the rapture, PSA, OSAS, post millennialism, TULIP, cessationism, symbolic Eucharist, or Michael and Jesus being the same creature before the Protestant revolution. None of these ideas even exist before Luther started throwing excrement at the walls and cursing books of scripture. The Beauty of Protestantism is you guys are like build a bear, add or remove whatever you want. You get to tell scripture what it means on your own authority. I say Romans 2 supports good works, James 2, Matthew 25 all decry the need for good works in salvation but you guys can’t read it plainly because you believe in sola fide. A doctrine that is not clearly found in scripture! James says we are saved by our works and not by faith alone. You guys say no we are not saved by works but by faith alone. You have to literally reverse the passage to get the doctrine! Then you take that theology and reinterpret clear passages like “baptism now saves you” to mean no it doesn’t. Jesus saying he was thirsty and they didn’t give him a drink as the reason he doesn’t accept him! The rich man asked what must i do! Jesus didn’t say “fool it’s not what you must do to be saved but what must you believe” he straight told him a good work to do! Why do you guys ignore scripture everywhere it says we are saved by something besides faith? And ignore the one place it actually condemns faith alone? You’re theology is more important than scripture! Wake up! It says if we bring someone back to the church, it will cover a multitude of sins and save that man. Is this not an action? Paul says our good deeds are rewarded with eternal life while those who are self seeking, wrath! How on earth is that sola fide?! The only way to make it work is to purposefully merge good works and works of the law. Which Paul obviously does not intend, where does Paul say these works are the same thing? I find him talking about works of the spirit, works of the flesh, works of darkness, good works, and works of the law. These are all different categories of works and for theological reasons you guys just can’t allow for there to be a difference between circumcising and ritual washing with feeding the hungry and visiting prisoners. So silly, I just wish you guys could admit, you only follow scripture when it agrees with your theology instead of pretending the whole thing is your authority. It makes honest bible believing Christians just so exhausted with ya! That’s why so many are converting, they see through the personal interpretations. They know Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity and never heard of TULIP. He used thendeuterocanonicals and wouldn’t recognize modern calvinists in the slightest. He even requested to buried in an unmarked grave so he wouldn’t be venerated yet here you guys are. Naming yourselves after him, putting him up on a pedestal. But when we do that with Peter, all of a sudden we’re the bad guys. Ok.

[@sleepwalker7755]

Saying arguments are debunked doesn’t mean they are miraculously debunked! I am not a Calvinist, but James White is clearly proving that RC’s have no evidence. A long diatribe is not evidence. Peter was not a Pope or Ruler. Bring evidence. It’s not Biblical.

[@leahunverferth8247]

Friend, you've shown why protestants fight so hard against Roman Catholicism. The Bible will not allow any room for anyone to boast in their salvation. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 This is the most important and most foundational key to interpretation: God will not share his glory with any other. If we contribute to our salvation then we have something to glory in; we have something to boast about. Thus the Bible is clear we contribute nothing to our salvation. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16 That's not to say good works aren't necessary as a fruit of faith. They absolutely are: if your faith is not producing good fruit then your faith is dead. But these good works are non-meritorious. What does the Bible call them? Fruits of the *Spirit* - that is to say God produces good works in believers as a consequence of salvation and being made alive in regeneration by the Spirit. Oh how terrible would be our plight if salvation depended even a little bit upon us.

[@timboslice980]

@@leahunverferth8247 You see the flaw in your thinking is that its either all god or all man. Why can’t god empower us to do the impossible? Why does grace not play a role? Is it grace to force someone to stop sinning, force them to turn to god, force them to accept him, force them to do good deeds until their death? There is no grace in force. Gods grace enables our free will to do amazing things. I find it utterly depressing that there are christians that dont believe that. You say our good works naturally flow from our state of salvation. A good tree produces good fruit! We all agree on that point. What you guys dont understand is that Catholics believe that too! The works are not what saves us, faith is not what saves us, its BOTH. Protestants say either or and catholics say all of the above in almost everyone of these cases. Is Peter therock or his confession? Its both! Is the church visible or invisible? Both. Is the woman in rev Mary or is it the church? Its both! The biggest mistake protestants make is confusing works of the law with good works. I see you made the same mistake, heres the challenge. Look at matthew 25 and all the reasons christ gives for rejecting the man. He was thirsty and he was given no drink etc…. Tell me how a work of the law could fit into that list? “I gave you food and you did bot wash your hands, i gave you a son and you did not circumcise him, i gave you blessings but you only tithed 8 percent on average. You see, works of the law and good deeds done in love are very different categories. Paul also talks about works of the flesh, works of the spirit, and works of darkness but you guys dont confuse all those with works with works of the law. Why is this? Because none of the other ones would cause a problem with sola fide. If you allow these two categories of works to have separate definitions and applications, then Paul doesnt sound self contradictory between romans 2 and 3. It also keeps paul from refuting Jesus in mattew 25, james chapter 2 through 5, and the basic christian message. Jesus said we must forgive if we expect to be forgiven. Forgiveness is therefore a work necessary for salvation. When paul condemns works of the law, thats all hes condemning. Why promote good works as a means to salvation in romans 2 and then denounce it 3? What possible purpoae could paul have in writing an entire chapter just to totally refute it the very next chapter? Why maintain that works of the law of the old covenant when the new covenant condemns them and promotes good works? Paul literally says good deeds are rewarded with eternity in romans 2 and then in romans 3 shows how works of the law cannot help you. You guys miss it everytime and i think its on purpose. Sola fide is just a man made tradition invented by martin luther 500 years ago. It doesn’t fit scripture, church history, the fathers, or any measure of common sense. Try one of the ancient churches, dont even look at the Catholics. Just study the differences between orthodox and protestant. Then get back to me.

[@leahunverferth8247]

@@timboslice980 The reason a work of law cannot fit into Matthew 25 is because if we did works that were meritorious for our salvation then salvation would not be to the glory of God alone, and that is impossible. Matthew 25 does show us the necessity of good works but the question is why are they necessary? As the cause of salvation? Absolutely not. As the fruit of salvation produced by the Holy Spirit in us? Yes. When it comes to the *cause* of our salvation it is 100% only God. It is the Father who chose in love to send the Son; it is the Son who willingly took upon himself the nature of man to perfectly keep the law in our place and die the death we deserve for our sins and rise from the dead; it is the Holy Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son to dead, undeserving sinners to resurrect their souls and produce good fruit in them. What part do you play in that? Why you only contribute the sin from which God needs to save you. That's it. It is indeed grace that enables us to do the impossible - that enables dead, hell deserving sinners to actually *do good.* But if that is of grace, it can have no merit. It is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

[@timboslice980]

@@leahunverferth8247 Ok think about it for a second. You said that Christ is talking about good works here and not works of the law. You see that these works are the cause of faith, you see that faith is caused by christ. Now pay close attention to the reason the person was rejected. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, i was in prison and you didnt visit me, etc…. This person knows that Christ is the cause of salvation orherwise why are they talking? You see this person has faith enough to petition the lord for salvation, you see that this is not enough. Jesus never said begone you didnt have enough faith, he gives him detailed works that the man was lacking. Why wasnt this man saved? Jesus says lack of works, i agree with the plain reading of the text. Maybe if this person had the proper faith that would’ve compelled him to do the works he wouldve been saved. Jesus’ checklist though, its all actions. He never mentions faith once there, does that mean i dont believe faith is necessary to do the works and be rewarded for them? Absolutely not! Why cant you allow for the synthesis of the text? Both faith and good works are required for salvation? Why is it such a big deal that everytime the bible shows that works are necessary for salvation, a protestant has to add the line “but they are not the cause of salvation” the line: good works are not the cause of salvation but flow from a saved person” is a Protestant doctrine that you guys made up to try to make Paul not argue with himself, james, or christ. The faulty reasoning is that people who do good deeds and then are rewarded for them by god with eternal life have something to boast about. Think about it, if were in heaven and purged of all our sins, why boast at all? Whos in heaven boasting of their great deeds? Nobody! Its a silly strawman cartoon version of catholic doctrine. No catholic believes they get to heaven on their own. Al catholics believe it is only grace that allows us to do those works! It is only because of christ that we have such wonderful works to perform! Look at the book of james, no work done without love counts for anything. No faith without love counts for anything. No faith without works count for anything. Its all 3 together that save that is why sola fide is a heresy! Faith alone is dead!

[@JakesVandenHeever-y8q]

I want to ask you something??? THE BIBLE SAID NO ONE DESERVE ANYTHING IF ITS NOT FROM GOD, IT SAID ANYTHING, SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME YOUR HOW WIL

[@NotMartinLuther]

A whole new meaning to “Peter and the wolf” lol

[@DD-bx8rb]

White is ignorring basic grammatical rules of Matthew 16:18: 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. As was mentioned at the beginning, there are other counter arguments that Protestants give to our interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But we know the switch from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative “this” is not one that proves Catholics wrong for interpreting Peter as the rock of Jesus’ Church.

[@NowayJose-d3b]

*Jesus knowing that the unrighteous *would always persecute, revile and speak all manner of evil against his disciples* consoled them after this manner: Mt. 5:11 *Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely* , for my sake. *Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: *for so persecuted THEY the prophets which were before you. This day, these scriptures are fulfilled in you* and all the unrighteous and their like. You can't make this stuff up!

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@DD-bx8rb" Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all drink the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."-1st Cor. 10:1-4. "As it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."-Rom. 9:33.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@jamestrotter3162 Yes I meant to say Jesus is never the rock in Matthew 16. He builds on rock and the rock is Peter

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@jamestrotter3162 Below is a list of biblical texts all related to the primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy. And this is anything but an exhaustive list. There are many more biblical texts we could take a look at. In 2 Parts due to word limit: Part 1 Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to give his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ. Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling! Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar” or in the place of Jesus in miraculous fashion guaranteed by Jesus not to fail. Luke 5:1-10: The multitudes that gather to hear Jesus at the shore of Lake Gennesaret, press in on him so that he has to step off shore into one of two boats that are there docked. The boat he steps into just happens to be Peter’s boat. Hmmmm. Jesus then proclaims the gospel from the barque of Peter (5:1-3)! Sound familiar? Then, Jesus tells Peter to put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch. Can you imagine the people present? They must have been thinking that Jesus was nuts! Multitudes have to just stand there and watch St. Peter go fishing? St. Peter then says, “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (vs. 5), yet he lets down the nets at the command of Jesus. When they catch so many fish they need to bring out the other boat to haul in the load, Peter realizes that Jesus is calling him to more than catching catfish! Fish are metaphors for Christians. Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (vs.8)! Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” St. Peter receives a unique and singular calling from Christ to be the fisher of men. And once again, Peter receives supernatural power that cannot fail to fulfill his unique calling. Luke 22:24-32: In this text, Jesus teaches the apostles the true nature of authority, especially in verses 24-28. True authority in the New Covenant is commanded to be servant of all. He will speak with infallible authority just as Christ did, but he must also wash the feet of his brothers just as Christ did. In this context, Jesus said to the apostles: [A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.-humas, plural-“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.-plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.-sou, singular-Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.-singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.-singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren. In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the “Israel of God”-see Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devil’s attempts to divide and destroy them and the church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years! John 10:16: Jesus prophesied: And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added). Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be “the good shepherd” (Gr.-poimein-“shepherd” or “pastor”) in John 10:14. Jesus is the shepherd. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this “one flock” and “one shepherd,” Jesus says he must gather “other sheep” referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts. John 21:1-17: Here, we find another example of Jesus aiding the fishing of the apostles who “caught nothing” all night long (vs. 3). At the command of Jesus they let down their nets and catch an astonishing 153 “large fish” (vs. 11). When Jesus commands the net to be hauled ashore, St. Peter heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself. No man can lift that size of a catch out of the water and on to the shore by himself. If you take these words literally to mean Peter actually did this, it seems Peter was given supernatural strength to do what no man could naturally accomplish. Fish are symbols representing the faithful (recall Luke 5:8-10). And the symbol of “the net” is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the Church (see Matt. 13:47). Not only is Peter’s ability to carry these fish (all the faithful) a miracle, but the fact that the “net” is not broken is also extraordinary. The message seems to be that the Church Jesus establishes containing all of God’s faithful with Peter packing the power will never be destroyed!It is in this context that Jesus then asks St. Peter three times, “Do you love me… Do you love me… Do you love me?” When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to “tend (Gr. poimaine-’shepherd’) my sheep” (vs. 16). Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God! How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? All of them. How many of his sheep did Jesus give to St. Peter to shepherd? All of them.

[@thomthompson9217]

I never fail to be amazed at the sheer ignorance of those who continue to put their faith in the cult of Roman Catholicism. Seeing that Peter was called into the ministry to minister to the Jews, and Paul being called to minister unto the gentiles, most Catholics ignore this fact and continue transfixed under the pagan spell of worshiping of saints, relics, and Mary, rather than a solely dedicated biblical faith in Christ alone for the redemption of sins that are passed.he

[@Silverhailo21]

My friend, you are in error because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God. Under your protestant theory, you have a form of godliness but you deny its power. Be willing to be corrected by the scriptures, and you will find the true body of christ. It's been here for 2000 years, it has never failed and it never will fail.

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@E-pistol]

Acts 1:15-20 in those days Peter stood up among the brethren Acts2:14-41 but Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice John 6:68,70 simon peter answered Him John 20:5-7 he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb John 21:15-17 feed My lambs feed My sheep Matthew 16:13-20 God the Father already told Peter who Jesus is. Jesus named Peter and gave us the Church

[@aadschram5877]

Jesus to Peter: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

[@aadschram5877]

Jesus to Peter: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

[@robertalan2023]

Great points! Thankfully James White address most of them.

[@kevinbratton670]

funny I haven't seen those translated like that is that the passion translation?

[@E-pistol]

@@kevinbratton670 , "do whatever He tells you."

[@DD-bx8rb]

The Word of God is infallible, but the problem is White's definition of The Word of God. God's Word is NOT restricted to Written Scripture as you assert. Even the Scriptures themselves tell us this! And God's Word is NOT the private interpretation of Written Scripture, and the Scriptures themselves tell us this too. What IS God's Word is this: Christ is the Word. His Apostles then taught His Word. The Word given by Christ and the Apostles is all Oral, some being eventually put down in writing. And this Word, the Oral AND the Written, is given to EVERY generation infallibly, just as it was given infallibly to the very first Christians by Christ and the apostles. This Word is given continually in EVERY generation through the SUCCESSORS of the apostles by the laying on of hands, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, successors such as Timothy, Matthias, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos, etc. They are not apostles. They are successors. This is the pattern of Christ's Church. THIS is the paradigm. The paradigm is NOT the prideful practice of Private Interpretation which gives doctrinal confusion and continual division, division, division. Protestants do not possess the correct paradigm as established by Christ. They do not have The Word of God in its fullness. They have ripped out the Written Word from The Word of God, abusing it, mutilating it, with their Private Interpretation.The 'Private Interpretation of Scripture' practice was given by Satan to draw people from the Church. Christ never said the Church would be replaced by individual interpretation of Scripture, and the foolish system just does not work, never has, never will.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

In 1 Corinthians 4:6 Paul exhorts us to _"not go beyond what is written"._ Ignoring that advice has given the RCC any number of speculative and false doctrines and dogmas, including: papal authority & succession; replacement theology, the ordained priesthood; Mary's alleged immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, & blessed assumption; original sin; infant baptism; preterism; amillenialism, and so on, ans so on, ad-nauseum.

[@wishuhadmyname]

Rome's use of Matt 16:18 makes no sense. According to Rome, Jesus, still speaking to Peter, refers to him as "this." "This" is never a 2nd person pronoun. No one says to their friend "Hey, this, how is this doing? Is this's mom doing ok? Did this get that job this applied for?" Rome utterly breaks the grammar and narrative of Matt 16

[@DD-bx8rb]

White is ignorring basic grammatical rules concerning Matthew 16:18: 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. As was mentioned at the beginning, there are other counter arguments that Protestants give to our interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But we know the switch from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative “this” is not one that proves Catholics wrong for interpreting Peter as the rock of Jesus’ Church.

[@NowayJose-d3b]

@@DD-bx8rb *DID YOU KNOW* If Mary named Yahshua (Jesus), the *proper* name: *"Rock"* , Christ's name would have been *"Cephas"* (John 1:42, 1Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, Gal. 2:9) in the Aramaic and *"Petros"* in the Greek, and "Peter" in the Greek to English. There is only ONE way to Say the *proper* name ROCK and that is CEPHAS in the Aramaic and PETROS in the Greek. If Mary had named Christ "Rock" we would all be calling Christ *"CEPHAS or PETER"*

[@culturalliberator9425]

Oh yeah. Of course we all know that the Bible was written in English. Further, if Peter is more to represent a position (As is the reason for him BEING RENAMED) then it would figure that he would say, "this".

[@NowayJose-d3b]

@@culturalliberator9425 okay. You’re just weird

[@culturalliberator9425]

@@NowayJose-d3b I believe that was what Saladin said after he was defeat by the Leper King.

[@randycarson9812]

What do Catholics actually believe about papal infallibility? It doesn't mean the Pope is perfect, never sins, or never makes mistakes. It doesn't mean he has perfect personal beliefs about every issue or that everything he says is correct. To understand infallibility, consider the following: 1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. 2. The men who wrote the New Testament were not infallible. 3. However, they wrote the word of God infallibly because they were inspired by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, who protected them from error. 4. This protection from error was limited to when God was using them to communicate the truths of the faith and not to everything they said or did. Similarly, the Catholic Church teaches that papal infallibility operates in the same manner; the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine, especially when defining doctrine in line with Apostolic tradition. God did not physically take over the bodies of the New Testament authors to move their pens nor did He dictate scripture word for word. He inspired the sacred writers by the power of the Holy Spirit and protected them from error. This does not mean that everything they ever said and did was infallible. God only protected them from error when He was using them to communicate the truths of the faith. That is what Catholicism teaches about papal infallibility. In the same way that the Holy Spirit protected the biblical writers from errors in matters of faith, Catholics believe that protection remains on the Pope, who is the successor to St. Peter, given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 16:19.

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

Why listen to this guy concerning the papacy if he isn't able to show you why women are not permitted to teach men. Shoot, it literally says that they are not permitted to take the office that leads men.

[@NotMartinLuther]

Are you saying Dr. White isn’t able to say why women are not allowed to pastor?

[@graceupongrace2639]

...just read the Epistles...and then listen to James White on the Papacy haha

[@RustyShackelford261]

He said he can’t show you qualification from the Bible for a woman pastor. The Bible doesn’t give them because women can’t be pastors.

[@HartyBiker]

Excuse me? Dr. White has taught multiple times that women cannot be pastors, never once has he even said something about it being possible.

[@MansterBear]

He is able to show that, and has many times. Did u comment on the right video?

[@lukewagner8871]

Authority in the church comes from Jesus Christ, not man. Ephesians 4:8,11-15 KJVS Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

[@PatrickInCayman]

Correct, The Catholic Church does not claim the authority comes from man. The authority of the Catholic Church comes from Jesus Christ.

[@Silverhailo21]

We pray daily for James's conversion.

[@randycarson9812]

So does his Catholic sister.

[@MCNinjaDJ]

And we pray daily for the conversion of the catholics to true saving faith in the finished work of Christ alone, whose one-time sacrifice, self-offered, was and is and ever shall be sufficient for all those whose faith is in Him, to cover all sins, past, present, and future, that those who believe in Him will, beyond any shadow of a doubt, dwell with Him for all eternity.

[@randycarson9812]

​@@MCNinjaDJ Thanks! Of course, Catholics already know that Jesus died once for all. That's why we celebrate and re-present that ONE sacrifice at every daily mass all around the world just as Malachi prophesied: _"My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty." (Malachi __1:11__)_

[@randycarson9812]

@@MCNinjaDJ ​ Thanks! Of course, Catholics already know that Jesus died once for all. That's why we celebrate and re-present that ONE sacrifice at every daily mass all around the world just as Malachi prophesied: _"My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty." (Malachi __1:11__)_ May God give you eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart willing to return to the one true Church Jesus promised and did build on Peter the rock.

[@MCNinjaDJ]

@@randycarson9812 I would urge you to re-read the 2nd Council of Trent. It firmly denounces the idea that the Eucharist is merely a re-presenting of the same single sacrifice and is in fact itself a propitiatory sacrifice with no less power nor potency than that of Christ on the cross. Rather than being a high act of worship, the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist belittles the sacrifice of Christ, making it, in effect, no greater than the sacrifices of the old testament which likewise needed to be sacrificed time and time again. The 2nd Council of Trent pronounces anathema on those who deny that the priest is truly offering up the body and blood of Christ to the father as a propitiatory sacrifice. Yet it is a ONCE-offered sacrifice according Hebrews 9 and 10. These chapters make plain that it is because the old testament sacrifices were ineffectual that they had to be repeated. If the Eucharist is a necessary sacrifice of Christ's body and blood for the propitiation of sins, them it is no more effectual than the blood of bulls and goats. The doctrines of the Eucharist deny the one time sacrifice of Christ. Those in the catholic church who hold that it is a re-presenting of the same single sacrifice ought to be anathematized by the standards of II Trent.

[@michealferrell1677]

I live in the Tyler Lindale area and would love to hear you on this topic

[@Ternz_TV]

poor guy.. he can't even prove his version of calvinism is the correct protestant denomination and yet he had all the time in the world to attack catholicism 🤦‍♂️

[@nightowl7066]

What version of catholicism do you believe?

[@Ternz_TV]

@@nightowl7066 care to elaborate? am not made aware there are *versions* of catholicisms, I know it only exist in the protestant community. Probably you are just another protestant who has a misconception on the catholic church, go on spit out your propaganda 😁

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@nightowl7066 There is one Catholic Faith because Chrsit established and guaranteed one Church

[@nightowl7066]

@@DD-bx8rb there's only one Church of Jesus Christ, but it doesn't mean one denomination.

[@Ternz_TV]

@@phillipgriffiths9624 red-herring?

[@Joel-wj6xe]

Peter's lack of understanding or the fact that he is humbled again and again has no bearing on Jesus' blessings given to Peter and his promotion to chief among the apostles.

[@logofreetv]

It absolutely does if your position is the pope can decree infallible things outside of scripture. Peter was literally called Satan by Jesus, possibly the sharpest rebuke anyone has ever received.

[@ratatoskr9366]

@@logofreetv The Biblical canon was infallibly decreed outside of scripture, the Holy Trinity was infallibly decreed outside of scripture. Jesus was rebuking Peter's sin. But what did he permanently name him? The rock. The rock on which He built His church. And to refute that basic, coherent point, you have to do mental gymnastics to say "Oh Jesus is the rock" or "Peter actually means small rock" lol

[@bridgefin]

@@logofreetv You: Peter was literally called Satan by Jesus, Me: All Peter did was stand up and offer his protection to Jesus. THAT is exactly what Jesus was teaching, to give up your life for your friend. He called him Satan because Satan wanted Jesus to be persuaded away from the cross. Peter was innocent even though Satan may have used him for his purposes. And the same occurs as every Protestant is used by Satan to try to bring people away from the only Church that Jesus established for salvation.

[@men.276]

Sad to see James White still fighting against the grain all these years later.

[@Doulos.Romans8.34]

Romans 12:2

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

I remember when I was a brand new Christian there was a talk given by White I was watching where he explains that Jesus wasnt holy until his baptism or whatever... which is literally what new age people teach

[@Doulos.Romans8.34]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n do you have the vid? Id be interested to see

[@juanmaldonado8754]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n Slandering much???

[@Silverhailo21]

Something also to keep in mind is that James is speaking from the perspective of a calvinist. He believes in Devine determinism, theological fatalism. He believes that God decreed the confusion and chaos to which he is lamenting. As if he believes that it could have been otherwise. He doesn't. He's not being forthright. Or else he believes that he was decreed to speak this way in which case, he just has a free pass to do whatever he wants now. He doesn't believe that there's any human agency in any of this. His claims of outrage are illogical and both internally and externally incoherent. What he's not telling you is that his perspective and views, however much he may rail against the Catholic church, are nowhere to be present at all anywhere either in the pages of scripture or the early church. He holds to a couple of true things but the main one is that he rejects the body of christ. Both in its presentation in the Eucharist as well as the visible Church. His views are and would have been completely rejected by the early church fathers, St Augustine would have eviscerated him if he attempted to debate him. Saint Irenaeus would have denounced him as a heretic. Saint Clement would have told him about Peter and would have told him to repent in sackcloth and ashes for speaking so wickedly against one of Christ's servants.

[@Erick-zp8vm]

I am always amazed that many Protestant pastors love to talk about the Roman Catholic Church and how evil it is. I would suggest talk about what you believe and why you believe it. When we have the priest in the Catholic Church give a homily I can never remember a time when they talk about Protestantism. They either talk about what we believe as Catholics or they use the gospel reading as a starting point and tell us how we can apply it in our every day lives. That seems to work pretty well for us as Roman Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination in the United States and in the world. And just suppose I were to become Protestant, there are over two thousand denominations to choose from. Once you splinter off from the Catholic Church you just keep starting new churches that suit your particular needs. Here is a question for you. If you were a Christian in the year 1000 AD living in Paris, France, what church would you go to?. The answer is the Catholic Church because that was the Christian denomination that existed since the apostles. The Catholic Church was started by Christ and is the same church to this day. Protestantism did not start until 1517 with Martin Luther. I will stay with the Catholic Church because history shows it to be the Church Christ established. Praise be Jesus Chris now and forever! Amen.

[@nightowl7066]

What's your point? If you were born in 1000 in Beijing, you would probably be Buddhist. Is it right to point someone's errors and criticize false beliefs? Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and others should have never preached the Gospel because it is offensive by your logic.. I was born and raised Catholic, but I am Protestant now if you really want to put me in that category. However; I belong to Christ, and it makes no difference how many denominations are out there. There's only one Christ and one universal Church of all believers regardless of denominations. Do you belong to Christ? You can belong to a denomination without belonging to Christ. This is a question to you.

[@blchamblisscscp8476]

Denominations are not unique to Christianity. There are denominations within Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and so on. Some Denominations are lumped in with Christianity but are in no way orthodox and are really separate religions, such as LDS, and Word-Faith. Having said that, you need to understand that some protestants call out to Roman Catholics for the same reason they call out to hindus, that they are in peril because of their sin and they worship a false god or gods. The recent candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says he is a monotheistic Hindu. Fine. Except a monotheistic Hindu is still worshipping a false god. It is our duty as Christians to preach the gospel to the lost. That is why they preach to all. I can only suppose the local priest does not believe he has the same duty but is satisfied that, in the end, everyone goes to the fictional purgatory.

[@saxismyax]

Where is the historic documentation that what Jesus started was the Catholic Church? He never revered Mary or prayed to saints who were long past dead. He never called for any denomination at all. His directive in its simplest form was “Follow Me.” There are many Protestant denominations I don’t agree with either when it comes to baptism or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I’m all about Jesus as He’s described from Genesis to Revelation. He’s the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He’s the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Ancient of Days. He’s my Soon and Coming King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (I also wonder how Peter would be pope, which is a gentile organization, when Paul was the major apostle sent to spread the Gospel to the gentiles at that time?)

[@Erick-zp8vm]

I will pray that you return to the one true faith established by Christ, the Catholic Church. Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever. God bless you.

[@Erick-zp8vm]

There is a continuous list of popes dating back to Peter. Look it up in Google and you will find the list. Okay, there are many Protestant denominations you do not agree with but why do some Protestant ministers pick on Catholics in particular? One reason may be jealousy of our large membership? I do not know but no other Christian denomination is criticized as the Catholic Church. We say Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world in every Catholic Mass. We even have a feast day of Christ the King right before the beginning of Advent. So there is no disagreement there.

[@SpaghToeZorp]

I live near lindale Texas! I would love to see you debate! When and where?

[@DD-bx8rb]

White is ignorring basic grammatical rules: 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. As was mentioned at the beginning, there are other counter arguments that Protestants give to our interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But we know the switch from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative “this” is not one that proves Catholics wrong for interpreting Peter as the rock of Jesus’ Church.

[@ChristisLord2023]

When did this happen? Jesus said "I will give you" indicating a future fulfilment, when did that happen?

[@NowayJose-d3b]

Christ named Simon Barjona, "Cephas" which means rock and CHRIST HIMSELF knowing he would ascend back into heaven, left Peter as "ROCK" while on earth, Christ knowing debates and conflict would come, so Christ put one final authority in place to settle all the debates. *Christ is the ultimate Rock, while Peter is Rock for him while on earth. Christ completing his statement with the final words*, " *Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and Whatsoever YOU loosen on earth is LOOSEN IN HEAVEN* John 1vs 41 The first thing he did was to find his brother Shim‘on and tell him, “We’ve found the Mashiach!” (The word means “one who has been anointed.”) 42 He took him to Yeshua. Looking at him, Yeshua said, “You are Shim‘on Bar-Yochanan; you will be known as Kefa.” (The name means “rock.”) *The Jewish Bible*

[@ChristisLord2023]

@@NowayJose-d3b oddly enough, two chapters later when the Apostles are arguing about who is greater among them, rather than confirm Peter's superior position, Jesus tells all of them these same words. Matt 18:18

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@ChristisLord2023That's right, the future. And here are just some of the many such texts. (In 2 Parts due to word limit) Read your Bible, Protestant: And this is anything but an exhaustive list. There are many more biblical texts we could take a look at. Consider this my top 10 list: Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to give his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ. Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling! Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar” or in the place of Jesus in miraculous fashion guaranteed by Jesus not to fail. Luke 5:1-10: The multitudes that gather to hear Jesus at the shore of Lake Gennesaret, press in on him so that he has to step off shore into one of two boats that are there docked. The boat he steps into just happens to be Peter’s boat. Hmmmm. Jesus then proclaims the gospel from the barque of Peter (5:1-3)! Sound familiar? Then, Jesus tells Peter to put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch. Can you imagine the people present? They must have been thinking that Jesus was nuts! Multitudes have to just stand there and watch St. Peter go fishing? St. Peter then says, “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (vs. 5), yet he lets down the nets at the command of Jesus. When they catch so many fish they need to bring out the other boat to haul in the load, Peter realizes that Jesus is calling him to more than catching catfish! Fish are metaphors for Christians. Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (vs.8)! Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” St. Peter receives a unique and singular calling from Christ to be the fisher of men. And once again, Peter receives supernatural power that cannot fail to fulfill his unique calling. Luke 22:24-32: In this text, Jesus teaches the apostles the true nature of authority, especially in verses 24-28. True authority in the New Covenant is commanded to be servant of all. He will speak with infallible authority just as Christ did, but he must also wash the feet of his brothers just as Christ did. In this context, Jesus said to the apostles: [A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.-humas, plural-“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.-plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.-sou, singular-Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.-singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.-singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren. In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the “Israel of God”-see Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devil’s attempts to divide and destroy them and the church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years! John 10:16: Jesus prophesied: And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added). Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be “the good shepherd” (Gr.-poimein-“shepherd” or “pastor”) in John 10:14. Jesus is the shepherd. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this “one flock” and “one shepherd,” Jesus says he must gather “other sheep” referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@ChristisLord2023 Part 2: John 21:1-17: Here, we find another example of Jesus aiding the fishing of the apostles who “caught nothing” all night long (vs. 3). At the command of Jesus they let down their nets and catch an astonishing 153 “large fish” (vs. 11). When Jesus commands the net to be hauled ashore, St. Peter heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself. No man can lift that size of a catch out of the water and on to the shore by himself. If you take these words literally to mean Peter actually did this, it seems Peter was given supernatural strength to do what no man could naturally accomplish. Fish are symbols representing the faithful (recall Luke 5:8-10). And the symbol of “the net” is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the Church (see Matt. 13:47). Not only is Peter’s ability to carry these fish (all the faithful) a miracle, but the fact that the “net” is not broken is also extraordinary. The message seems to be that the Church Jesus establishes containing all of God’s faithful with Peter packing the power will never be destroyed!It is in this context that Jesus then asks St. Peter three times, “Do you love me… Do you love me… Do you love me?” When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to “tend (Gr. poimaine-’shepherd’) my sheep” (vs. 16). Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God! How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? All of them. How many of his sheep did Jesus give to St. Peter to shepherd? All of them. Acts 1:15-26: As a matter of historical record, St. Peter takes the helm of the Church and gives an infallible interpretation of Psalm 69:26 and 109:8 in choosing a successor for Judas. Acts 10:1-48:In this chapter from the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus personally sees to the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 10:16. He appears to St. Peter and commands him to bring the gospel to the gentiles by way of Cornelius, the centurion. When Peter then “commanded [Cornelius and his household] to be baptized” in Acts 10:48, the prophecy of John 10:16 was fulfilled. There was now one fold and one shepherd for Jews and Gentiles. That ministry has continued to this day in the successors of St. Peter, the bishops of Rome. In Acts 15: 1-12, the ministry of St. Peter as “the shepherd” of the Universal Church continues. When there was a heresy spreading in the church at Antioch (and elsewhere) so widespread and problematic that Paul and Barnabas could not quell the resulting confusion, the church there decided to “go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (vs. 1-2). The question concerned salvation and the Old Covenant law in relation to the gospel. Some among “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise…and…to keep the law of Moses’ (vs. 5) or else you ‘cannot be saved’” (vs. 1). In particular, they spoke of the gentiles who were converting to Christ, but the same would apply to all. The real question was: Are Christians saved by the grace of Christ in the New Covenant or must they obey the Old Covenant as well for salvation? The first Church Council (of Jerusalem) was convened and the theological question was put to rest by the pronouncement of St. Peter. When everyone was arguing, St. Peter arose and declared the truth on the matter and then, to translate the text below in modern parlance, everyone shut up! The matter was settled by the “one shepherd” given to the Church as a source of unity and authority: The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice…that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe…we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence… (Vs. 6-12, emphasis added) Matt. 10:2: In the context of the calling and listing of the twelve apostles, Peter is referred to as “the first” apostle. We know this does not mean “first” chronologically because Peter was not the first called by Christ in time-Andrew was (see John 1:40-41). The Greek word, protos-“first”-often denotes a sense of preeminence, or even a primacy in authority, not necessarily simply being “first” in time. It can be translated as “chief.” For example, St. Paul says of himself: The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost (Gr.-protos) of sinners. Moreover, Christ is referred to as prototokos, or “first-begotten” in Col. 1:15. Here St. Paul teaches us about Christ’s eternal generation, which has been accomplished outside of time. He is; therefore, the creator and the one who has preeminence over all things, according to the text. Colossians 1:15-18 reads: “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (Gr.-prototokos) of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth…He is before all things…He is the head of the body, the church…that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Gr.-proteuon, a verb with the same root as protos and prototokos).” In a notably direct and overt manner, by referring to St. Peter as the “first” apostle, St. Matthew presents the first Bishop of Rome just as we see him represented in the rest of the New Testament; he is revealed to be “chief” of the apostles, or to have a primacy of authority over all the apostles and, by extension, over the entire church.

[@Silverhailo21]

The case for the Catholic faith as technology and the study of ancient history has moved forward and more discoveries and information has come to light has only strengthened it. It's quite sad to see that James is still stuck in the 80s and 90s in terms of his study. It doesn't seem like he's advanced very far since then.

[@cindiloowhoo1166]

Ave Maria ~ I will light a candle for you ~ 🙏🏻🕯️🙏🏻🕯️🙏🏻

[@douglasmcnay644]

The gospel of Rome will not save you. Please, for your own sake, repent and believe the true gospel of Christ.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@douglasmcnay644 Which "true Gospel" would you have us follow? A myriad of Protestant sects each claim to have "the right interpretation", yet they all disagree. Tell us which one has the divine guarantee for the conclusions they arrive at through their Bible reading. And then explain to us why Christ would ordain such a practice which leads to doctrinal chaos. Fool

[@Nolongeraslave]

"I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:3.

[@robertalan2023]

Jesus literally LIVES to make intercession. Yet you go elsewhere. So sad

[@Erick-zp8vm]

Whoever said there were no other gods before me?@@Nolongeraslave

[@DD-bx8rb]

​ @cbtam4333 You are misunderstanding apostolic successsion. It refers to the passing on of authority and not a "replacement". Remember in this discussion there were the '12 apostles plus a few more'). Now, these apostles passed on their apostolic authority to hundreds of men by the laying on of hands, and not with the intention to simply replace the '12 and few more'. These men were not apostles, but they recieved the authority of the apostles. After the end of the apostolic age, the office of apostle ceased, but their authority did not. Note, if the apostles only replaced themselves, today we would only have '11 and a few' bishops world-wide and one Bishop of Rome! The office of Peter of course survives in a direct and singular succession, and logically must, because whilst the all members of the group that was the apostles recieved the Keys, only the individual Peter was the Rock, the Chief Apostle. I was baffled when I read your comment "there is no biblical evidence that the role of apostle was meant or expected to be transferred to a successor". On the contrary, the postion of apostle was to cease, but not the authority. First remember that the NT does not even really contemplate life after the end of the apostolic age. But on the rare occasions that it does, it specifically plans for the succession of apostolic authority. THE OFFICE OF APOSTLE WILL CEASE, BUT THE AUTHORITY AND TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES WILL CONTINUE IN A SUCCESSION: (i) St Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first 4 generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the gen. he will teach. (ii)St Iranaeus in AD 189, likewise puts your accusation to rest: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). Finally this issue is of great significance to you as a Protestant because you believe all apostolic teaching is passed on only in NT Scripture. So you would need to ask yourself how do you know there were to be no more aposltes, after the end of the apostolic age??? Why don't you keep having Apostles in you Protestant organisations if the NT had aposltes??? Catholics and Protestants believe this, so where do we get this belief from which you take for granted??? We cannot just believe "a vibe". It must be apostolic teaching. And it is. It is Oral Apostolic Teaching, passed on and written down by the Early Church Fathers(that next generation who knew the apostles). Thus, we see how Protestants do rely on Oral Apostolic Tradition to know there will be no more apostles. Pax

[@alyicehorvath9694]

James, then what is the point of the name change? Any name change is scripture is important. You just don’t WANT to see it.

[@MCNinjaDJ]

The significance is that he would, by the grace of God, be the one to first confess the faith which is the rock and cornerstone of the church. That's a significant role. It doesn't have to be so significant as being given papal authority to be crucial. Given the words of John, that not all the books in the world could contain all that Jesus said and did, it's still terribly significant that Peter is the first to confess this.

[@kyleellis8665]

The rock is Peter. Peter was the first Pope.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

As usual the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is in the middle of the Catholic-protestant divide. We Latter-Day Saints agree with the Catholics that Peter was the senior apostle (President of church) in his time with James and John as his first and second councilor. But we agree with the Protestants that Peter was not the first Pope. And that the Pope never had apostolic authority.

[@Fassnight]

That is quite a leap of logic

[@kyleellis8665]

@@Fassnight how

[@kevingrems]

Where does the idea of sola scriptura come from?

[@Doulos.Romans8.34]

The Scriptures themselves (2 Tim 3) it’s also in response to the Catholic Church.

[@dman7668]

The idea came from Martin Luther, not exactly explicitly from the Bible. He made an interpretation.

[@williamgullett5911]

Do you not understand that sola Scriptura means “Scripture alone” which is all throughout the NT? Your church is teaching that GODs word isn’t enough. I would reconsider what you are worshipping

[@kevingrems]

@@williamgullett5911 got any references? I’m not necessarily taking sides here. Just curious where the idea came from since Protestants very heavily rely on it.

[@dman7668]

@williamgullett5911 No, the Catholic Church doesn't hold the position that God's word is "not enough" consequently, I could make the same argument for protestantism that God's word was "not enough for them" since they needed to outline doctrines like Sola Fide or Sola Scripture since God's word was "not enough " to write those doctrines out in detail for them.

[@t.d6379]

I am grateful for Mr White. He made me Catholic. And i am truly thankful.

[@jeremycremeans1854]

I love how ignorant you catholics are and completely disregard scripture for your priest and bishops.

[@brucereed9367]

What are some good books to buy on the topic?

[@aadschram5877]

In a talk from The Coming Home Network’s 2009 Deep in History conference, Scripture scholar Dr. Brant Pitre looks at the history of Jewish Temple worship, and how the language used by Jesus in establishing Peter as the head of the Church in Matthew 16 draws from those traditions. Dr. Pitre looks at what the power to bind and loose looked like in the Davidic monarchy, what Jesus meant by calling Peter a “rock,” the meaning of the “keys to the kingdom,” and a lot more. BTW Eric Ybarra wrote a book about the papacy.

[@telabib]

Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner, also 50yrs in the Church of Rome ( abridged version ) by Charles Chiniquy.

[@srich7503]

@@telabib why not just use the Bible, like all the others have tried to do that cannot agree with each other in their interpretation of it? Well, probably because… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?

[@telabib]

@@srich7503 Remember William Tyndale. and John Wycliffe.

[@srich7503]

@@telabib i do. Very sad and unfortunate what “some” sinners will do in the name of the Lord. Do we need to discuss what “some” Protestant sinners did to Catholics? Now can you answer the hard question above?

[@liviucozma9019]

The papacy himself is the prove that all this sistem is false ! Lets pray for simple catholics to understand the Word of God,where is,nt mentioned RC !!

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@ronnieedwards5550]

Christ did not make Peter the first Pope or give any special position in Christianity to him other than the fact that Peter was one of the 12 because he was the right bloodline and lived at a time in history to be chosen by Christ to be a disciple. There was 12 of them each corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel. Christ in this conversation with Peter had just called Peter a term that means "a pebble lying in the road that is easily kicked to and fro by travelers " certainly Christ would not build his church on that person. What Christ said was that he would build his church on the statement Peter just made about who Jesus was. It's a figure of speech called a homologia. Just goes to show how not understanding the Bible correctly can cause ignorant flesh human beings to go off half-cocked and invent a religion and then subsequently cause millions of people to follow them who won't take the time and make the effort to study and learn that Christ was talking about himself not Peter who denied Christ actually 6 times not 3 and even cursed when asked if he knew Jesus once the Roman's started looking for any and everybody who followed Jesus.

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@EJ-gx9hl]

I can’t believe the apostles had no clue Jesus had instituted the office of the pope and made Peter the leader. Oh wait, weren’t these the same apostles that had trouble understanding things told to them directly by Jesus? That’s a very low hanging fruit argument and pretty much moot.

[@randycarson9812]

Jesus and the Apostles were crystal clear. Consider the following passages of scripture: Isaiah 22:20-22 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Matthew 16:19 “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.” Questions: 1. Did Jesus inherit the throne of the house of David? (cf. Lk 1:32-33) 2. Is Jesus an eternal king whose kingdom lasts forever? 3. Did Jesus intentionally quote the passage from Isaiah when He spoke to Peter? 4. Did Jesus re-establish the office of steward by giving Peter the keys symbolic of that office? 5. Does the office of steward continue forever in an eternal kingdom? 6. If a steward is replaced or dies, does another man take his place? 7. Would a steward’s decree contrary to the will of the king be allowed to stand? 9. Peter died and another man took his place, and another man replaced him, etc.; does that mean that someone still has those keys? 10. Who?

[@EJ-gx9hl]

@@randycarson9812 huh?

[@randycarson9812]

@@EJ-gx9hl did you read the verses? did you answer the questions?

[@EJ-gx9hl]

@@randycarson9812 I did. My huh was more about whether you were defending the catholic position or the Protestant one but after viewing other comments of yours, I see it was to defend the catholic position

[@Silverhailo21]

There is only one Church.

[@kevinhoneycutt238]

Nothing is more evil than calvinists doctrine

[@davidfabien7220]

When Jesus was arrested all the other apostles ran away except for Peter and John and yet Jesus never did formally restore fellowship with them. Just like Peter the other apostles had also strongly vowed that they would never forsake Jesus if arrested. When Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus the Lord was offended and yet Jesus did not think that the doubt/offense would latter have a negative impact on Thomas in that he would think that he was a lesser apostle and hence failed in his ministry. Paul who without hesitation said that he was the least of all the apostles yet made the bold claim that he worked harder than any of them. Jesus said to Peter that Satan had asked to sift him but that he had prayed for him. Jesus definitely raised Peter to a higher status than the others. Dr Scott Hahn said that Jesus demoted the high priest and set Peter on Moses' seat. Jesus taught his apostles that the greatest among them must be the servant of all. I believe that after the apostles were anointed by the Holy Spirit Peter demonstrated a very humble attitude having let go of his former assertiveness and the need to be first. John could run faster than Peter and therefore reached Jesus' tomb first and yet waited for Peter to arrive to go in first and he second thus showing that Peter had primacy over him.

[@logofreetv]

Dr Scott Hahn said that Jesus demoted the high priest and set Peter on Moses' seat. That's a ridiculous argument given Peter referred in 1 Peter to all believers as a priesthood (performing spiritual sacrifice) and also the temple curtain tore at Jesus' death. What was Peter supposed to be a 'high priest' for? The perfect sacrifice has been done and "it is finished".

[@carlwest417]

Speaking as a Lutheran, I find James White’s hostility towards Rome to be misguided and distasteful.

[@jeremycremeans1854]

Then you're not a good Lutheran

[@carlwest417]

😂@@jeremycremeans1854

[@dougy6237]

Then you are not being a good Lutheran. Luther hated the Catholic Church. Read his writings

[@Silverhailo21]

So something to consider, while James is bloviating and scoffing at the claims of the Catholic church, specifically regarding the papacy, you may ask yourself, did Christ institute a kingdom or not? Is he a king? Sit with that. Don't just mouth off or spout off and type angrily away, really sit with that and feel the weight of it. Do you actually believe that Christ is the king? Are you a part of his kingdom? Not invisibly. Not metaphorically. But really, truly. You may recall that Christ Rose visibly from the dead, his physical body was restored, he did not arise merely as a disembodied spirit, an invisible ghosts etc. If you chafe against this idea, ask yourself, is it more important for you to maintain your physical separateness, individuality, autonomy, etc then to be a slave to christ? The master is returning one day. You should have an answer before he does. You may find yourself like the bridesmaids lacking oil in their lamps when he returns.

[@leahunverferth8247]

Yes, Christ is king over his kingdom the church. This is absolutely why the Pope is a usurper.

[@PaxMundi118]

Why is Mr. White cultivating an appearance that makes him look like a comic book version of Lucifer? Is this intentional? It doesn't help his case, imho.

[@PaxMundi118]

I am in no way suggesting Mr. White is demonically possessed or influenced (I would not know), but his appearance has a Satanic character to it.

[@PaxMundi118]

Also, why is he constantly bragging about long debates he did in the 1990's? Is anyone impressed by this? Does anyone care?

[@PaxMundi118]

If you know why he is choosing to present himself as Luciferian, or if you think his debates from the 1990"s are a vital issue right now, please let me know. I'm sincerely curious...

[@christianlaraque2234]

Jesus never wrote anything. So all of you are wrong. And the gospels were written in the 2nd century. So all believers are at war over documents that contain heresy

[@niklewis952]

Then who is Jesus, and what is your source?

[@mary-xk9dc]

God Have Mercy on the church, we read and study the bible or we listen to false RCC.

[@dougy6237]

If you actually took time to read the Bible you would see that Jesus applied word about himself to OTHERS ALSO including "Foundation of the Church", and "Shephard of the Flock": 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are ALSO called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are ALSO called the shepherds of the flock. Yes, God is the rock of the Church, but Christ ALSO conferred this distinction upon St Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. (Matt 16:18) See how hatred of the Catholic Church pushes you into positions in conflict with Scared Scripture

[@John_Mcgrane]

why is he adorning himself with these idols of worship?

[@iamthasecond]

That being?

[@jaredvaughan1665]

As usual the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is in the middle of the Catholic-protestant divide. We Latter-Day Saints agree with the Catholics that Peter was the senior apostle (President of church) in his time with James and John as his first and second councilor. But we agree with the Protestants that Peter was not the first Pope. And that the Pope never had apostolic authority.

[@johndavolta3124]

LDS is not a true church. LDS is an American cult with a made up book from a polygamist. Read the CES letter buddy.

[@davido3026]

It is amazing the resiliency if yhis lost soul!!! He has never won any debate wuth a catholic apologist however he does not even consider that perhaps he might be wrong!!! An evil spirit has blinded him!!!!

[@kevinmurray8302]

His name literally means Rock... Why can't protestants accept that Jesus likes puns haha.

[@Madman-2023]

4:00 which early church fathers did not recognized Peter as the Head of the Church after Jesus's ascension? 5:10 Dr. James white is pulling a statement out of his rearend. He doubts Pope Francis believes that Peter was elected as supreme authority over the other Apostles

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Here's a challenge for you- name even one before 250AD who did - with references to where they said so.

[@DD-bx8rb]

I am glad when Protestants mention the Bereans. The fact that the Bereans searched the Scriptures (OT) is NOT a proof-text for their Bible-alone practice, and is instead the opposite. Yes certainly, the Bereans searched the Scriptures (a very worthy practice indeed!). But look what they did NEXT. Unlike the Thessalonians who stuck to their "Bible-alone", the Bereans did the OPPOSITE to "Bible-alone". They accepted the Oral teaching of the Church through St Paul IN ADDITION to their Bible, they got baptized, and they submitted to the Church as their Final Authority. The Bereans were the Catholics, because their authority-paradigm was the Catholic paradigm: Written Tradition(Scripture), Oral Tradition, and Church as Final Authority.

[@bridgefin]

Notice there was never a letter from Paul to the Bereans!

[@meganotofthisworld]

What? Reformed don't even display cross and crucifix, but this guy puts it around his neck. 🤪 He likes to look "pontifical" - bizarre beard and the cross. What a hypocrite.

[@billclass5847]

*DID YOU KNOW* If Mary named Yahshua (Jesus), the *proper* name: *"Rock"* , Christ's name would have been *"Cephas"* (John 1:42, 1Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, Gal. 2:9) in the Aramaic and *"Petros"* in the Greek, and "Peter" in the Greek to English. There is only ONE way to Say the *proper* name ROCK and that is CEPHAS in the Aramaic and PETROS in the Greek. If Mary had named Christ "Rock" we would all be calling Christ *"Cephas or Peter"*

[@specialteams28]

Comment section is a digital den of vipers.

[@jimnewl]

It's amusing watching this guy try to denounce the papacy by citing Francis' actions when Francis' actions only confirm the truth of the infallibilty doctrine. The teaching or pronouncement of any pope is only held to be infallible when formally taught with the intention to bind the Church--i.e. "ex cathedra." But this pope has not taught anything formally in that way. Hence, what he has said, insofar as it strays from existing dogma, does not bind the Church nor any believer. What would disprove the doctrine of infallibility would be if he had said these things in the "ex cathedra" way (presuming that, properly understood, they do contradict existing dogma). Then we would have a real problem. Then, the Catholic Church would be exposed as a fraud. But that is not the situation. The situation currently only strengthens the Catholic claim, because, if the pope's pronouncement in this case does contradict dogma, the Holy Spirit is not allowing it to be declared "ex cathedra." IOW, the Church is being protected from officially holding to error precisely as advertised.

[@telabib]

What a load of heretical nonsence.

[@JakesVandenHeever-y8q]

Reseve

[@geoffmead4581]

I can’t stand the way shouts “lies.” How long has this man been resentful? I was a Protestant for years. I love Protestant Churches, Protestant people, Protestant worship, but I’m now Catholic because I believe with every fiber of my being that Catholicism is the fullness of faith and truth in Our Lord Jesus Christ. I’ve listened to him in many debates and 20+ hours of content. He’s wrong.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

So rebut his arguments. _Prove_ them wrong - if you can!

[@Sentinal6405]

James white is a con when he is stumped for an answer in a debate he switches to Greek reciting the football match and score 😂😂

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

@@Sentinal6405 You obviously don't know Koine Greek and use your ignorance as a smokescreen for slander.

[@Sentinal6405]

​​​@@Berean_with_a_BThOf course I don't know Greek are you so ignorant not too see the point I was making he switches to Greek when he can't answer , watch Ferris of " How to be Christian " take his arguments apart ///

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​@@Sentinal6405So, you prefer Ferris's ridiculing caricatures over the substance of White's arguments. And then you add your own lies to the mix. Got it.

[@garystewart9211]

Ave Maria! John 20:20-23 The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” He gave men the authority to forgive sin. Read it for yourself!

[@nightowl7066]

What's your point?

[@kevinschaafsma9711]

The problem I see here with all of Dr White's debates, whether it be against Catholicism or homosexuality, is that he approaches everything from a perspective of sola scriptura. He will argue that the concept of the Pope is not found in scripture therefore it's not Christian. But the concept of sola scriptura only came about as a result ofthe reformation. Church tradition was equally important up to then. But the concept of sola scriptura is a man made thing. There's no evidence that Jesus intended for a big rule book to be produced for how folk must live. There's plenty of evidence too the contrary. The Bible had its place, but it's not everything. Dr White places the Bible as the absolute word of God and that is simply wrong.