Four Witnesses Brought Me Home - Rod Bennet

Former Southern Baptist Rod Bennett used to believe that the Catholic Church was the result of the “Great Apostasy.” However, as he was lead to read the works of the earliest Christians, he realized that the Early Church actually resembled Catholic beliefs and traditions!
(This talk was originally given in 2004 at the CHNetwork's "Deep in History" conference)
About the Deep in History Talks from the CHNetwork:
The early period of the growth of Christianity (ca. A.D. 50-700) is a rich source for learning how the earliest disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ passed on the “faith delivered once and for all to God’s holy ones” (Jud 3). From Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century to Gregory the Great in the early seventh, the story of the Church’s proclamation in winning over pagan culture to Christ is widely diverse in practice and wonderfully unified in doctrine. The faith of these early Saints inspires and challenges us to live more deeply in love with Christ and in continuity with our forbearers in Christ.
We hope these resources take you deep into the history of Christ's Church and thereby deeper into Christ. Please visit:
DeepinHistory.com
CHNetwork.org

[@giawarnerMA]

What an amazing talk! There is always more to read and know. I am so happy I have come home to the Catholic Church.

[@cominghomenetwork]

There is always something new to learn about the ancient faith!

[@alexchristopher221]

I recently finished Mr. Bennet's book 'Four Witnesses'. A must read for both Catholics and Protestants. In the words of John H Cardinal Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant." To be deep in common sense, too.

[@kevinmc62]

Preach Rod preach! Former Baptist here.

[@dianescigala2584]

Thank you Rob. Your book helped me with my reconversion back to the R.C.Church. I am British. Grew up in the Anglican Church.Married a young American. He brought me to the Northern Pa. His family were not very kind to me. They were strict Methodist. I lived with them while my husband served in Vietnam. I converted in 1978 to the Catholic Church.Did not know my bible that well or the Early Church history. Long story I went through a divorce. Remarried. 1995 worked for this nice J.W. women. Left the Catholic Church for about 19 yrs. Started to watch EWTN. The Journey Home. Sent away for your book. Last step going to my youngest Godchild's wedding Aug 2014 in a beautiful Catholic Church. The next day Sunday I went to my first Mass in over 19 yrs Went through the R.C.I A.program. So blessed to be back in the Church. Thank you Rob. God bless you.

[@tinekeantoni7552]

You cannot get the host, for getting married again!!!!

[@thomasmore4468]

@@tinekeantoni7552 You mean receive the holy Eucharist.

[@dianesicgala4310]

I got my annulment from the Church.

[@suburbanbanshee]

Bless you, Diane.

[@lucindabunda2106]

@@tinekeantoni7552 if both are Catholics and married in Catholic Church and divorced. Cannot remarry until the other spouse dies.

[@dianesicgala4310]

Thank you Rob Bennet. I have read your book. I left the Church for 19yrs. I became a J.W. I feel so blessed to be back in the Church.

[@PInk77W1]

Awesome. God bless

[@dianescigala2584]

Thank you. Very blessed to be back in the Catholic Church.

[@sueh.9656]

Welcome home sister.

[@dianesicgala4310]

Thank you Susan. God bless you.

[@victor382]

Praise be to God!

[@susanamoroso8581]

The Catholic Church is the only religion proven true , correct historically and living up to the entire teachings and traditions of the 12 Apostles. It is the one true Church Jesus Christ founded in 33 A.D.

[@robertkennedy7]

Absolutely ryt we are the true and eternal Church

[@jon...6825]

You're praying to demons. You're saint's are evil. You don't pray to God. You're not aloud to say God's name in you're church. The dragon give you you're power. Antichrist is you're leader. You changed the bible. Taken from it. You're teachers and pedos. How is it true?

[@RumorHazi]

John OReardon So where should we be? Maybe you should watch the video. Praying to demons are we? You know NOTHING of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Where ignorance is bliss, it's folly to be wise.

[@suburbanbanshee]

What happens at Mass is not a secret. You can watch a daily or Sunday Mass any time you want, courtesy of EWTN. It is full of calling upon the Name of the Lord, by everyone. It is full of Scripture. We don't have tails, either.

[@mission4christ17]

Eastern Orthodox has entered that chat...

[@sonofafrica4826]

I am a cradle Catholic from South Africa and am blessed to have been born and baptized in the one true Church although am concerned with the current Vicar of Christ admitting idolatry into the Church precincts. I know that the Church, as in previous times, will withstand this heresy. May our Lord continue to guide and strengthen the shepherds He has chosen to lead and guide us in faith. God bless the true Shepard's and correct the lost.

[@markv1974]

Popes come and go but the chair of peter remains. Pray for the pope

[@yawdaniel2001]

Cant stop listening to him. I am reading your book 'Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her own Words'

[@kainosktisis777]

With all that's going on right now in the Church, I needed to hear this. Thank you.

[@sibergirl]

This helped me so much in dealing with the times we are living in. Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same, yet, the Church is still here! ❤️

[@SensusFidelium]

Great book! Read it back in 2010 when I was reverting back. Thank you very much for your honest intellectualism!

[@LauraBeeDannon]

Wonderful speech. Well educated man.

[@catholicseymour292]

Wow! I am blown away There is something good that came out of the Charismatic Episcopal Church. I converted to the RCC after i read the fathers myself. We believed that we were blazing trails I found out different when I Read John Cardinal Newman. The CEC said that we stand upon the scripture and where the scripture is silent we stand on the Church fathers. After the scandal I really delved into the fathers and discovered that these so called bishops never really read the fathers. The CEC was nothing more than a ponzi scheme to collect the "tithe" no one benefited from the vast amount of money except the bishops. As far as i know no one in clergy ever received regular financial support. I will forever thank the Lord for calling me into His one true Catholic Church.

[@Jeremiah17v9]

+Catholic Seymour Welcome!

[@writegillian]

Amazing story! Welcome home!

[@catholicseymour292]

misti2 Thank you dear friend.

[@RumorHazi]

I was Anglican as well. Never looked back and never will! Glad you swam the Tiber!! Pass it forward! Share it with others. Ask them to pray a Rosary with you. GIVE them one. Our Lady will help bring them home to her Son.

[@annettebejany5969]

Excellent. Very well researched and explained

[@gabrieldacruz3150]

Thanks Rob Bennett I love your history lesson it was beautiful God bless you brother

[@RumorHazi]

This is awesome info. I rode with a group to this place. I was the ONLY Catholic in the group (so I mostly kept my head down!). I wish I had seen your video before the ride. Not that I would have stood on the 30 ft Bible and rebuked them but it would have been good to know for private conversations with some. I have read your book on the subject and I really enjoy and appreciate your work. Thanks!

[@kevinmullee6578]

Four Witnesses was a fantastic read!!

[@fransiska2928]

Very well explanation..GodBlesss .

[@lucymarion2945]

Wow...what a powerful and beautiful testimony!!! Welcome home!🙏❤❤

[@littlemac1910]

Thank you so much! Stuff like this really does rekindle the flame of Christ within me! I love being Catholic! Thank you!

[@lindaholliday1672]

This will be a Great Message to All. Especially Me. 🙏👆👆

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Wonderful! An hour listening to Rod Bennett will introduce you to the foundations of church history. Follow up with his book...I will be ordering his book. Listen and have your scope of Christian history enlarged. Thanks, Mr. Bennett!

[@lesleyakora2679]

Hello Dr. Bennett, what a profound historical lecturer you are. Thank you to Our Lord for Your passion and bravery to preach the Truth. Thanks Lord for bringing home talents like you. Exposing the fallacies of those who fought The Lord's true Church. God bless you Sir. With lots of live from Australian cradle Catholic.😁🙏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🌷🌷🌷🌷✡️

[@rebeccalauron103]

Thank God I am a Catholic in words and in deed🙏🙏🙏

[@stpaulphillip]

What a great talk. Thank you.

[@PInk77W1]

I love this guy. Very well laid out.

[@Asiantales7]

Praying for you and your family and prayers Ted

[@gondolacrescent5]

Thank you for producing this video and preparing the lecture. It was very informative and profitable. I encourage you to continue speaking and debating for the sake of Jesus Christ and his Church.

[@krenomichael1812]

Loved it

[@phil4v8]

Trying to read book right now.. Thank you .

[@docemeveritatum8550]

Praise God, God bless you. What a blessing this talk is. So many on YT that are following the empty lies by what amount to raw charlatans, lies that have been refuted many times over. The Kingdom of God...

[@dylanx9327]

..this a good staff... refreshing... exposing the dearly held contemporary Myths (demon's lies) about the Early Church..

[@cominghomenetwork]

Former Southern Baptist, Rod Bennett used to believe that the Catholic Church was the result of the “Great Apostasy.” However, as he was lead to read the works of the earliest Christians, he realized that the Early Church actually resembled Catholic beliefs and traditions! Here he gives a deep look into the early church and the rest of the story of the "Great Apostasy". Four Witnesses Brought Me Home - Rod Bennet - KZbin kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqSsoJyNhJ5pgKs

[@lawrencebogar6136]

The Coming Home Network International .

[@dianescigala2584]

Thank you Rob Bennet. Loved your book The Four Wittness.

[@johnchung6777]

I gotta say this and that is Rod Bennet should make more catholic videos for he is truly truly gifted from above, having said that I really hope that Jesus Christ will send more speakers like him in his One Holy Apostolic Catholic Christian Church of Traditional Teachings and Worship throughout the whole world Amen Amen Amen Deo Gratis 🙏🐑🕊️🔥✨

[@abrahamgaimgebremariam3405]

Thank you.

[@bradleesargent]

Ken Temple what have you done with the original bride of Jesus, his church, started in the year 33 ad, do you think for one minute Jesus abandoned her in favor of a new bride started in England? Jesus does not have a harem of 33,000 different brides all competing with one another for his attention!!!

[@meirdrummer]

local churches have disappeared in history - Galatians 1:6 (Paul said, "I am amazed that you have so quickly deserted Christ for another gospel . . . " ; Revelation 2:4-5 - God took away their lamp stand. God allowed Islam to conquer many churches. churches in the west that go liberal or heretical are also judged and even if they exist in buildings, if they are liberal or heretical, they are not true churches. Athanasius wrote about the Arians that took over the buildings for 60 some years, "they have the buildings, but we have the faith". (Festal Letter 29) The bride is one, one body made up of all believers through all history (yes, in heaven also, we just can't talk to them yet) - purchased by the blood of the lamb - Revelation 5:9; 7:9-14. There is much in Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin M., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom that we agree with. The key is the Scriptures tell us what is good and what we can reject.

[@bradleesargent]

Yes, the baptist church in Aleppo, Syria for example, just disappeared, leaving all the baptists there without any shephard, but the original church of Christ, the Catholic church remains even though some of the priests and a bishop have lost their heads to the Muslims.

[@deybalingit4719]

Anti-catholic are anti-virus... Catholic church gave the bible to the world...

[@CatholicSinner]

"The Key is the scriptures" - Yes we Catholics agree with you on that - but based on your infallible interpretation? Who is the arbiter over people who have arguments about how the bible should be interpreted? In your world - every man is Pope and magisterium - but that does not work, even the founding fathers of America realized the constitution (supreme law of the US) needed an outside authority to interpret it. Do you think God is not at least as intelligent as the founding fathers? Do you think that God who gave us the supreme law - and yes - the Catholic Church teaches that she is under the Scriptures - that the scriptures are as you say "Key" - would need a body guided by Him to infallibly interpret the bible?

[@adamhovey407]

you know this is a good example of what I mean when I say there are multiple Southern Accents as I have a bit of a Southern accent and I don't sound like him at all well I sound a little like him. Ahh, southern Catholics. We'll soon be a majority it's a Jesuit plot

[@Prancer1231]

lol yes everything is a Jesuit plot

[@parrisroy]

Adam Hovey Many a truth told in jest. You guys are spot on. 👍🏻

[@huh451]

Doesn't Mr. Bennett have an Arkansas accent? I love that accent.

[@jimfoley8014]

Southerners can sell eggs to a chicken.

[@ronboyd9]

It's good to have a larger context to put such things in perspective.

[@jttierney1]

I only wish Four Witnesses was available on Audible in audio format... sigh

[@ellahope6494]

Did you read St. Clement? or St. Ignatius or St Irenaeus? so many others speak of Eucharist scripture John 20 23 does by Jesus

[@CatholicSinner]

Justin Martyr, Polycarp... Irenaeus is one of the best...

[@alexchristopher221]

The early Church Fathers also mention infant baptism, a dividing issue in Protestantism.

[@JohnK9999]

Who is the final interpreter for Protestantism? :)

[@jpauladorable5715]

+John Sosa every protestant pastor is his own "pope". they interpreter as the scriptures as they like.

[@angelgirldebbiejo]

and therein lies the problem---no one knows what is right but its all right in their own eyes

[@andyderksen8455]

You mean like with the Magisterium?

[@RumorHazi]

Andy Derksen Yes, with all its wonderful continuity.

[@tr1084]

Pastor Jim

[@user-ri8ge4ul2c]

Brilliant talk. Thank you Rod

[@cominghomenetwork]

Rod is the best!

[@LaLajki]

Great video as always TCHNI

[@bradleesargent]

Ken Temple, without the church Jesus founded you are absolutely blind and incapable of understanding the scriptures the church itself put into your hands for you Instead, you choose to believe in the power of death over the power of eternal life which Jesus promised us The reason Jesus tells us we will never die is that we are able always to maintain our relationships with one another on both sides of the line of death if you believe Jesus' own words. If instead you live outside the purview of the church Jesus founded you are left alone, left alone you and Jesus which was never his intention and will lead you to misery and a loss which you can never imagine.

[@meirdrummer]

"you choose to believe in the power of death over the power of eternal life which Jesus promised us " No, because no true believer experiences the second death or hell. John 11:25-26; John 3:16 Everyone who has truly believed in Christ will not experience hell. They will be saved. I believe in the power of the gospel to save people from eternal hell; and church history is the testimony of the struggle of believers, persecution, doctrinal disputes, mistakes, etc. Local churches, if they leave their first love or allow false doctrines and serious sin t go on, get their lampstands taken away (Rev. 2:5); and with some other churches, Jesus comes and makes war against them (Rev. 2:16); other churches, Jesus judges and causes sickness and death(Rev. 2:22-23); others Jesus spews them out of His mouth. (Revelation 3:16) , etc. BUT at the end of each warning to each of the seven churches, He says "he who overcomes" - individuals persevere in the faith, but local churches can die and be taken over by heresy, liberalism, or invasions, etc. The one who overcomes cannot be harmed by the second death, which is what Jesus meant in Matthew 16:18 - the gates of hades will not prevail over the church - meaning the true believers bought by the blood of the lamb. Ephesians 5:25 - "Just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her" - means the people, not buildings or walls or statues or organizations.

[@RyanMichael777]

Ken Temple AN UNBROKEN HISTORY Jesus said a house divided cannot stand (Mark 3:25)! Jesus said the gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18)! Jesus also said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return. Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.) Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history. Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established. The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members- even some of its leaders-have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy. Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

[@meirdrummer]

The modern Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the "catholic" (Universal, kata holicos, "according to the whole") church of the first 500-600 years of Christianity. Adding traditions of men that are not in the original deposit of faith or the Scriptures, it morphed into the Roman Church after 600 AD - adding things like exalting Mary too much, Purgatory, Transubstantiation (1215), relics, treasury of merit, prayers to dead saints and Mary, anathemas on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, at the Council of Trent (1545-1563); the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Papal Infallibility ( 1870) and the bodily assumption of Mary (1950). These things were not in existance in the early centuries, nor in Scripture.

[@RyanMichael777]

Ken Temple wrong. That's false history protestants make up to help try and prove their false beliefs. St Ignatius In 107 AD Ignatius who was a disciple of John and placed as bishop of Antioch by Peter before he left for Rome, said " where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." He also believed in the authority of Rome. Ignatius also wrote letters to Clement who was third bishop of Rome and according to Tertulian ordained a priest by Peter. Did the apostles lie to their disciples?

[@RyanMichael777]

Originally Christians weren’t called Christians. They were called "disciples" (i.e., "students") of Jesus of Nazareth. Later, in the city of Antioch, they received the name "Christians" (Acts 11:26). This probably happened in the A.D. 30s. This term spread very quickly-probably to the chagrin of those Jewish individuals who did not wish to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah (Christ). Ultimately, however, different groups began to break off from the Christian community, falling into either heresy or schism. These groups still wished to represent themselves as Christian-and many of them were, retaining valid baptism and a profession of faith in Christ. Consequently, a new word was needed to distinguish the Christians belonging to the Church that Christ founded from those belonging to the churches that had split off from it. The term that was picked was kataholos, which means according to the whole or universal in Greek. The thought was apparently that these were Christians who believed and practiced according to what body of Christians as a whole did, in contrast to what some particular group thought or did. Over the course of time, kataholoscame to be represented by the parallel English word "Catholic." Ignatius of Antioch did not introduce kataholos. However, his letters contain the earliest known uses of it. It may well have been used in other Christian writings prior to this, but we have simply lost them. It certainly was in general use in speech before this point, because Ignatius writes in such a way that he already expects his readers to know this term and what it means. He also uses the term in more than one of his letters, meaning that he expects people in more than one place to know the term. This indicates that in his day-at the beginning of the second century (circa A.D. 107)-the term was already in widespread use. For it to be used in such a broad manner, it would have required some time to pass into currency in the Christian community, meaning that the term probably was coined sometime in the second half of the first century. We don’t know who first used it, but it was a suitable description of the Church Christ founded and so was already in general use by the time Ignatius wrote.

[@TheLeftRbabieskillers]

This guy is a good story teller, can he be from Africa by any chance? 😀

[@robertkennedy7]

U boar

[@-kenik9629]

Man, I'd love to see a chat between Rod Bennet and David Wood. There'd probably be some fascinating discussion.

[@tradcatholic]

KZbin will not let me like your video. I tap it and look back and it's not blue and back to the previous 675.

[@maryanneagimi8536]

Interesting to know how you search for the truthn finally found truth❤

[@srmerlintadifa7733]

I thank our Almighty Triun God for you all converts to the True Church fiunded by Our Lord Jesus Christ ,the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity.You are the ardent apostles of our present times too.

[@coltonwang9380]

Hi, how and to who, i have to write ig i want to traslate This videos to spanish?

[@PatriciaBurns]

We in Christ are a "new" creature, Jesus' living body, the church of God. (1 Cor.10:32). We ARE the church!

[@cynthiax56]

The Apostacy began with the protestant "reformation"

[@ronboyd9]

Schweitzer's 'Quest For The Historical Jesus' might be a good work to understand.

[@brucebarber4104]

Dr. Brant Pitre, in his book, "The Case for Jesus" refutes Schweitzer's claims.

[@dwightsornberger8916]

Can we ever get an honest discussion on the contents of Martin Luther's 95 theses?

[@slimseun580]

Would be great!

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

See the Council of Trent.

[@ronboyd9]

Keep on writing books. You will find out the way things were eventually.

[@jeanboshears6689]

Considering history. I have learned the history of where Christ was during those 18 lost years that Luke didn’t want to put in his gospel. I’m thinking you probably knew because if he talk to any of Christ family when he was doing his investigation, he would have learned the truth.

[@crisgon9552]

Can you please let us know what he did during those 18 years?

[@nenabunena]

Constantine converted to Arianism? lol, I didn't know that either

[@raymondreno6025]

maybe i should watch the whoe video, but.....we as catholics believe in a great appstasy...

[@jesuscastanares4968]

You cannot guarantee that Christian pastors will not call a priest when they are dying.

[@vSwampFox]

Who was the author of the book(s) he's talking about?

[@meirdrummer]

Rod Bennett himself is the author of the book, "Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words" (about Clement of Rome (96 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD), Justin Martyr (150 AD), and Irenaeus of Lyons- 180-200 AD)

[@vSwampFox]

No that's not what I'm talking about. The books he found in the book store.

[@meirdrummer]

WAR HAMMER oh, ok - The Ante-Nicene Fathers - volume 1, the apostolic fathers and Justin Martry and Irenaeus. (Volume 1 of this 10 volume set. You can find the set on Amazon, but also now they are free on-line at www.ccel.org/fathers.html

[@vSwampFox]

Oh I thought it was like 4 books. He said they were published by a Protestant Publishing Company?

[@meirdrummer]

WAR HAMMER Yes, the set above was done by Protestants, whereas the same works are published by Roman Catholics at the NewAdvent website, although arranged differently. www.newadvent.org/fathers/ The difference is in the introductions to the books, historical background, and some of the scholarly notes on textual issues.

[@ronboyd9]

Look for lucidity in History. It's likely to be a certain way under normal circumstances.

[@tonygomes4910]

The " Lightning Roman Legion " was made up mostly of Christians..... This is why we see "lightning, thunder bolts" in their shields as we see in movies.

[@jeanboshears6689]

They’ll know that my name is The LORD ( Lord is not a name it’s a title) you quoted that. Everywhere, you see the capitalized word, Lord, it is really the Hebrew YHWH or YHVH. No one knows the exact pronunciation. But his name wasn’t Lord.

[@Tsumebleraar]

Michael Horton can help us a lot: Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man, who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v. 39). Philip did not have to be infallible; he had only to communicate the infallible Word with sufficient truth and clarity. For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know-really know-that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand than others, the basic narratives, doctrines, and commands of Scripture-especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation-is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it. For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister. Three Theses on Sola Scriptura The following theses summarize some of the issues people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority. 1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), and sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “Scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself, and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel. 2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mark 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), “either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation, and after them workers (ordinary ministers) built on that foundation (1 Cor. 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eyewitness, the direct and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. 3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Again, therefore, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial. To accept these three theses is to embrace sola scriptura as the Reformation understood it.

[@felixmahama7237]

Where in the bible does it say the unwritten traditions Paul spoke about eventually found their way into written scripture? You people believe in 'where in the bible does it say' but you can't make a simple argument without bringing in your own ideas that are not in the bible.

[@felixmahama7237]

The debate has never been about the authority of Christ or even that of the bible. It has always been about the authority of the individual (which sola scriptura leads to) versus the authority of the church. There is nothing like scripture has authority over the church. Whatever the scripture says is what the individual makes it say. So the individual interpreter of scripture is the authority. So do you trust individuals' interpretations or the Church's interpretation?

[@sandra4065]

Does it bother you, even a little, that the “Father of the Reformation” hung himself? To me that’s a Red Flag.

[@ellahope6494]

We have no Holy days for Easter Halloween I don't follow. Catholic faith doesn't in Mass or readings speak of these. We have kept the deposit of faith Jesus King left to Simon who became Peter by Jesus.

[@fukushimaisrevelation2817]

Who loves Jesus an obeys his teaching? Who believes in Jesus, doing the works Jesus is doing an who does even greater things than these? John 14:23 Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the father who sent me. John 14:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. Which church loves Jesus an obeys his teaching, which church believes in Jesus, doing the works Jesus is doing an even greater things than these?

[@jeanboshears6689]

The passage that you read from Mark about the picking up of snakes, and such, we have learned is questionable, because it is not found in the earlier manuscripts

[@JJ-dc7tt]

I don't mind saying that this "my way or the highway" strain of RC'ism is offensive; carried out as it is by Protestants who have "come home." To assume that the RC church is "home" is to beg the question, a form of dishonesty; and when one is dishonest with others it is usually done to gain something for oneself that he/she may not have, and/or to take something from the other. Nothing good comes of this. "ira enim viri iustitiam Dei non operatur " James 1:20 Indeed to call yourselves "the" Catholic church is to say that no others are catholic. We beg to differ. Not only does such a position beg the question, it is moreover an act of demagoguery. Judging by Rome's many faults in morality, doctrine and practice I don't think they should take such a judgmental and exclusive stance. It would go a long way towards humility and peace in the church catholic.

[@suburbanbanshee]

When it comes to Christianity, either you are Catholic, or you are part of a group that is currently schismatic, or you are part of a group that is currently heretical. Objectively, that's the only question. Pastorally, you can ask questions about whether people know any better, or whether it is just an artifact of history. Various ancient churches can argue that Catholics are the schematic ones, of course, and then it becomes a historical and theological problem. But they would also agree that is there is only one true Church. It doesn't matter whether it offends humans. What matters is Jesus Christ's intention and judgment.

[@danielkeeran4088]

He fell in love with a Catholic woman?

[@RGTomoenage11]

In othet Words, the US is the new babylon.

[@jeanboshears6689]

Did the early church have a Christ mass with trees and Santa clause Mr. Saint Nick? Did the early church have Easter bunnies and a day they worshiped every Passover which they change to the word Easter, which is Ishtar, a pagan goddess? Did the early church sprinkle babies or have rosary beads? It seems like there’s quite a bit a difference between the early church and Roman Catholicism

[@sandra4065]

Never had Santa or trees - still doesn’t. They celebrated Easter, though the title would not have been in modern languages like English. They did sprinkle/baptize babies (or as Scripture says, “entire households”, which often include babies), but rosary beads came into use as a helpful means of keeping track of prayers later on. Basically, the fact that you’re asking shows you have yet to read the writings of the Christians who learned the faith at the feet of the Apostles themselves.

[@lucindabunda2106]

I do not understand the Great Apostasy you are talking about. In the Roman Catholic Religion the Great Apostasy will begin at the top. It means a multitude of baptized Catholics will no longer follow the true religion. They will return to paganism and it is happening right now. Remember what Jesus said in the Scripture. In the end when I come back to earth can I still find a person of faith? (something like this). Sorry not a bible scholar.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

That is what the actual great apostasy will be/is happening right now. Rod Bennett is dispelling the myth that the great apostasy happened at the beginning of Christendom that’s gives protestants a false excuse to be heretics and deny that Christ founded a church. You need to listen to the the entire lecture or just brush up on protestant history to understand what we’re talking about.

[@meirdrummer]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows the God-breathed Scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work. Jude 3 - "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" and John 14 and 16 - that others above have been quoting point to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide them to write the NT. Athanasius wrote: "in these (27 NT canonical books) alone is the doctrine of godliness" - (Festal Letter 39) and "the holy and God-breathed Scripture are self- sufficient" (Contra Gentiles 1:3) and "vainly do they run about . . . for a council . . . for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things . . " (De Synodis 6) and "holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us" (to the Egyptian Bishops, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, series II, Volume IV, page 225.

[@CatholicSinner]

And how long did it take for the New Testament to be compiled and canonized? We do not even have complete lists of what you would call the New Testament until the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries - and I might even ask you: who gave us those lists, did they come directly from Jesus, or the Apostles? Oh yeah, Bishops of the Catholic Church gave them too us, but the New Testament as you know it was not finally canonized by the Catholic Church until the early 5th century, after 3 councils and finally signed by the Pope. If it wasn’t the Catholic Church - please tell me which modern ecclesiastical community, Protestant Denomination gave us the list of books that belong in the bible? In fact, the early King James versions had all the Catholic Books - it wasn’t until the mid-19th century that Protestant publishers began removing the Deuterocanonical books from the bible.

[@wendymitchell8245]

Mark.- Jesus was addressing the apostles before they believed. He was not addressing the church . You are looking at the prophecies about Israel not the church. The church was always small , a little flock .Those who were on the narrow road .The broad road was the way to destruction, many are on it. You should have studied more with your Baptist church., or another one. with better teachers . You should have know they had the Bible as it was written under the supervision of the Apostles and copied by others on scrolls . The whole ,handwritten would be rather large .The earliest piece found so far from the end of the 1st .cent. was from John.1. Justin Martyr said they read from the .N.T. and the Memoirs of the Apostles ,if you remember Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring all the things he taught them , back to the Apostles memory . John 14 to 17. Clement said ,the flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit .-. John brought this out in symbols when he said eat my flesh, etc. Most of the letters of Ignatius were thought to be forgeries of about 250 A.D. Your description of the Roman church tells us it was not the true church .,it had fallen away from the true church. Nobody except the Roman church said Constantine was a Christian. it was Theodosius who put the nail in the coffin of the Roman church by making it the only religion causing many to join without being converted . This was a false gospel ,saying join this church to be a Christian . The true believers when the state interferes go underground.

[@meirdrummer]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "hold to the traditions, by letter and by word of mouth" - but since the two Thessalonians epistles were written early (50-52 AD), and Paul was preaching the gospel and the whole council of God (Acts 20:27), and Paul will write more books later; and the God-breathed Scriptures are sufficient to equip believers for every good work, then it is reasonable to believe that all the rest of what Paul taught orally to the Thessalonians is written down later in the other books, like Romans, Corinthians, 1-2 Timothy, the Gospels (the Spirit will lead you into all the truth), etc. When the apostles died, the only thing left was their writings. That is why Peter said that he would be diligent to write so that they could remember and recall the truth to their minds (2 Peter 1:12-19; 3:1). Peter pointed them to Scripture, not to his successor of presbyters/bishops. If the Papacy was true, Peter would have written about it in 2 Peter.

[@CatholicSinner]

Paul did write about the office of Bishop quite extensively in fact: 1 Tim 3:1-3, 4:14, 5:17,22, 6:11; 2 Tim 1:6, 2:2; It is even more interesting is that after Paul talks about “many falling away” in 1 Tim 4:1, he gives Timothy (a bishop) instructions for appointing bishops and the role of the bishop in the rest of 1st Timothy and the beginning of 2 Timothy. His instruction in 2 Tim 2:2: what you heard from me, teach to others, who can teach others as well - four generations of succession of the office of Bishop starting with Paul, I would call that Apostolic succession - wouldn’t you? In fact - if YOU read the early Church fathers, you will see this is exactly what happened in the early Church. You will hear modern Bishops when they are talking about other clergy as “my fellow priests”, even Pope Francis has recently used this, does it remind you of 1 Peter 5:1? Which came first, the bible or the church? When was the New Testament finally canonized? We do not even have complete lists of what you would call the New Testament until the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries - and I might even as you: who gave us those lists, did they come directly from Jesus, or the Apostles? Oh yeah, Bishops of the Catholic Church gave them too us, but the New Testament as you know it was not finally canonized by the Catholic Church until the early 5th century, after 3 councils and finally signed by the Pope. If it wasn’t the Catholic Church - please tell me which modern ecclesiastical community, Protestant Denomination gave us the list of books that belong in the bible? In fact, the early King James versions had all the Catholic Books - it wasn’t until the mid-19th century that Protestant publishers began removing the Deuterocanonical books from the bible.

[@meirdrummer]

Elders and bishops are the same office/person. Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-4; Philippians 1:1; Acts 14:23 1 Clement also shows this - 42-44

[@CatholicSinner]

For the sake of argument - I will concede that in the New Testament and even Apostolic times that is up to about 68 AD - although I disagree with that assessment and which I will get into soon enough - the separation between Episkopos and presbyteros is vague. Personally, I think the separation in the New Testament writings the separation is clear, but for the sake of argument and because the difference is not entirely clear in the New Testament writings or the Didache - I will concede the point. I think you referencing Clement of Rome puts you on shaky ground from the start, let me ask you a few questions: Why would the Church in Corinth go to the Bishop of Rome and not John the Apostle who was living in Ephesus at the time? A question over replacing Presbyters - why go to Clement, why not settle the matter on their own, or go to John? Would the idea of a three layer hierarchy have been a novel innovation at that time? For the sake of those reading, I will answer my own question; no, it wasn’t. In fact Clement of Rome in the very epistle to the Corinthians you referenced makes an analogy between Jewish hierarchy and the Christian clergy that certainly Paul if not all the Apostles would have been familiar: “For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.” Did you read the letter of Clement to the Corinthians? Why stop in 101 AD? We can also quote Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD - it is clear very early on that there is a Hierarchy in the clergy: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. We can quote Clement of Alexandria from the early 3rd century and Cyprian of Carthage in the mid-3rd century. Do you really want to argue that the hierarchy of the Church is a novel innovation after Constantine or in the middle ages? I disagree with your assessment of Titus 1:5 - Paul is addressing Titus - a Bishop - and instructing him to appoint “presbyteros” - in the Old Testament isn’t this (presbyteros) a reference to the Levitical PRIESTHOOD? Aren’t Titus, Timothy, and Clement all Bishops as well as Presbyters? And none of the verses you quote explicitly teach that the Bishop and the Presbyter are equal - you are arguing from silence. Do you think Paul would have argued against Clement’s assessment? In 1 Timothy 5, a letter from Paul to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3; 4:14) Paul is telling Timothy to listen to the charges brought against and elder (Presbyter) but only if there are two or three witnesses. In other words the assembly of people are to appeal to the Bishop if they have a grievance against one of their Priests (1 Tim 5 :17 - 19) You also see the difference between the office of the Presbyter and the “Overseer” (Bishop) developing in the early church from Paul’s writings. 1 Tim 5:17-20 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; 18 for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." 19 Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 19 Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. In verse 19 the address is to Timothy, the Bishop - (You understood) Never admit... In verse 20 we see the "you understood" used again, (You) rebuke them in the presence of all. Who are the all? The assembly of God's people, the local church, the Elders and the Laymen (see Clements letter again). The two or three witnesses in Matthew 18 verses 16 and 19 must be taken in context with verse 17- that is in agreement with the Church. When a dispute over authentic Church practices occur, or interpretation of Tradition (which includes the bible - see 2 Thess 3:15 and the argument regarding "The Tradition of the Table of Contents") how is it to be addressed? Clearly Paul sees the Bishop as the arbiter for the church. This idea is clearly taught in the bible.

[@sandra4065]

You forgot to end with, “in my opinion”. Opinion is all that you have here. History, Testimony, and even Science refutes claims that the Church isn’t what she claims.

[@kentemple7026]

@@sandra4065 Thanks for your opinion also. The early church (33 AD to 451/ about 500) is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Church with centuries later man-made traditions of Pope (1302 Unam Sanctum, 1870 Infalliblity), Marian practices and dogmas (1854, 1950 is very late) - praying to pictures and statues is not Biblical nor in early centuries. Transubstantiation ( developed from 800s to 1215 AD, futher developed by Aquinas later) Purgatory (600s onward), Indulgences (about 900s and forward made more and more common) Adding works to justification (Council of Trent, 1545-1563 - Anathemas vs. Protestant doctrines) - then Vatican 2 and Post Vatican 2 changing the tradition of "no salvation outside the church" to change us to "separated brethren" and that Muslims and atheists can be saved without Christ. (paragraph 841 and 847 of modern Catechism. - contradicts Councils of Constance & Florence, and other past Councils) Second council of Nicea 787 is clearly wrong - Gavin Ortlund has a great video on that.

[@tioasn]

The Apostle Paul wrote...’There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Read your Bible and stop accepting a system of religion that teaches that there are other mediators other than Christ Jesus.

[@lucindabunda2106]

It doesn't mean there is no mediator between man and Jesus?

[@tioasn]

Lucinda Bunda: Jesus specifically stated, “I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except by me.“

[@lucindabunda2106]

@@tioasn please digest what I was saying.

[@tioasn]

Lucinda Bunda: dear Miss Bunda I am 63 years old. I have been studying the Bible for several decades now, there is absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada mention of any mediator between Man or woman and Jesus Christ the only name that God has given among men whereby we must be saved. You are running the risk of adding to scripture things that are not mentioned in scripture and/or are not backed up by any scripture that I am aware of. Respectfully you are wrong. If I were you I would pray about that Real quick because Jesus is coming back soon.

[@markv1974]

Lucinda Bunda or between men and other men, between brothers and sister. The church, the magisterium mediates between us and serves as the depository of truth. Protestants do not understand that the church is the body of christ. We the catholic church are members of the body of christ. We do not have a personal relationship, we have a covenant. God is not just abfriend or neighbor, he is our father. Thats what protestents do not understand

[@losangeles4004]

Is there biblical evidence that the 'church fathers' were disciples of Jesus or were they apostates of Christianity?

[@jpauladorable5715]

+Los Angeles For one, Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Apostle John and was appointed by Apostle Peter as bishop in Antioch. Read it for yourself and God bless!

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

False dichotomy. You offer only two options, giving the impression they are the only two legitimate or possible ones, and then force a stark "either.../ or..." choice. The early Church fathers were disciples of the Apostles and the earliest "diakonia", "presbyteroi" and "episcopoi" (cf. Acts 6, I Timothy 3; Titus 1: 5-9). They therefore are witnesses to the faith the Apostles preached to the first disciples, having themselves received it directly from Christ. St. Irenaeus, for example, was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John. So they were the disciples of Jesus Christ through the Apostles, the ones He Himself had hand picked, formed for three and a half years and delegated to act on His authority in His name.

[@felixtjung]

This probably won't answer your "biblical evidence" you are looking for, but the bible itself doesn't *fully* contains all the information about early christianity. There are more information included in the writing of early church fathers. Historically speaking, the bible as we know today (a collection of books) is not bounded together until 367 AD by St Athanasius which later on affirmed by Pope Damascus I in 382 AD and formally approved by Catholic Church in the Council of Rome in the same year. So, what happens to "the bible" before year 367 AD? It's simple, it doesn't exists. During those times, early christians instead get access to number of new testaments books, scrolls or parchments (some of them are condemned as heretical). By the end of 4th centuries, it's estimated, there are about 300 of new testament books lying around. It's Catholic Church who select 27 new testaments books (in the bible) out of those 300 new testament books. I would argue, there might be other divinely inspired writing outside the bible. For example, the collection of writing of early church fathers.

[@deybalingit4719]

Read the history of the catholic church... sacred tradition and sacred scripture that inherited through the apostles of Christ and the early church father...

[@losangeles4004]

jpaul adorable Is there a scriptural proof that Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John? Or this is just another Catholic superstition?

[@slimseun580]

Probably Southern Baptists did not much church history and therefore Rod easily fell for RC propaganda!

[@meirdrummer]

Rod and I were pretty good friends, but I was not the Evangelical friend who went with him to see the "Fields of the Woods". Rod was closer to my brother, but when Rod converted to Rome, I was challenged to study the issues more, because I was the seminary grad and minister-missionary and Rod challenged me on the issues. We debated informally with several long meetings, lunches, emails, phone calls, etc. from 1996-2004. It was in 2004 that he told me not to discuss religion and RC vs. Protestant issues anymore. He cut me off from discussion, though he was open to keep the friendship and discussion on a C. S. Lewis level and discuss Star Wars and Star Trek and other things that we enjoyed together. I miss Rod and his mind and friendship. Even though Rod converted to Roman Catholicism, I still consider Rod a friend and he is a very interesting guy and for years we loved to hang out and talk about great movies with plots of "good vs. evil", science fiction (Star Trek and Star Wars), the Beatles, Francis Scheaffer and C. S. Lewis, the Christmas classic, It's a Wonderful Life with Jimmy Stewart, etc. Rod is a gifted speaker and writer; and a lot of what he says is true (and in his book). Unfortunately, our Southern Baptist Churches do not teach church history very well, (the one we went to together didn't even teach about church history at all) since he got such a strange impression of that "Great Apostacy", allegedly beginning with Constantine in 312 (conversion), 313 (stopping of persecution) or the Nicean Council ( 325 AD). I am glad Rod corrected the error of his false impression that Constantine made Christianity the state religion. No; Constantine did not. Theodosius did that later in 380-392 AD. But for a long time in the lecture, I thought he was wrongly saying the Constantine did. The lack of proper teaching on church history at our Southern Baptist mega church left Rod vulnerable to the claims of Rome. After he read the early church fathers or around the same time, he was unprepared to deal with the arguments of Scott Hahn and his book, Rome Sweet Home. The informed Protestant position on church history is much more nuanced and gradual about what happened to the church in history. It was not a "BOBO" type of thing like the other "Great Apostacy" theories of cult groups and modern sects. (BOBO = "Blink on, blink off") We agree with Rod that the church did not "blink off" in 313 or 325 or even 380-392 or 900 or 1200, and did not suddenly "Blink on" again in 1517. However, somewhere between 1545- 1563 (at Council of Trent), because the Roman Catholic Church knowing rejected and anathematized the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the Roman Catholic Church at that point became a false church. The true churches were those in the Protestant communities, however imperfect and not unified. I guess a different kind of theory of the apostacy theory happened at the Council of Trent. The true, more scholarly Protestant position is NOT like the theory of "The Church of God of prophesy" or the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses or the 7th Day Adventists. This lecture was from 2004 and he mentions an upcoming book on Mary. I remember Rod telling me that he was working on a book about Mary. Where is the "part 2" of his early church ideas, of the Mary issues? My initial review of Rod Bennett's book at amazon: www.amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Early-Church-Words/product-reviews/0898708478/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending Review of Rod Bennett's book, part 1 - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-initial-review-of-rod-bennetts-book.html Part 2- beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/02/review-of-rod-bennetts-book-four.html Related issues: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-about-canon-what-about-bob-and.html By the way, Rod Bennett's name is mis-spelled at the You Tube label.

[@meirdrummer]

+St. Jerome - Thanks for your comments "St. Jerome". or it could be that he could not deal with the other Patristic and Biblical and Historical evidence that shows that the Roman Catholic claims are not so strong. The Newman hypothesis of "development of doctrine" was an abandonment of ancient historical evidence and the late claims of the Papacy infallibility of 1870 give license for Roman Catholics to mold and spin history and every 'seed" of comment by an early father into whatever doctrine they want to claim as dogma, even if it comes 600 or 1215 or or 1303 or 1545-1563 or 1854 or 1870 or 1950 years later.

[@st.jerome384]

Actually Ken Temple then you are talking to you he right man since I have a masters in biblical theology and the early church. With an Focus on patristics. So please enlighten me on your "opinion" of what doesn't jive. Because I'm yet to find a single instance.

[@st.jerome384]

And I'll leave you with this. Does an acorn stay an acorn or does it turn into a tree? A acorn only remains an acorn of its dead. I guarantee that what ever it is your issue with the church I can answer it with history and scripture.

[@meirdrummer]

+St. Jerome Ideas do not naturally come from other ideas like living, organic matter grows. Ideas are not biological life; they are not organic matter like seeds, eggs, acorns, trees, embryos, plants, animals, or humans. They do not have “natural necessity”. Humans can develop ideas any direction they want (under God’s Sovereignty) and react and respond in opposite ways to some ideas. So, the “acorn to oak tree” argument fails. What also fails is John Henry Cardinal Newman’s particular form of the doctrine of development theory of how Rome in particular developed its own doctrines and dogmas. The “natural necessity of ideas” of Bryan Cross and other Roman Catholics at Called to Communion sounds like something I heard Al Gore say when he was running for President: “The Constitution is a living, breathing document.” (I don’t know if he originally came up with that. Maybe he did, like his claim that he “invented the internet”. Documents and ideas are not living breathing organisms. The RC Church created mutations, corruptions, additional DNA, into certain Scriptural phrases, and into side comments made by some Patristic writers.

[@st.jerome384]

They created none of the sort and are in fact guarded from doing so. Unless you think Jesus was a lier and the apostles failed. Your opinion above which is just that an opinion not provable by historical evidence. Sorry to tell ya bud it's opinion not fact. I believe you would be hard pressed to present even one corruption and support it with historic documentation. That I guarantee. 

[@Selahsmum]

The people of God, from the garden to today, have fallen into idolatry and gone off into false teachings and, throughout the centuries, God has needed to send prophets to pronounce judgement on the people of God and call them to repent and reform. As a Protestant I am not part of a different church than the apostles, the early church, the medievil church, or this gentleman right here. We are all one body who believe in our hearts and confess with our mouoths that Jesus is Lord and who hold to the catholic faith delineated int hose earliest of church counsils when the Holy Spirit led the unified church to understand the core doctrines of our faith and to clarify which books are sacred scripture. I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and many of their criticisms of protestantism are fair (including modern day evangelicalism) and should be heeded, but so too are the criticisms of protestants to the false teachings and practices of Rome that are not only extra Biblical but unBiblical. Just as Israel was at one time a divided Kingdom, so too, sadly, ist he Kingdom of Christ now divided, and repentance and unity are needed. But I refuse at this point to be part of the infighting that happens in Christianity- the friendly fire. I have serious problems with many a Catholic doctrine and practice, and yet I love my RC brothers and sisters and look to learn and fellowship with them. God bless you.

[@johnsheedy461]

LIFE AT HOME-----Did you listen to the whole thing ? I don't think so. He was once like you and researched the very early church and Christian history ! He told the actual history and still you believe Catholic doctrines and practices are wrong. A Protestant minister has a video. You should watch it. Google: "The Catholic Church is Biblical ----DEAL WITH IT !

[@frederickanderson1860]

We don't need a teacher we have the anointing that we are his. 1 john chapter 2: 22. Jesus said same call no man on earth Father or teacher.

[@jeanboshears6689]

Every church everywhere today reforming; it shouldn’t happen just one time through Luther.

[@meirdrummer]

One cannot really give such an overview of Church History without the whole development of the church-state relations; that the Church and state was unified as one unit from Theodosius (380-392 AD and onward, until the Protestant Reformation and then the movement to have a separation of church and state. By leaving this aspect out, there is a subtle avoidance of a lot of the problems with viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church that Jesus founded and that marches triumphantly through history. What about the lack of missions to the Arabs and Muslims? What about the Crusades and Inquisitions? What about the harsh treatment of the Monophysites (Copts, Armenians, Syrian Jacobites, Nestorians?) The early church was not Roman Catholic. There is a subtle anachronism and shift by Rod's claim that the early church was catholic (which is true, little c; according to the understanding at that time, without reading the Papacy and Mary and Purgatory and indulgences and "justification by works" back into it.) - but he reads modern Roman Catholic back into the early centuries and that is anachronistic also. "Roman Catholic" - The title reflects the late development of the Papacy - non-existent until the beginning of the influence and power of Leo I (440 AD) and Gregory. (600 AD), even then, it was not understood as total jurisdiction of "bishop over all other bishops". (The EO still disagrees with all of those claims.) All historic Protestants also are "catholic" - "universal" - believers in all nations, cultures (Revelation 5:9). Since we accept the first 4 ecumenical Councils and those creeds that came out of them- as rightly reflecting Biblical doctrine about Jesus and His two natures, the Trinity, we are there. We Protestants are in the early church also in seed form; you don't own history and Newman's famous statement is wrong. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" is wrong. Newman is wrong. 86 bishops with Cyprian in 258 AD condemning bishop Stephen of Rome is enough to prove the whole RC claim of Papacy wrong. The Pope's arrogance is especially palpable when Boniface VIII in 1302 in Unam Santum wrote: "Every human creature must submit to the Pontiff in Rome for salvation" (contradicts everything in NT and is arguably an ex cathedra statement) that kind of history of arrogance (Innocent III, Boniface VIII; Alexander VI; Leo X, especially Pius IX - "I am the tradition!" (ha!). Boniface VIII 's statement in Unam Sanctum is so contradictory to all of the NT that it proves all of Roman Catholicism wrong.

[@redsahara2055]

just stick with your protestantism..but hey Jesus promised us that He will protect His Church from heretics.and you said the Catholic church is not the one true church..so..can you name one which fits the description?your protestant sect maybe?btw can you name that sect?and WHY do you think CRUSADE happened????????

[@redsahara2055]

who did you think taught muhammad about christianity????????did you care to know about that?????

[@meirdrummer]

Red Sahara heretics, Gnostics, and nominal "Christians" who had icons and statures of Mary and looked like they were worshipping Mary. praying to her, praising her, bowing down to icons and statues, and other wrong practices like visiting graves and praying to the dead. (The Qur'an shows the Muslims thought Mary was in the Trinity - God, Jesus, and Mary is what Muslims still think today. Surah 5:72-75; 5:116) - Muhammad and the Arabs thought the Christians were worshiping Mary and that Mary was part of the Trinity. Also, around Arabia was Monophysites, and Nestorians over in what is today called Iraq. Because the more orthodox Christians failed to reach out in Evangelism, and had exalted Mary too much, the Arabs got the wrong message and Islam was later created.

[@meirdrummer]

early churches left their first love by drifting from the Bible, adding works of merit as conditions for salvation, relics, praying to Mary, icons, statues, priests, Purgatory - false doctrines and traditions of man that fulfilled Jesus' warnings in Revelation 2-3 - But I have this against you, that you have left your first love - Revelation 2:4-5 If you don't repent, I am coming to you and I will remove your lamp stand. (Rev. 2:5) the lamp stands are the churches (Revelation 1:20 God judged local churches. Islam took over because of all the false doctrines in the early church and lack of love and lack of evangelism. Turkey was not Turkey in the NT days.

[@redsahara2055]

Ken Temple first off.....state WHICH protestant sect you belong..i am CATHOLIC..i wanna know the person i am discussing with as to which sect he/she belongs.

[@meirdrummer]

"ex cathedra" - one of those qualifications that causes Romanist-Papist doctrines, practices and dogmas to destroy themselves. No one really knows when that is; some Roman Catholic apologists and theologians say there are only 2 ex cathedra statements in all history, some say 4, some 6, some 8, some 12, and some 16. Who knows?

[@RonHahnhhss33pp]

Doesn't matter how many there have been, the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks officially from the chair of Peter, he can also speak infallibly when not speaking ex cathedra, what a coward you truly are.

[@meirdrummer]

no such thing as a chair of Peter in the Scriptures; or ex cathedra doctrine in the Scriptures. It is a man made tradition created centuries later. Popes are just men; and have no real authority for true Christians. He is not a legitimate leader of churches or of Christians. A very bad thing in history.

[@RonHahnhhss33pp]

Ken Temple lol, prove it, and it doesn't have to be in scripture, or you can show us where scripture says that all doctrines must be written in scripture? lol.

[@meirdrummer]

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - "in order that the man of God may be fully equipped . . . " if is not in the "all Scripture is God-breathed", then the man of God cannot get fully equipped. OT is verse 15, then verse 16 expands it to all Scripture - I Tim. 5:18 - both Torah and Gospel are Scripture and Peter affirmed all of Paul's letters as Scripture - 2 Peter 3:16 all traditions must be tested by the word of God - Mark 7:1-14; Matthew 15:1-20; Colossians 2:8 those RC doctrines and practices are man-made traditions - Papacy, Marian dogmas, praying to Mary; Transubstantiation, Purgatory, ex cathedra, chair of Peter, indulgences, NT priests, praying to statues and dead saints, relics, treasury of merit, Trent dogmas, merit and earning salvation by works - all false doctrines and man-made traditions.

[@RonHahnhhss33pp]

That's only your personal interpretation of scriptures, your opinions carry no weight, and they don't say what you claim, let me ask you a question, do you have the authority to remove any books from the Bible and bind other Christians to your decision?

[@lindaholliday1672]

Thank God for redirecting us in our wrong ways of edifying one church against another. Pentecostal values is the first church. I believe according to The Day of Pentecostal teachings. Acclaiming The Day of JESUS and his Resurrection to Our People, no matter The Religions. You don't believe just because one says that non denominations and our Pastors aren't a Blessed Church just because they serve food before and after Church. And that we are only in it and are ignorant saying that in the Bible that speaking in Tongues is not of the Bible. As to what The Honorable Judge James Jones told me. I refused to be led by that accusation. My experience was an Honorable encounter with JESUS, as a girl in the Baptist Church. It takes maturity and time. Amen.

[@robertkennedy7]

U are a Mad Pentecostal runt arnt you . Forming a fancy fake church by yourself just a recent time and accusing the real true church The CATHOLIC CHURCH

[@marcihf9763]

You are a nut.

[@GoTitans747]

Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?" Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows: (1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship. (2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete. (3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities. (4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors-Pontifex Maximus. Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word. Second Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes and Logos Bible Software. Deutsch, Español, Français, Hrvatski, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Slovenčina, Tagalog Related Topics: What is Roman Catholicism? Read more: www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html#ixzz3eZFMOTQS

[@jimgiordano8039]

+Stephen Meehan Even a cursory reading of scripture should have lead you to Matthew 16:16-19, Matthew 18:17, John 6, and so on, all re-enforcing Catholic doctrine. I guess you have never done even just a cursory reading of Holy Scripture and just depend on the lies old angry man have taught you, while siphoning tithe money from you. For a while a long time ago I was sucked in by an angry protestant sect, heaping scorn on the CC mixed with random verses, but then they made a mistake in trying to interpret in their magazine Matthew 16:16-19 and any other verse that highlights Peter's primacy (like why is listed first all the time, why is he Christ's right-hand-man or part of the select 3 of Peter, James and John, why is half of Acts devoted to him? In fact it seems Luke stopped writing about Peter only because he was physically with Paul all the time hence.) Being Italian, I knew Peter meant ROCK, as does Cephas, as does the original aramaic Kepha (that I learned later), and since John tells us that Christ game him this new name from the moment He called Simon - its obvious to any non-brainwashed Bible-loving Christian that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:16-19, and certainly it is Peter being given the keys and the authority of loosing and binding, like the Moses Seat of old. Of course its not meant to be 'lorded over others like the pagans do' but he does have the authority and responsibility of being the chief shepherd until the master returns.

[@CatholicSinner]

Ironic - Rod Bennet just spent an hour showing you that your version of history is wrong and you just ignore it... Paul did write about the office of Bishop quite extensively in fact: 1 Tim 3:1-3, 4:14, 5:17,22, 6:11; 2 Tim 1:6, 2:2; It is even more interesting is that after Paul talks about “many falling away” in 1 Tim 4:1, he gives Timothy (a bishop) instructions for appointing bishops and the role of the bishop in the rest of 1st Timothy and the beginning of 2 Timothy. His instruction in 2 Tim 2:2: what you heard from me, teach to others, who can teach others as well - four generations of succession of the office of Bishop starting with Paul, I would call that Apostolic succession - wouldn’t you? In fact - if YOU read the early Church fathers, you will see this is exactly what happened in the early Church. You will hear modern Bishops when they are talking about other clergy as “my fellow priests”, even Pope Francis has recently used this, does it remind you of 1 Peter 5:1? Which came first, the bible or the church? When was the New Testament finally canonized? We do not even have complete lists of what you would call the New Testament until the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries - and I might even as you: who gave us those lists, did they come directly from Jesus, or the Apostles? Oh yeah, Bishops of the Catholic Church gave them too us, but the New Testament as you know it was not finally canonized by the Catholic Church until the early 5th century, after 3 councils and finally signed by the Pope. If it wasn’t the Catholic Church - please tell me which modern ecclesiastical community, Protestant Denomination gave us the list of books that belong in the bible? In fact, the early King James versions had all the Catholic Books - it wasn’t until the mid-19th century that Protestant publishers began removing the Deuterocanonical books from the bible.

[@deusimperator]

Faith Group or tradition Founder Date (AD) Location Group Catholic Church Jesus, Peter 30 Judea, Roman Empire CATH Orthodox Catholic Churches Jesus, Peter 30 Judea, Roman Empire CATH Nestorianism Nestorius 431 Constantinople, Roman Empire NEST Oriental Catholic Churches Dioscorus I of Alexandria 451 Cankiri, Roman Empire ORNT Lutheranism Martin Luther 1517 Wittenburg, Germany LUTH Swiss Reformed Church Zwingli 1523 Switzerland CALV Anabaptists Conrad Grebel 1525 Switzerland ANAB Hutterite Jacob Hutter 1529 Tryol, Bavaria ANAB Anglican Communion King Henry VIII 1534 England ANGL Calvinism John Calvin 1536 Geneva, Switzerland CALV Presbyterianism John Knox 1560 Scotland CALV Unitarinism Ferenc David 1568 Transylvania UNIT Baptist Churches (General) John Smyth 1605 Holland BAPT Baptist. Particular Henry Jacob 1616 London, England BAPT Dutch Reformed Michaelis Jones 1628 Netherlands CALV Reformed Baptist John Bunyan 1638 London, England BAPT Quakers George Fox 1647 England CALV Amish Jakob Ammann 1693 Switzerland ANAB Moravians Count Zinendorf 1727 Germany ANAB Methodism John Wesley 1739 England ANGL Congregationalism John & Charles Wesley 1744 England CALV Swedenborg Emanuel Swedenborg 1747 Sweden LUTH Bereans John Barclay 1773 Edinburgh, Scotland BERN Disciples of Christ Thomas and Alexander Campbell 1811 Brush Run, PA, USA CAMP Plymouth Bretheren - Open John Nelson Darby 1827 Dublin, Ireland BRET Brethren John Darby 1828 England ANAB Latter-day Saints Joseph Smith 1830 NY, USA MORM Southern Baptists William Bullein Johnson 1845 Augusta, GA, USA BAPT Plymouth Bretheren - Exclusive George Muller 1848 Plymouth, England BRET Seventh Day Adventists Ellen White 1860 NH, USA ADVN Salvation Army William Booth 1865 England SALV Jehovah's Witnesses Charles Russell 1870 PA, USA RUSL Christian Science Mary Baker Eddy 1879 Pleasant View, NH USA SCIC Pentecostalism Charles Parham 1900 CA, USA PENT Churches of Christ Daniel Sommer, David Lipscomb 1906 Sand Creek. IL, USA CAMP Onenss Penticostalism Frank Ewart and Glenn Cook 1914 Belvedere, CA USA ONEP Worldwide Church of God Herbert W. Armstrong 1933 OR, USA WCOG Unification Church Sun Myung Moon 1954 South Korea MOON

[@rooforlife]

Gotquestions doesnt even know that priest is the English word for presbyter since they cant even get that simple thing right why would we even consider anything else they say about the Catholic Church? Or maybe they knew what presbyter is and purposefully left the Bible verses that included presbyter. Below the definition of pastor is a link with the Bible verses that shows what presbyter is From gotquestions The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) - but not priests. www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html Let's define them ~ presbyter 2. (in some hierarchical Churches) another name for priest twww.dictionary.com/browse/presbyter elder noun 7. a presbyter. www.dictionary.com/browse/elder pastor 1. a minister or priest in charge of a church. www.dictionary.com/browse/pastor?s=t Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned? www.catholic.com/qa/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned Catholic Religion Proved By The Protestant Bible www.olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml

[@alexchristopher221]

Stephen, you're dealing with bad sources whose history is distorted and untenable. Please see my article that shows the Queenship of Mary has ancient Jewish roots. BTW, you insult the early Christians who were martyred because they refused to adopt and practice the pagan Roman empire state religions. www.virgomaria.org/upon-thy-right-doth-stand-the-queen-in-gold-of-ophir.html

[@meirdrummer]

To be deep in history is to realize John Henry Newman was wrong about his particular take on development of doctrine; he was wrong about Protestantism; he developed his theory because he knew that there was no evidence for the Papacy in the early centuries, no early evidence for Marian dogmas or prayers to her or statues, and no indulgences, no Purgatory, and there is no such thing as a New Testament office of priests. (elders, yes, overseers/episcopos, yes, but not priests.) Bishop of Rome Honorius committed heresy and was condemned by subsequent Popes for 3 Centuries (maybe more), so the infallibility dogma of 1870 was wrong and anachronistic and Ignaz Von Dollinger was right. The weight of evidence proves Newman and the RCC is wrong.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Ken Temple No evidence for the Papacy in the early centuries? What do you call Isaiah 22: 15-25 which JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF quotes at Matthew 16: 18, 19 when responding to Simon Kepha? I've got news for you, sir. There is evidence for the papacy in Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketu'vim. Funny guy....

[@CatholicSinner]

How early is early enough for you? St. Irenaeus?

[@sterry1962]

Why did Pope Clement settle, authoritatively, the matter for the Corinthians when the apostle, John was much closer to them? Why did John and his "priests" (latinized version of presbyteros, or elder) accept Pope Clement's writings as authoritative?

[@alexchristopher221]

Ken,you're in a factual state of denial. Study the Church Fathers (east and west) who expounded on purgatory, the Eucharist, justification by faith and works, apostolic succession, Mary's exemption from all stain of sin, her assumption body and soul into heaven, etc....

[@robertkennedy7]

U unholy money minded free masonry will remain dirty scoundrels for ever. U mad ignorant runts will never learn do you. U worthless blind oafs don't read scriptures at all and accuse the one true church. U rascals what did jesus say to peter "there will be one flock one Shepard and that's you peter" yes of course peter started the one true roman Catholic Church. Fools you were and fools u will be . U bloody worthless sinners