The Origins of the Papacy

The Papal monarchy is an institution with ancient roots. Presently the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican City State, prior to the Protestant Reformation, the Papacy was previously the head of the entire Western (Latin) church and ruled directly over a much larger Papal State. Prior to the Eastern Orthodox schism, the Papacy often made good its claim to be the head of the entire Christian world - claims with historic precedents dating back to at least the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Papacy claims roots that go back even further to authority given by the historic Jesus to the historic Peter. John Hamer of Toronto Centre Place will review the basis for these claims and the historical evidence for the earliest Christian communities in Rome.
Save the date and join us live to participate in the discussion and to ask questions to our lecturer during the Q&A.
Browse our catalogue of free lectures at www.centreplace.ca/lectures
Your generous support allows us to offer these lectures at no cost. Please consider a making donation (tax deductible in the US and Canada) at www.centreplace.ca/donate ️
#lecture #cofchrist

[@glenn-younger]

Bookmarking this to watch several times. It contains an abundance of information. Thank you so much for sharing the fruits of your study!

[@BR-ur2gk]

so with you had already bookmarked it for my bed time story - starting now :) know its going to be good

[@LumBo7166]

😆

[@notstayinsdowns]

Too bad he lies about 2 Peter being a copy of Jude as they were preaching the same gospel so of course they would have similar letters. It is an ASSUMPTION to claim 2 Peter wasn't written before his death. Then from this lie he builds other lies to try to discredit the writings. He also uses an unrecognized book to claim the others weren't writing truthfully. This another assumption and relying on the unreliable book. Then Paul studied for three years before he went to Jerusalem to meet those who works he had bee studying. This is the typical twisting of the scriptures atheists do because they have no power under Christianity.

[@LumBo7166]

@@notstayinsdowns I as young person who read the Bible with 66volumes authority of William Seymour. I separated volumes, doubted Jude's authority to be scrip because of his testimony that Enoch was the seventh from Adam making me insane because I counted Cain the elder and Abel the younger as TWO seeds from ADAM. Took twenty years for me to receive revelation of ONE seed CAME from ADAM making JUDE so precious to ME, and opened up what happened after the BETTER RESURRECTed went into the "holy city that can not be hid"

[@notstayinsdowns]

@@LumBo7166 I am not doubting Jude but the assumption that 2 Peter is a copy of Jude is a bogus assumption because they are similar. Well, duh. They are from the same knowledge but not the same authors.

[@GrammarDrops]

What an amazing job! I stumbled on your channel by chance while scrolling down the KZbin timeline. It was very late, though. So, I watched just half of your brilliant presentation yesterday and now I'm watching the second half. Thank you for this real gift. I wish more people in my country could understand spoken English so they could benefit from videos like this. ❤ Sincere greetings all the way from Rio. 🤗

[@robisonlangdon8527]

Love the longer lectures keep them coming

[@petprod]

P6⁶⁶pp 9th 00p

[@latetotheparty4785]

I’ve heard this history as taught by Eastern Orthodox teachers. The narrative is very distinct from this telling. This isn’t a bad telling of history, just a very Rome-centered one. There is another viewpoint valuable to have under your belt.

[@emmanuellorenzodiaz55]

So you get knowldege about papacy from people who don’t believe in the papacy.

[@user-ie8ob6vd8x]

No, you get another perspective which you can accept or reject. @@emmanuellorenzodiaz55

[@WM-ln4dz]

Could you provide a trustworthy reference/source for the Eastern perspective?

[@curtisking5138]

@@WM-ln4dz: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons is a great source of history of the Papacy. The word Pontiff comes from the term Pontifex Maximus which was the title of the head priest of of pagan Rome. The narrative of Peter being the first pope in not consistent with the fact that Peter was Jewish, not christian or catholic.

[@NuisanceMan]

@@emmanuellorenzodiaz55 What's wrong with that?

[@KathrynJoyTCSuccess]

Thank you again for an amazing lecture. Having listened to a number of previous ones, I was able to follow without having to go back too many times. I agree with those who say your non-judgmental delivery makes it more believable. 😮 No agenda to try and discern.

[@hamnchee]

Always makes my night to see a new lecture from you guys!

[@nosuchthing8]

Buuuyah

[@SecondTake123]

Mines too!

[@jonathanjeffreys3007]

I love your fluid, informal style. It clearly masks your deeply informed, scholarly and enviably erudite knowledge of your subject. I do like accuracy! I was hooked from the word "go".

[@justinkennedy3004]

Timestamp of "go"?

[@sallymcmurray949]

You should do a video of all the symbolism of the Catholic church. I think that would be really interesting! Thanks.

[@richardnicklin654]

Thoroughly enjoyed this one.

[@helenamcginty4920]

Very interesting. I loved the historical back and forth. Like a well crafted detective novel.

[@JonoPaltin]

I really liked this lecturer. Excellent video with relevant supplemental information.

[@user-zc5oj3pn8k]

Loved your lecture. Totally subscribbing. Looking forward to new videos.

[@MrSteventodd]

If only all content on the internet was this good

[@LouisePowles]

This is a fascinating insight into the Papacy and I learned so much. Thankyou!

[@centre-place]

It's truly rewarding to receive such positive feedback!

[@ronaldmatthews4701]

Satan has always had to have an Antichrist in the wings for a moment that no one is allowed to know. Christians are expected to know the season. WE ARE THERE!!! Maranatha!

[@pamtaheem12]

Thank you so much for educating us about the papacy.🙏

[@johnschuh8616]

The Avignon popes got most of their funding from a system of international “taxation” rather from indulgences. One reason for the Schisms was that so much money went from the Latin principalities to a French City. Hence the desire to get the pope to return to Rome. That and the need to restore order to the papal states.

[@mdleweight]

There is a tomb beneath the altar at St. Peters. It is part of a grouping of mausoleums that occupied Vatican Hill before the church was built. It was excavated (the "scavi") prior to WWII. I saw the tomb for myself, back when the Vatican used to do underground tours. They found nothing in the tomb that definitively linked this tomb with St. Peter. The only human remains in the tomb were the bones of a single hand, and those were hidden behind a stone in one of the tomb's walls. The bones were consistent with being dated to around St. Peter's time but that is the scant evidence to whose tomb this may be.

[@jacobprasch8236]

This is correct.

[@9and7]

Probably destroyed in the demolition like the rest of them. Or the dig in 1951 is the one or, they'll never actually find them considering how many Christians were killed on the site.

[@sallymcmurray949]

Did you get to see the throne of Satan too?

[@9and7]

@@sallymcmurray949 wow you're so cool

[@cheaptrickfanatic3496]

Just stumbled on the channel. Excellent work. Subscribed.

[@VSP4591]

Excellent presentation. Congratulation!!!

[@chameleontoo]

Great Job! Loved it.

[@mortalclown3812]

Wow, what a chill dude - brilliant and humble, a very rare combo. What a depressing topic. Men and their silly rules. Christ loves us all...8 billion of us. God has no favorites. He doesn't damn, either. Imagine that and run with it. Love to all. Paz y luz.

[@foreversurf1ngthenet]

MortalClown you are so right... imagination is all that's required to be a mortal clown

[@RoseSharon7777]

If he doesn't have favorites then there would be predestined elect. And if he loved everyone then no one would go to hell. God love bed Jacob and Esau he HATED. I think you might want to re read the bible.

[@sunnyjohnson992]

The Encyclopedia of Religion concedes that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.”

[@AwakeAtTheWheel]

Great work

[@GodsLioness]

Good Listening Thank You😊😊😊 Blessings 🕊️

[@veramartins2702]

What a wonderful lecture...thanks a lot.

[@robertwood9984]

Wow, such great amount of study. What a develped mind 👍

[@knightrider585]

There were up to three popes at the same time in the past.

[@nosuchthing8]

The more the merrier

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

Very informative, thanks.

[@Marcissus]

Hey, I have a genuine question. You mentioned that if the tradition of Peter being crucified was early, it probably would’ve been written in the Gospels or whatever. But I think that there actually is a point where Jesus says something along the lines of “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands and be carried to a place where you will not want to go”

[@tbone7193]

Great lecture as always. Topic ideas: Zoroastrianism, ....Historical Siblings of Jesus, ...Languages the time of Jesus and how translations affected the Bible's evolution, ....Names in the Bible (Mark , Peter, James, etc): are they original Aramaic or translations?

[@ryanrevland4333]

It's nice to see that the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism is finally in the conversation. Christianity owes so much to this ancient religion.

[@Jordan-th3pr]

Well the bible was first in greek and when Jerome made his translation into the Latin, he made (Petros) into latin being Petri, then finally in english this would be Peter. Just like how Yeshua is Jesus' name in hebrew and then in greek it is Iēsous but in the early latin translation it turned into Iesus and then Jesus

[@onlylove556]

Simon /Peter was the only apostle that officially got his name changed, the one who had a nickname was St. John the Beloved, but Simon literally got his name changed to Cephas =John 1:42. I don't know any church fathers that says Peter was just a nickname

[@rbnmnt3341]

Ok, and so how many of the OT got their name changed ? What is the significance of that? I know, the Catholic response is it means nothing. How many disciples is there prophecy about in the OT? So you're saying that Saul of Tarsus didn't get his name changed to Paul? Finally who is the ONLY disciple that Jesus called the greatest? You should know if you read scripture. If you don't know, you are listening to rome.

[@onlylove556]

@@rbnmnt3341 You're attacking straw man my friend. And please don't say I don't know the bible & insult me. Bc I don't read on my own, & just come up with my own personal interpretation. I read the Bible with history 2gether, & from men who knew the apostles themselves, & what was taught in Christianity throughout antiquity, & through ancient Scholars who are a lot smarter than both of us. Bc u must remember Jesus spoke Aramaic, & John 1:42 happened b4 Matthew 16:28. Jesus names Simon Cephas from the very beginning. Matthew 16:18 was not the 1st time. 1.) Yes' Simon who is now Peter/Cephas was the only one in the NT that had their name changed. Soul's middle name was Paul from birth, that's not a brand new name my friend. And Everybody else in the NT just had nicknames. So calling someone by their middle name that they were born with, doesn't mean their name was completely changed to something diff. So it wasn't a significance in the NT for St. Paul, that's apples & oranges in comparison to St. Peter who completely got a huge role. St. Peter Always who was always named 1st throughout the NT, while Judas was always named last. Can't be a coincidence. 2.) Everyone in the OT who had their name changed meant a huge significance in each Covenant. So thank u for seeing that whole point. But now u have to see that u just can't ignore the only man in the NT, who got his name changed in the New Covenant, & not mean something huge behind it for the future of the church of Christ. 3.) So It's prots who have to ask themselves why? Since everyone's named changed in the OT meant something huge, something Monumental in the OT. Then the NT comes along & it just doesn't mean nothing anymore to Prots. To see that Simon is the only one who got their name changed in the NT, when it was such a huge deal in the OT. But now the only one man who gets his named changed in the NT, & now it's no big deal to prots. When it was huge per each Covenant throughout the OT for every man that did. Prots need to see this is the very last Covenant of Jesus himself, & Simon was the only man who gets his name changed to "ROCK". So U guys just cant keep ignoring it like it's no big deal anymore. So why?

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@onlylove556 you Catholics make such a big deal about Peter being named first. The bible never days anything about Peter having supremacy about anything. The bible Cleary says that Christ is the rock. The church didn't give itself sole authority to interpret scripture for nothing. Matthew being one of the good examples why. You apparently Haven't read the bible as you say. Or you avoid Those that refute you church's false teachings. Have you ever read 2 Corinthians 10:4? Tell me what this means. It says in part, "for they all drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST." Did I miss where that says Peter? Only two more, I could give you many more. Tell from the OT. And using your argument that Matthew was before John. These two are in the OT. That is before Matthew right? So, the first is 1 Samuel 2:2, "there is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there ANY ROCK like our God." Again, did I miss Peter's name? One more. Isaiah 44:8, that reads in part, "do not tremble; do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago? You are my witnesses--is there any other God? No! There is NO OTHER ROCK-- NOT ONE!" So did I miss where it says Peter or did the church change Peter's name again? Now about Peter's supremacy. First, is there any prophecy about Peter in the OT? that would be pretty significant don't you think? Well there is about John the Baptist. About his birth, the one who would prepare the way of the LORD. If that had been about Peter, we'd never hear the end of it. But it wasn't so it doesn't draw any attention from Rome. Now has Jesus ever openly said that Peter was the greatest? The only one that he did say that about was not Peter but John. In Matthew 11, and that was before Matthew 16 right? JESUS, yes JESUS said this. "Verily, I say unto you, of them that are born of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Next point. Why would Peter involve himself in a strife as described in Luke 22? I'm sure you know every scripture and every account I mention. Right. I mean you not only have read about it but you have connection with the scholars who personally knew the apostles. Truly impressive. Never heard that from ANY Catholic. I'll repeat it for you. The strife was about who should be the greatest among them. Matthew 11 was before 16 too. Right? Anyway, I thought Peter was the pope? If he was, why did he settle the strife? Or didn't The other apostles know he was the pope? Better yet. Did Jesus stand up and defend "his" pope? Jesus did no such thing. So apparently he was the pope Jesus appointed. Not that he ever did, but that's your argument for Peter. Besides Jesus himself had already declared who the greatest was, and it wasn't Peter. How much more supreme can you get than that? Being the greatest in the eyes of Jesus. Of course Catholics will find a way to downplay it and elevate Peter. Lastly, was Peter's birth miraculous like that of Jesus? You know the angel also visited John's mother? Did some angel visit Peter's mom? I don't think so. So this is only to prove that there was no supremacy with Peter. If any it should be with John. Afterall, it was John who Jesus openly said he loved. So your dilemma is to believe the bible and God, Or... Believe man and Rome. Or believe hell or heaven.

[@Criticalthink21st]

@@rbnmnt3341You could not have made a better argument to dismiss the sad, harmful effects of quasi Christian Protestant positions.

[@andrewsparkinson1566]

Very interesting history lesson thank you.

[@paulleverton9569]

One of my ancestors did the catering for the Council of Nicaea. We're still waiting for the Papacy to pay off the outstanding bill.

[@Aaqe]

@CipiRipi00 That was paid by the Jews for 30 pieces of silver.

[@diansc7322]

St Silvester of Rome didn't even go to that council(?

[@old_45]

You should send your bill to the Roman Emperor at Constantinople. He organized the event. The Papacy only sent a token representation.

[@Aaqe]

@@old_45 Are you expecting Erdogan to pay?

[@old_45]

​@@Aaqe No, but in all honesty he should. His government is the direct successor of Constantine.

[@rafaeldelaflor]

Lot of history. Thank you for sharing your research

[@rbnmnt3341]

Great history. Too bad it was all church history. Probably because there is no biblical history about the papacy. Good job of inventing and deceiving. God will surely reward you. Gotta keep doing those works so you can work your way to heaven. Oh wait, you gotta make a stop in Disneyland, Otherwise known as purgatory to Catholics

[@annvroom5539]

Ths for this very thoughtful presentation - I'm a practicing Roman Catholic so some of my "takes" on the content is somewhat or considerably different - as you say, we are indeed a "very big tent church", lol - but nonetheless, found your insights to be well-founded, of interest, and beautifully crafted qua presentation style - thank you for your work! :-)

[@edwardTisk-ix8nj]

Good content. Thx

[@raulsanchez9795]

great video.

[@helenamcginty4920]

I grew up when the Catholic services were in Latin and was taught that a lot of the trappings, like papal hat and vestments, originated in Roman religious practices. Never questioned it though.

[@LuzianJ]

The vestments are basically what any average person of the time would wear not necessarily anything related to religious practices. Furthermore, they are a unique combination of Jewish and Roman clothing each having a theological meaning behind it. I think Catholic Talk Show did a breakdown of it.

[@aeneaslime2968]

Excellent job

[@Narwhy]

Very interesting. So Catholism began really at the time that Constantine embraced Christianity? Not Peter? Peter is only included because he was the preacher and one of the many Christians at the time but in truth, was not Catholic at all? So in reality, its not 2000 years old it began with Constantine who intertwined paganism with Christianity in 325, making it approximately 1600 years old. 2 Timothy 4: 3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

[@MultipleGrievance]

Correct. Peter was deigned the first pope post hoc. A great deal of christianity from a catholic point of view Was invented after power was concentrated.

[@Aikicyoaz]

There were 30 popes prior to Constantine was even born. Idk what people are talking about

[@thedude4594]

James was in charge of the original church but Romans discard this in the route to Rome. If Jesus gave the so-called keys to Peter, why was James in charge until his death? James actually the first popo.

[@stephenargent4010]

@Jet Tison read the Acts of the Apostles- the writer confirms James led the church in Jerusalem

[@stephenargent4010]

@Jet Tison backtracking? Both Paul and Peter acknowledged the authority of James….again read Acts

[@lufknuht5960]

you haven't got any proof that one man was ever in charge of the Church in Jerusalem in 1st century.

[@bear7098]

Question for Christians who accept the Bible as authoritative: Why was Judas' position among the 12 replaced by the remaining 11 but they chose not to replace James Son of Zebedee?

[@dynamic9016]

Quite interesting information.

[@pasnthru7x3]

More interesting information ~ I think the popes anhd Jesuits hid this ~ it seems Christians are afraid of the Gospel ~the Love of God ~the Faith OF Jesus 1Tim4:10 ~...Savior of ALL men ,SPECIALLY those that believe. [*SPECIALLY*] Better if one believes~trust our FATHER, SAVIOR ~as Jesus did "faith of Jesus" 1Cor.15:22 ~ As in Adam "ALL" die even so in Christ shall "ALL" be made alive. 1Tim.2:3-4 ~ God our Savior, who will have "ALL" men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. John 17:2 ~ As thou hast given him power over "ALL" flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. (Jesus is given ALL) Luke 23:34 ~ Then said Jesus, Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Col.1:20 ~...by him [Jesus] to reconcile "ALL" things unto himself... Rom.5:18 ~ Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon "ALL" men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon "ALL" men unto justification of life. 1Tim.4:10 ~...Trust in the living God, Who is the Savior of "ALL" men specially those that believe. [*Specially*] 2Cor.5:18-21,Eph.1:9-10, Col. 1:18-20, Isa.19, 1John2:1-2, and others~ Eternal and everlasting appear 65ish times in the NT ~Only twice does it exclusively mean eternal Rom.1:20 "eternal power and Godhead", and Jude 6 "everlasting chains". The rest of the times it goes to eon and age, ages and ages in Strongs Concordance. Many of God's punishments are remedial(to remedy) ~given over to Satan so the flesh may be destroyed that the spirit saved. Smite them to heal them. The fire of God is also often referred to as purifying. Why is this so rarely mentioned or pointed out? "ALL" is easily defined ~It has to be more then a mis-translation, or misunderstanding. Are we supposed to ignore these clear statements of hope & encouragement. regardless of your belief ~few are absolutely positive ~so this is at the least ~a tiny bit of condemnation and negativity removed. The love of God constrainteth us ~ Possibly a lie we are being told so "They"[maybe Satan],can retain power, and to keep us unsure, divided, fearful, and thus obediently following. Kept Ultimately Lost. Honestly think about it... Something is off with much of what many teach ... Also consider this~ 1Cor 4:7...what do you have that you did not receive...[God made us]~ Phil.2:13 For it is God that works in you both to will(want) and to do(preform)of his good pleasure. Heb.10:36 ...need patience....after you have done the will of God, [

[@mirando100]

THANK YOU,,,,INDEED, SUPER EXCELLENT PRESENTATION

[@nayrtnartsipacify]

this is great work

[@namekal6000]

I would say that one of the most powerful instances where the Criterion of Embarrassment is helpful is in the historicity of the crucifixion itself. In the Roman era it was the most shameful way for anyone to die, reserved only for the lowest of criminals. Any source that says Jesus was crucified is therefore less likely to have been falsified deliberately.

[@scott6828]

@namekal are you saying Jesus wasn't crucified?

[@host_theghost507]

@@scott6828 No, I'm saying that he was crucified. In those days crucifixion was considered a shameful way to die, so it's not something his disciples would have been likely to invent. The earliest depiction of the crucifixion, the Alexamenos Graffito, was intended as an insult-it showed a donkey being crucified with an inscription reading, "Alexamanos worships his god." Early Christians had to suffer a lot of ridicule for worshipping a crucified savior. They wouldn't have talked about the crucifixion if it wasn't true.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

That still doesn't prove that someone has a magical invisible friend, or that the specific version that they _think_ exists, actually exists, or that the specific version, unstanding or interpretations are correct, in a divided religion that can't even agree with itself...

[@host_theghost507]

​@@evangelicalsnever-lie9792 It doesn't prove that Jesus was magic, but that wasn't my point (for the record, I'm an atheist and don't believe that Jesus was magic). It simply reduces the likelihood that Jesus's followers were lying about the Crucifixion, since admitting to this would-and did-open them to ridicule.

[@jacobwilbers9852]

@@host_theghost507 not when jesus suffering is the core of the theology if he died for all sins it stands to reason that they would claim he died in the most painful way they knew of.

[@blake121666]

At 29 minute mark you confused the Normans with the Franks. It was in fact the Normans who took over today's southern Italy and Sicily.

[@pavlvs6580]

The man blessing the coffin of Benedict XVI shown at the beginnig was not Francis but one of the cardinals. The church in England was well established before the coming of Augustine. It was an independent church body.

[@rocktapperrobin9372]

Hardly. England did not exist in Augustine’s time. His mission was to the kingdom of Kent, which, like all Saxon and Anglian staes was pagan, despite the king’s wife being a Christian from the Frankish state in modern day France. You are probably thinking of the Celtic Church which survived in the British Isles in the West and had a continuous history from late Ronan times and sent missions to Ireland which in turn sent missionaries to the Pictish kingdom in modern day Scotland. Their practices diverged from Rome, especially over the calculation of he date of Easter. See the Synod of Whitby. To the present day the Welsh and the Scots do not identify as English.

[@Varangian777]

@@rocktapperrobin9372yeah, it’s almost like there was an independent church body in England before the Romans decided to take it over

[@johnsonhunglo1993]

I really enjoy your lectures. I am particularly interested in 'Papacy'. My question is, who was the first Pope, without all of the extra-explanations? As I understand it, there is little to no proof that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul never mentions him, he never mentions Paul either. And if Peter was in Rome to whom was he preaching? Why did Rome become the seat of Christianity, rather than the Church of Jerusalem?

[@samanthasammy5983]

Exactly

[@charlissmurph2129]

Good question

[@LuzianJ]

Because Peter's successors were in Rome. Therefore the seat of Peter came to be in Rome.

[@drstewart]

Reading early Church fathers answers these questions quite well. Peter was always regarded as head of the Church due to Matthew 16:18. As such, his see or place of ministry, was seen as where the authority ultimately resided. The faith was taught in both writing and tradition, as stated biblically. Lack of a written, explicit mention doesn't invalidate. The dual conveyances of the faith, along with John 21:25 answer the "Where is that in the bible?" question. The place of Peter's martyrdom isn't a modern, or ancient, invention. Simply, it is what happened. Paul definitely mentions Peter in Galatians. As Peter mentions Paul and his teachings in 2 Peter.

[@stevenleslie8557]

Linus was the first Pope, but we don't even know if he even existed and if he did there is precious little information about him, or how he was chosen, if he was chosen at all.

[@clintsequipment]

It was in 533 A. D. that Justinian addressed the pope as being "the head of all the churches… the Goths remained past 538 but only to decline.

[@stevenwebbjrhistory]

Good video

[@paulmualdeave5063]

The keys to the kingdom in the New Testament is also based on Isaiah 20:20-22, 22 being, "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.'" This example is in the Hebrew monarchy. We see it in Egypt's with Joseph, son of Jacob, who was sold by his brothers into slavery. He interpreted a Pharaoh's dream and was put into this position, basically in charge of the kingdom for the king. In the book of Ester, Mordecai shows this position in the Babylonian empire. In fiction, we see it in the Hand of the King and in John's Snow's role as Steward (for the Black). This position is also called Steward.

[@studio107bgallery4]

There’s always got to be the king, with pomp, and circumstance. But we know there’s only one king, Lord Jesus Christ.

[@TheCoachsCoach933]

You are correct and the Pope is the king’s “Al Habayit”. It’s hebrew. Look it up. The Pope is not a king.

[@johnschuh8616]

Regarding the authority of the Roman Church, should have mentioned that Peter and Paul each died in the city, martyrs to the Faith. That in the 2nd centuries, after Jerusalem was paganized, their shrines became places of pilgrimage. Even the creation of Jerusalem by Constantine as a Christian city and again a place of pilgrimage ended with the seizure of the City by the Muslims in the 630s. Pilgrimages to the holy sites in Jerusalem continued but only by permission of the Muslims, who adopted the city as one of their holy places.

[@stephenargent4010]

And your evidence that Peter and Paul died in Rome? Only tradition suggests that is true.

[@katefloss973]

Amazing

[@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh]

I feel sad that so many stories and traditions about Peter connect him to Rome and there is no reason to believe that he ever visited Rome. As a protestant, im interested in how the government by bishops and the primacy of Romes bishop happened.

[@holmavik6756]

Exactly, and even if he did visit Rome the congregation there was still founded by st Paul, perhaps even by someone before him.

[@USA50_]

Great video ❤👍🇺🇸😇

[@LuzianJ]

Archbishops are not a rank above bishops. He's just a bishop of an important historical diocese. Also, I couldn't find any sources on Constantine creating a hierarchy of bishops. The concept of metropolitan bishops existed before Constantine. It only affirmed their role.

[@lufknuht5960]

There is no monarchal (one man over a city) bishop in the Bible,though Diotrephes may have tried (3 John).

[@laszlonemet4425]

This becomes That, but how and why? How a fantasy becomes Power? What you get to Hear in "THEOLOGY"? T(h)ebarz Van Elst?

[@andrewr1065]

Thank you for the great lectures, just a slight correction the current pope is Tawadros. Pope Shenouda passed in 2011

[@vathakatens]

What about the Church at Antioch ?

[@AnnaSibirskaja]

Why would you use "Byzantium"? It's no longer mid-19th century.

[@pwood5733]

Just what i need for my after diner nap

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The Book of Romans was written before the Epistle of James because Paul asserts Genesis 15:6 as the cornerstone of his gospel. The second chapter of James was written to refute Paul's theology. So Romans precedes James in chronology.

[@TheManCaveYTChannel]

If there are 5 patriarchates, 4 are in communion and 1 is not (bishop of Rome), it would be more correct to say that the pope fell out of communion with the east….not the other way around as you stated in your video.

[@jacknicholasny]

That s not Francis in the funeral image!

[@fritula6200]

What did the Council of Nicaea do for Catholicism? The Council was called in large part to address Arianism: Arianism was the false teachings of the Bishop Arius of Alexandria that Jesus was not divine, but a created being. The council of Nicaea affirmed Christ being of both divine and human nature, as the result, the Nicene Creed was created, AND is recited in ALL ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES every Sunday at Holy Mass:

[@panninggazz5244]

Thank you!

[@jefftaves4003]

Good evening, Mr. Hamer. I continually view all of your lectures. Thank you. One general question / topic I'm interested in is how / why traditional scholarship seems to argue that Western culture begins in Greece, when there are obvious roots from Egypt and Persia beforehand, symbolism like the Virgin birth even stemming from Hindu mythology. Also, I'm certain I cannot be the first to suggest your resemblance to the great Geddy Lee. Thanks again for your work.

[@alanpennie8013]

I think it's because so many ideas were mediated through The Greeks (and later The Arabs). Greek or Arabic tends to provide the basis for our technical/scientific language.

[@rocktapperrobin9372]

@@alanpennie8013 Also until the late 19th and 20th centuries very little was known about the Egyptian and Babylonian contribution. This came with the decipherment of the texts

[@dr.umarjohnson2453]

Ap. Peters adherence is in the traching not the chair

[@marycahill546]

Looking forward to the Didache.

[@SecretsOfScripture]

🙏 Lord, surround my family with your divine protection. May you unmask any hidden enemies disguised as friends and shield us from every spiritual attack from the evil one. 🛡 Thank you for being our fortress.

[@jonwheel3216]

😅😅😅😅😅

[@smroog]

Why is James, the Brother of the Lord and head of the Jerusalem Church, not on the list of Popes ???

[@srich7503]

He wasnt chosen to be by the others. There could be many reasons.

[@alexanderrigby6917]

Technically speaking the Pope was a position which took the name from the Ceasar's, Pontifus Maximus. Having it beginnings in Rome. Papal Rome rose from the ashes of pagan Rome. The pope has title vicar of Christ. Vicarious Filei Dei. Claiming erroneously that he is God on earth. Furthermore, the Catholic church boast that Peter was the first so- called Pope based on the verse mentioned by Yahshua ' on this rock l will build my church' however, the truth of the matter is that Yahshua ( Jesus) is the head of the church. Not to mention that the doctrine of the Catholic church opposes the word of God and is not Biblical. And you would find that its authority is not of God. The woman that rides the beast comes to mind. Read Revelation 17. MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT. In regard to James, he was in Jerusalem, the title of Pope wasn't used until the 3rd century in Rome. The term is political office also. Catholicism is the instigator of the dark ages and led to the movement of the reformation. HalleluYah.

[@srich7503]

@@alexanderrigby6917 If the Catholic church “opposes the word of God and is not Biblical” then you have much explaining to do… 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?

[@alexanderrigby6917]

@@srich7503 Firstly, let us remember the words of Jesus Christ..Yahshua Messiah who states; John 6:63 lt is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that l speak to you are spirit, and they are life. In John 5:37 Yahshua says; And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. You boast and gloat in regard to the Scriptures and make claims that it was the work of man, namely the catholic church. You are mistaken. Please remember that God rose up Babylon to achieve His purpose and surely God's permissive will is at work. Matthew 24:13-14 But he who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matt 7:21 the words of Jesus Christ; Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then l will declare to them, l never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! ( What is lawlessness? ) Peter writes in his first letter Chapter 1:9-12 Receiving the end of your faith--The salvation of your souls. Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you. Searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--- things which angels desire to look at...(meaning this is the hand of God working!) 11Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ..Yahshua Messiah.. What commandments?? Come, l will show you the judgement of the great harlot who sits on many waters. With whom the kings 9f the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication. Revelation 17:3-6 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And l saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of the names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornications. And onnher forehead a name was written: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when l saw her l marveled with great amazement. Who is the woman sitting on the beast? Let us humbly request a spirit of descernment and ask for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, for the LORD Himself, gives wisdom, and from His mouth comes knowledge, and understanding. HalleluYah.

[@smroog]

@@alexanderrigby6917 Very well put. Just another way the church has twisted everything to control. Thank you

[@midnightwatchman1]

There is always going to be conflict between scholars that actually believe in the gospels and scholars who do not. The assumptions on what is possible will be very different.

[@mervinjumawan6784]

Is Pope or Papacy Biblical for a Christian Faith?

[@RoseSharon7777]

The beast of Revelation.

[@giovanni545]

Revelation 14:12 King James Version 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

There is no indication that the Book of Romans is Paul's final letter. In fact, His letter to Timothy talks about about an event that happened to him in Rome. Paul had not yet been to Rome when the letter to the Romans was written. 2 Tim. 1:17 - But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. But, of course, the woke cancel culture "scholars" would have us believe that Paul never wrote the Pastoral Epistles because they contain things like the structure of the church and the divinity of Christ. The Gnostics will not have the latter and the Papists will not have the former. Cancel culture is alive and well among "well trained scholars". Well trained in what?

[@MatthewQuigley]

1st Clement actually prooves Peter not being bishop of Rome by not mentioning him except for a very dubious paragraph which claims to know about Peter´s death but giving no details at all. Also Luke´s Acts of the Apostles doesn´t mention anything about Peter travelling to Rome, which should be known at the time of the writing.

[@MatthewQuigley]

@Jet Tison Which is a forgery, not written by Paul.

[@stephenargent4010]

@@MatthewQuigley forgery’ is a little extreme but absolutely right 2Tim not written by Paul himself though possibly by his later followers

[@Flapperjaw]

Yes, you are right , it would have been known , and therefore not needed to be mentioned for your benefit 2 thousand years later to try to settle an arguement

[@LuzianJ]

Pope Clement disciplines a church in Corinth (Greece). It seems he thinks he has authority over other churches. Perhaps it was simply a lived reality and therefore no need to be mentioned. Furthermore, Peter didn't have to be in Rome to appoint his successors who would later be bishops of Rome and by virtue of apostolic succession his successors would inherit the entire office. There is certainly some basis for the office of the papacy. The only good argument is that it's not very explicit.

[@john318john]

​@@LuzianJWhat happened to the churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, Galatia, and others. Were they pope, pastors or overseers. There are no scriptures to back up the idea that Peter appointed anyone as a successor.

[@clintsequipment]

So Paul’s full of it???🤔 Three days later he called together the local Jewish leaders. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans.

[@KeepingWatch95]

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

[@dorasmith7875]

I just learned everything on earth except how did the office of the papacy originate.

[@YSLRD]

Learned is a stretch

[@James-ll3jb]

Try Matthew 16

[@eodiete]

Listening might be a good tactic

[@baarbacoa]

I think he captured it. If I understood correctly, the position evolved into being as a logical progression from previous organizations structures. The church grew, and perceived needs drove that change. And it continued to evolve over time into what it is today.

[@dairyqueue]

15:12

[@nbenefiel]

The papacy began when Jesus told Simon, “thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. Which is why the papacy has survived for over 2000 years despite the Borgias.

[@lufknuht5960]

mat 16 does not have any word pope, nor does it say that the Church was built on some office called Peter. Peter there is one man. The Church is built on the Lord Jesus. Peter is petros, the rock is petra, not the same word, but even if it were, there is no Church office of Peter there; just Peter. There is no hint of any successors to Peter in some special office.

[@DavidBall67]

Pope was a title of a Roman high priest of the college of pontiffs circa 300 bc

[@nicoladibara1936]

It is EXTREMELY interesting to read Revelation, Chapter 17, keeping in mind a well-known FACT that in Bible symbology a “woman” represents a “church. The very last sentence of that chapter is very revealing. Very, very, very interesting.

[@helenr4300]

the church is referred to as a bride, but not used for women in general. Likewise the church is referred to as Christ's body, and compared to the human body - but not all human bodies are the church. Revelation is a coded response to the Roman empire of the Biblical times, not written for end times predictions

[@nicoladibara1936]

@@helenr4300 I disagree. Judging by your response, you must be a Roman Catholic.

[@helenr4300]

@@nicoladibara1936 nope. Not catholic, just interested in the history and writings of the Bible I noticed the anti Catholic sentiment of your post and your response shows a narrow view that any who disagree with you must be Catholic. Life isn't binary like that. Lots of people have a whole range of views. Surprise, lots of Christians have different views. And before you dismiss them as 'not really Christian' look at see how many 'Bible believing' evangelicals hold different views, especially on Revelation. Pre or post trib? How many different antichrists have been identified over centuries? How much time wasted on trying to use a past story to worry about some precise details of the end times, building fear and prejudice when Jesus taught that noone knows the time and rather taught to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, care for the sick matt 25 among many others. Meanwhile you make a sweeping statement that in symbology woman always means church with zero evidence. All you have is someone's preaching, show me where a woman = church except for the single case of the bride, which as I pointed out does not include or refer to all women. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I encourage you to think it through not just repeat a story you are told. The Bible urges us to test everything.

[@nicoladibara1936]

@@helenr4300 I see. So my assumption was wrong.

[@vavjak]

17 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. 2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.” 3 Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery: babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. 6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. 7 Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come. 9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. 12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings-and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” 15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

[@LuzianJ]

The Primacy of Peter was quite clear by the early 2nd century. What Primacy actually means is a matter of debate but it's likely the Church was decentralized in the early years to withstand persecution. As the persecution ended a need for central authority became more evident and logical to combat heresies and for the sake of unity. I think the Catholic doctrine leaves enough room for such notions.

[@charlissmurph2129]

Love your lectures, do you think it could have been Simon Magus who made himself out to be Simon Peter, since they did not know where Simon Peter went, and the Popes did not know otherwise, I really really think it was Simon Magus the Sorcerer in Acts, that was the 1st Pope portraying himself to be Simon Peter, as he portrayed himself to be some great one in Samaria.

[@mirando100]

I have heard about the theory, do you have some source to inquire more in depth?

[@christineyates6646]

Simon attempted to buy the power Peter portrayed and I , too was taught that Simon was the originator of catholicism.

[@CraigGoldsberry-vx7re]

No.....the devil is creator of the Catholic church..... Constantine started to replace christianity with false religion and keep Rome in power

[@crazycutz8072]

Simon Magus got killed.. and his name was different than the other Simon

[@charlissmurph2129]

I was looking up something about Emperor Nero when I read that, Simon Magus also had influence over him, they were both slaughtering the Church, and the Catholic Church nearly succeded in wiping them all out, but they could no do it, not then, and not now, thank God.@@mirando100

[@user-xk5fq1mi8j]

14.46 Augustine did not found the Church OF England. The church of England was founded by Henry 8th and his reforming clergy. The Christian church IN England was already around by imports from Ireland before Augustine came to support the western versions of Christianity.

[@charliepiston3169]

The Flavian Dynasty and axis forces -- the Piso, the Herods, and the Alexanders.

[@danieljohnmorris]

By the way your vatican flag is wrong. The base of the crown is white not red. The version with red stemmed from a mistake that has been shared online

[@KaadlawonDAlba]

If not paul or peter found the christian community in rome who found it?

[@johnbrowne2170]

Paul mentions several people in Rome but never Peter. That's because Peter was never in Rome.

[@KaadlawonDAlba]

@@johnbrowne2170 never been?

[@LuzianJ]

Peter's successor was Roman. According to tradition, Peter died in Rome but that is not really that important. What matters is that he appointed his successor who then became the bishop of Rome. So by virtue of apostolic succession, his whole office was passed on to his successor.

[@christtoday9136]

- Very interesting on the history of the papacy after Clement, however, I would take issue on the non-authorship of certain letters/ gospels and the dating you ascribe to the Bible - all being post-70AD, which is problematic given also that no New Testament mentions the clearly verifiable destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. (On your argument, the claim that 'Peter was supposedly the first bishop of Rome must be false' because supposedly later texts don't mention it would deny the destruction of Jerusalem too, whereas it is more likely that the dates of the letters were pre-70, indeed all written by AD68. This, still, of course, doesn't mean Peter was first bishop of Rome but it dismisses your argument for saying he wasn't). - Another comment below mentions source Q - the case against the Aramaic/ Hebrew primacy of Matthew is by no means proved. Matthew was a tax collector and would have been competent in Aramaic and Greek and could easily have authored both. - Also Jerome's argument against Peter being the author 'in Greek' of the two letters that bear Peter's name does not deny he is nonetheless the inspired verbal author who could still have used two different scribes. Again, the case against the integrity of theology between both letters and with the rest of the New Testament is by no means proven (and many authors who are strong in textual criticism would hold to this integrity). Furthermore, there are 'divine fingerprints' in the letters (of which the authors would be unaware and extremely unlikely to have contrived; indeed anachronistic to suggest they would ) and these are evidenced in various numerics of words used, which is even today a biblical discipline in its infancy, testifying (/proving) a divine authorship over and above (and through) human authorship by which textual criticism itself is greatly aided. - Finally, your argument that Paul contradicts the gospel on the first witness of the resurrection presumes Paul means absolute first, which is not the point that Paul is making, but 'first among the apostles' followed by a whole host of many other witnesses without needing to deny Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene.

[@gailhenderson7149]

Peter in Greek means pebble.. It's what Peter said, "That you are the Christ" is what Jesus was going to build his church on.. Jesus was the rock 🪨 not Peter.. Matt 16:13-16 Matt 16:18 It's not true what the RCC is preaching.

[@ejenkins4711]

Thats not what i was informed. I herd it had to be done like that because of an ancient clause of some sort. But i could be wrong

[@dawnnichols7742]

Find it here

[@ekimstrongcup6029]

It’s Matt 16:15-19 I don’t think JESUS was referring to Peter being that Rock, or THE ROCK., but the verse preceding says “ it was the FATHER in HEAVEN that allowed him to understand…this Revelation, and that “THIS ROCK” Speaking of ALMIGHTY GOD” He would build his Church. I agree he thus gave Peter certain KEYS to the kingdom. KEYS I assume all have, but PETER bring a Diciple. and teacher.

[@koppite9600]

Those keys are of what importance?

[@namekal6000]

Popes actually do have coronations. The last pope to be crowned with the triple tiara was Paul VI.

[@danielpaulson8838]

If one wanted to see true origins of the Papacy, which is religion evolving with humanity, start with Gilgamesh and then the Enuma Elish, creation myth from Babylonia. Genesis was framed on the same monomyth template and everything else Abrahamic is descended from there. They're all different Arks.

[@Biblical_Mystery]

Praying that every step in your life is acknowledged by God, and His light illuminates the path you walk.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The Apostle Paul, in his pastoral epistles, talks about appointing bishops (plural) in every church. The tradition of appointing multiple churches to a single bishop is topsy-turvy Christianity. Satan does whatever he can to spoil the church.