The Case FOR the Papacy w/ Joe Heschmeyer

[@namapalsu2364]

20:40 Cameron mentions Jimmy Akin's writing. He also seems to be aware of Hechmeyer previous debate/interview. Cameron is doing his homework on the papacy. May the Holy Spirit guides him.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@YAJUN YUAN Sorry to hear that.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@YAJUN YUAN That is what the magisterium determines.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@YAJUN YUAN Lol have you ever heard of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@YAJUN YUAN ahahaha Catechisms have existed since the very early days of the Church my friend.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@YAJUN YUAN and that's somehow bad why?

[@frerfresh8373]

I was raised Baptist but am praying for the confidence and strength to message my parish about starting RCIA classes. I've been going to mass for a while just observing and studying on the sidelines, and your channel, Cameron, has been a huge help in my discernment! Please take Joe up on the opportunity to ruffle Baptists' feathers haha. He's a great speaker and easy to understand. Didn't know how he was gonna turn it around after being held to task regarding 1 Peter 2:4-8 but.....dang. Awesome. Thanks for your content!!

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

Do it. It will be the best decision you'll ever make.

[@erikb3041]

praying for your journey

[@colonalklink14]

No doubt that you had a false gospel message of faith plus works equals salvation nonsense. Oh yes, no doubt that they talked grace through faith but then.... They said something like; Repent of your sins, pick up your cross daily, make Jesus Lord and Master of your life, surrender your will, give your life to Christ, etc? These are all works of service and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation. Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. Most professing Protestants are just bastard children of their mother the Roman Catholic Church.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@@colonalklink14 ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[@colonalklink14]

@@alphonsustheleast1537 I'm glad you're having so much fun here. This is serious business.

[@brendansheehan6180]

Joe is the man. And that is the whole comment.

[@RJ-bq5mr]

Love Joe. Representing us well here. As a Catholic raised in the Protestant Deep South I sense we have a similar faith formation.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church has always appalled me. Why should a mere mortal have the authority to "excommunicate" any other mortal from his divine connection with God?

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

@@mugsofmirth8101 how do you deal with places like Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 5:5, which seem to demand Church discipline (including excommunication)?

[@Desta4508]

@DonnyBlips this was a good response

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Do you know what excommunication means?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Why did Peter the rock and sole key holder, have the power and authority to declare that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was? ( Genesis 17:12). The Church has the Authority to treat people as separated from the flock if disobedienent and rebellious. ( Matthew 18:18, Titus 1:10). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior ,He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Jonathan_214]

I look forward to reading his book "Pope Peter" to get a better overall view of all the arguments he uses to come to the papacy.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

I've read it - loved it. Converted last year.

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

I would recommend the Early Church Was The Catholic Church. I found Pope Peter more concerned with specific papal issues rather than the legitimacy of the papacy as a whole. Pope Peter seemed to be a book for Catholics. The Early Church Was the Catholic Church is an evangelistic book for Protestants.

[@johnyang1420]

@@mortensimonsen1645 Welcome home! You made the right choice! God bless you!!

[@joecastillo8798]

@@tony1685 Tony, Your "Seventh-day Adventist" church traces its roots to American preacher William Miller (1782-1849), a Baptist who "predicted" the Second Coming would occur between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. Because he and his followers proclaimed Christ’s imminent advent, they were known as “Adventists.” When Christ failed to appear, Miller reluctantly endorsed the position of a group of his followers known as the “seventh-month movement,” who claimed Christ would return on October 22, 1844 (in the seventh month of the Jewish calendar). When this DIDN'T happen either, Miller renounced predicting the date of the Second Coming, and his followers broke up into a number of competing factions. Miller would have nothing to do with the new theories his followers produced, including ones that attempted to save part of his 1844 doctrine. Miller had claimed, based on his interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, that Christ would return in 1843-44 to cleanse “the sanctuary” (Dan. 8:11-14, 9:26), which he interpreted as the earth. After the disappointments of 1844, several of his followers proposed an alternative theory. While walking in a cornfield on the morning of October 23, 1844, the day after Christ failed to return, Hiram Edson felt he received a spiritual revelation that indicated that Miller had misidentified the sanctuary. It was not the earth, but the Holy of Holies in God’s heavenly temple. Instead of coming out of the heavenly temple to cleanse the sanctuary of the earth, in 1844 Christ, for the first time, went into the heavenly Holy of Holies to cleanse it instead. Another group of Millerites was influenced by Joseph Bates, who in 1846 and 1849 issued pamphlets insisting that Christians observe the Jewish Sabbath-Saturday-instead of worshipping on Sunday. This helped feed the intense anti-Catholicism of Seventh-day Adventism, since they blamed the Catholic Church for changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. These two streams of thought, Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary and the need to keep the Jewish Sabbath, were combined by Ellen Gould White, who claimed to have received many "visions" confirming these doctrines. Together with Edson and Bates, she formed the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, which officially received its name in 1860. Why be so gullible by believing in pretentious "prophets" when Jesus, who is God, clearly founded ONLY ONE CHURCH against which the "gates of hell will not prevail"? How can you intelligently justify such invented tales evidently produced by humans without any authority except for the one they invented for themselves? May God give you the grace to know His truth.

[@joecastillo8798]

@@tony1685 Tony, Go take a nap. It is evident you can't handle information that makes you nervous.

[@eskercurve]

I applaud Cameron's efforts at spreading knowledge among Protestants in an intellectual way. I would have run out of patience, looking at the comments here. Thank you!

[@HvV_FilmRoom]

Umm...do you not know James White?

[@Peter-jo6yu]

@@HvV_FilmRoom yes I remember that James White got soundly thrashed in a debate about the validity of sola scriptura

[@HvV_FilmRoom]

@@Peter-jo6yu LOL is that why Roman Catholics are scared to death to this very day of debating him?

[@rootberg]

@@HvV_FilmRoom check James White’s debate with catholic Trent Horn, it is really good. There are also good ones (a bit older) with Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid. All on KZbin.

[@justsomevids4541]

@@HvV_FilmRoom j white has been circulating the same poor arguments for decades, if u actually hear his objections refuted u will see how poor White's arguments are

[@Matt_M516]

Brilliant from Joe! His book, Pope Peter, is a wonderful book! It goes into much more depth and detail about the Papacy being there from the very beginning and continues to this present day to serve as the vicar of Christ, the servant of the servants of God, in the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded - The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thank you Cameron and Joe. God Bless.

[@billyg898]

I think his initial point is something protestants do need to consider. The NT writers and the early church fathers didn't just write things for their own sake. Paul wrote letters usually addressing particular problems, whether issues with members in churches or doctrinal disputes. The same applies to the early church. Peter tells wives to continue to commit to their non-Christian husbands in response to questions about that. Paul explains the deadly seriousness of partaking in the lords supper in an unworthy manner in response to hearing of divisions among members. They don't just say these things. Even Jesus often declared things only after being challenged, or the disciples specifically asking. The fact that the Papacy is not explicit in the NT isn't as strong a claim as some would think. If it wasn't really in dispute or challenged, it wouldn't be something that would be explicitly mentioned. So the fact that it isn't as explicit as you'd think something so serious would be is not as strong of a point as it's made out to be.

[@Desta4508]

Agreed

[@TKK0812]

*The NT writers and the early church fathers didn't just write things for their own sake. Paul wrote letters usually addressing particular problems, whether issues with members in churches or doctrinal disputes* So? They also wrote by way of just general doctrinal establishment, encouragement, requests for prayer etc. The whole book of Acts is a historical narrative *of the early church* that doesn't even *hint* at a papacy. It's absurd to think that the writers would only write concerning the papacy if it was under dispute. *The fact that the Papacy is not explicit in the NT isn't as strong a claim as some would think* Oh, it's extremely strong and it's why protestants reject your private interpretation. This heads I win, tails you lose mentality is extremely unhelpful. If the NT writers give catholics a vague verse at best like Matthew 16:18, they jump all over it to establish the ad hoc papacy and say "See! It's right there!". But if something isn't explicit or even implicit (I would say Matthew 16 doesn't even raise to the level of implicit) then you can't just use another ad hoc rationalization like "Well it was just so clear and established that no one thought to talk about it" You can't honestly believe this is a good argument?

[@Jerome616]

I think if you can get past the “if it ain’t in the Bible..” mentality, you open yourself up to a world of evidence for how the early church was structured. Though, I does seem that the powers and authority of the Papal Office developed over time. That isn’t really a mark against it as much of the Christian church structure developed over time. That’s just natural.

[@billyg898]

@@TKK0812 *They also wrote by way of just general doctrinal establishment* Did they? Can you provide an example where a doctrine is established for its own sake and there is no context whatsoever, such as a dispute or schism or behavioral issue, for it? *The whole book of Acts is a historical narrative of the early church that doesn't even hint at a papacy.* That's just pure exaggeration. Of course there are hints of the papacy. The fact that during the council debate about gentile circumcision, Peter gets up and doesn't just give his opinion on what to believe. No, in Acts 15:11, he says "We believe...". He's literally telling all the apostles and the elders, even the pro-circumcision group what they are to believe. And what happened? The room was silent. He, by mere declaration settled the dispute by telling everyone what to believe and everyone accepted it. No one challenged his authority to do this. Now, sure, that doesn't explicitly spell out the papacy and sure potentially you can read this in different ways. But to act like such things are not even a hint is just ridiculous. *It's absurd to think that the writers would only write concerning the papacy if it was under dispute.* No it's not. As I said at the start, give me an example where doctrine is explicitly spelled out and there is not catalyst or context. As for the rest, you are just putting words in my mouth I never said. It isn't just Matt 16:18, so I'm not gonna comment on that. Wanna know what else is not even hinted at in the bible? Scripture alone, faith alone. Apparently those are very important for Protestants, but there is no hint of them in the bible. Luther, on his own authority, had to add the word "alone" to his German translation Rom 3:28 just so faith alone is somewhere.

[@TKK0812]

@@billyg898 *Did they? Can you provide an example where a doctrine is established for its own sake and there is no context whatsoever* First , saying the NT writers established doctrine "for it's own sake" is a blasphemous disregard for the revelation of God. Scripture is replete with verses concerning the importance and awesomeness of knowing God and who He is. So when Paul, under inspiration of Holy Spirit, established a doctrine in the church, it was not "for it's own sake". Secondly, I never said there was not context, rather what I said is that the writings are not simply for settling disputes or schisms etc. I could give massive amounts of evidence, but just one is all I need to demonstrate my point. Vast amounts of Revelation are just simply that, in the greek "apokalypsis" meaning to uncover or reveal. Much of this book is written to the church as a whole and has no concern with settling specific disputes or debates or issues, it's simply something God chose to reveal to His church. *That's just pure exaggeration. Of course there are hints of the papacy. The fact that during the council debate about gentile circumcision* I don't mean this to be rude, but if that's honestly, in your heart of hearts, something you believe hints at the papacy, then I truly don't believe a dialogue concerning this would even be fruitful. That shocks me that you think that carries *any* weight. I will reassert that Acts does not even hint at the papacy. *Wanna know what else is not even hinted at in the bible? Scripture alone, faith alone* Tu quo que fallacy

[@daniellennox8804]

1:06:26 “We should strive to outdo one another in charity… it’s easy to be right about theology and go to hell”

[@thomasjorge4734]

Excellent take on the Constitutional Analogy!

[@seanrodrigues12]

Joe just blows this one out of the water. Awesome!

[@joeterp5615]

He truly does. His clarity is almost stunning. This is my first time hearing him (though I recently bought one of his books without even knowing who he was). I definitely want to check out more videos with him now.

[@joeterp5615]

I’m in the middle of this… and Joe is amazing here! This is the first time I’ve seen or heard him (other than one very short clip somewhere). He presents things so clearly. I bought one of his books a few weeks back not knowing who he was, and I’m excited to crack it open now and to see what he has to say about the early church.

[@anneoutarsingh3966]

Great session , thank you both

[@Jerome616]

This was a great guest. He really laid out his points quiet well.

[@Littlemermaid17]

Currently reading The Early was the Catholic Church and it is truly enjoyable 👏🏻

[@Littlemermaid17]

Early Church*

[@Stormlight1234]

"The New Testament doesn't create the Church, the Church creates the New Testament."

[@andrewhundeby]

correction, the Holy Spirit creates the church at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit inspires those in the early church to write inspired doctrine. Church and Bible is nothing without it's source.

[@SalvusGratiumFidem]

Incorrect. We made nothing. God made it.

[@TKK0812]

The New Testament is God's infallible word, so are you saying that the Church created God's word? This is a scary comment.

[@maxcassidy4527]

@@TheOtherCaleb wrong..... must be Catholic

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@maxcassidy4527 I misspoke. The Holy Spirit established the church, then the New Testament authors reveal the Church via inspiration.

[@jonathanstensberg]

1 Peter 2:4-8 oozes Catholicism. It is obviously building upon the rock analogy, not recapitulating the rock analogy. The author is stating that we (Christians) are rocks consitituting the Church, built upon the foundation rocks of the apostles, built upon the Rock of Peter, built upon the Cornerstone of Chirst. If you remove any part of the foundation, the whole thing collapses (hence apostolic and papal succession!) but together in unity it builds up into a great edifice--a living temple for God. That's just Catholicism.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Cameron, it’s depressing that you don’t have more than a million subs. Ditto for Pat Flynn’s channels! You guys are wonderful.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Gavin’s point about church governance is that Paul gives expositions on a plethora of roles within the church government, yet he never mentions a supreme, infallible bishop of Rome from Peter. It’s not that Paul gives exhaustive treatises regarding church government, because he doesn’t.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Paul does refer to Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock. Paul though never writes about faith alone, nor Scripture ALONE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@namapalsu2364]

Heschmeyer addressed that. The fact that Paul never mentions a supreme infallible bishop of Rome is because, and I'm heavily paraphrasing, people already know that. Also, as someone mentions this to me, Paul had other letters beside what's in the bible. So Paul's letters in the bible can't be consider his exhaustive thought on what Church governance is. It is partially, but not exhaustively.

[@AnakinSkybarker]

That particular argumentum ex silentio was addressed, I believe, in Erick YBarra's videos over at Classical Christian Thought. If you scroll down to the bottom of my playlist they should be located there. kzbin.info/aero/PLCOqsGsyCt4BCe8V0wmvP7KefvLUfptK-

[@bazzy8376]

@@namapalsu2364 other letters? yes. But consider the time he put into letters compared to the 30 years he spent teaching in person. That is oral tradition that overwhelmingly dwarfs all of his writings.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

Paul never talks about imputed justice, satisfaction for sin, penal substitution, faith alone, etc etc etc etc - which are in fact heresies, contradicted by Scripture numerous times

[@TheApologeticDog]

Enjoyed the episode fellas!

[@Mike-eh8qo]

When God was King of Israel, Israel had no human king. When Israel rejected God as King, Israel was given a human king. A central ruler like a king is only needed, when God has been rejected as king.

[@stevenwall1964]

I love the channel by the way. I forgot to mention that in my other long comment. I appreciate that you are having such open discussions. I have just been a little frustrated that the issue of what Jesus said about the Church in the Bible has come up a few times, but I have not heard or read a Protestant response to it. This was a great video. Thank you for it.

[@michaelbaker2552]

In the beginning of the Catholic Church, there wasn't a "pope." That name came later. There was not, in the beginning, a name for the head of the Church, but there was effectively a pope level person. The very first pope-level person was Jesus himself. He set up the Church, He decided on the number of apostles (the apostles thought this, hence the appointment of Mathias to fill Judas empty seat) and he passed the mantle of head of the Church to St. Peter. Christ knew that He would not be there to administer the Church on Earth so he groomed St. Peter to act in his stead and made the actual appointment. So the first pope level person, administrator of the Church, was Jesus Himself. Peter was in effect the second pope-level person..

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Peter’s uniqueness in leadership is not an argument for the succession of an infallible and supreme bishop of Rome.

[@thecrusaderofchrist]

The Papacy is a commutative case and if Peter was the leader of the early church I think that lays down a lot of the foundation for the Papacy

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Caleb, Nor then is faith alone and Scripture alone, both of which are not found in Holy Scripture, an argument for Final authority and salvation requirements! Yet, the office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Substantiate.

[@tonywallens217]

I think it is. A unique role is a part of what the papacy entails. That’s not the same as saying it’s a knock down argument tho.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Isn’t it? If Jesus made sure to put all the apostles on equal footing - that would be giant argument against the papacy. But he didn’t. And the leadership model practiced in Israel was kingdoms (with succession). If there were no succession, what would that entail for the church? If one grants succession and the hiearchy as god-given (the Son submits to the will of the Father - remeber Gethsemane) - then we very quickly have «supremacy» in some form. Infallibility is just a necessity - to end endless debates.

[@ninjason57]

After listening to both Gavins case and Joes case im left wanting from Joe's arguments. It really feels like he appeals to assumptions from the evidence rather than the evidence itself. My biggest issue with the papacy, and any other leadership role, is the danger of corruption that a singular position of power can be. There's a reason why the only form of government that can rule society perfectly is the Kingdom of God because our King, Jesus, IS God who is infallable. To give that ability/attribute to a human other than Jesus feels like it can become ripe for corruption.

[@faithharbour]

Really enjoying this. Thank you both. It’s quite late here when I’m watching, and reading the comments my eyes are seeing all the references to infallible as *inflatable*. This is both confusing and amusing me :)

[@Desta4508]

May God bless you. One thing I think we need to realize amidst apologetics is actually living out our faith and we all can get lost in the division. God loves the humble and your comment sounds like it and so keep it up❤️.

[@faithharbour]

@@Desta4508 Thanks! Inflatable Popes is a whole other discussion 😂 Blessings.

[@Desta4508]

@@faithharbour Blessings to you too friend!

[@Jerome616]

The inflatable doctrine is only relevant during Papal Pool Parties. 😉

[@Desta4508]

@@Jerome616 😂😂😂

[@josephpotter227]

Capturing Christianity officially has the most exhaustive scholarly work on Mathew 16

[@mortensimonsen1645]

One possible argument for Peter being the rock: He was given the name Cephas. There is really not much need to translate the name, but still, it was. I propose that all other Apostle's names are transliterated (although Andrew might be an exception - it is unknown what the original Hebrew name was according to my googling) from Hebrew into Greek. If I am right about this, then it needs an explanation. Why *translate* from Cephas to Petros? It would have been simpler to *transliterate* (give a Greek sound to a Hebrew name). The reason is quite obvious - because in this case, the name has a meaning which is important to convey in Greek. I haven't seen this argument made by anyone - maybe because it's not a foolproof argument. Any thoughts?

[@Miatpi]

Haven't heard that one before but I must say, that's quite clever!

[@peter_hobbs]

Nice. Makes sense. On its own it wouldnt make a strong case but it strengthens the case for the papacy.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@tony1685 Good question! It got me thinking. On the one hand, I am interested in seeking the truth, not avoiding any of it. On the other, I am interested in a particular kind of counter-arguments, not all kinds. Let me explain: I assume you believe in the divinity of Jesus. If so, would you be interested in some reasons why Jesus is not God? I could probably pull together some arguments. You could of course say "yes", being confident that you could refute the particular bible verse by quoting some other verses, or perhaps explaining the wider context. But furthermore, the reason why you do believe in the divinity of Jesus (again, my assumption) is most likely based on some *positive* statement you find in the Bible (and most likely because of the tradition you've grown up with). My point is that these *positive* statements ("before Abraham, I was" or "the Father and I are one" ) are not refuted as soon as Jesus "only the Father knows the hour". Therefore, in order to refute the divinity of Jesus, I suppose one would need a verse that says it more clearly like "I am just an angel" or "don't mistake me for God". I hope you see what kind of reasons I am looking for - probably the same way you would approach the Unitarian. I think it is indisputable that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. I think it is indisputable that Jesus appointed him to that position. Therefore, Peter as the "rock" meets very little cognitive resistance in me. With all that said, please go ahead with your reasons - I will of course read and try to give them a fair hearing.

[@forwardechoes]

Yeah 100%. To be honest, the fact that this is debatable is mind blowing... "You are the rock and on this rock I will build my church" - NO, no... It's not Peter and it's not even a church, it's an abstract concept of people who couldn't read yet red the Bible... - But isn't clear that Peter had the main authority all over scripture? - No... it's not.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@tony1685 I understand what you wanted to convey with the first references about two or three witnesses, but I don't think you apply them correctly. So I am afraid we don't see eye to eye on these "Bible Rules". I would assume that since the Bible is infallible, it would be more than enough with one reference. After all - it cannot be wrong. Although we can interpret it wrongly. So I don't buy the leap from "two or three (fallible) witnesses" to "two or three (infallible) Scripture citations". I think that is incoherent. Furthermore, Jesus argues that he witness about himself. That is clearly not what the Torah had in mind. Nevertheless - this is possible because he is infallible. So I understand you are SDA and as always you all want to debate the Sabbath. In your mind, it's a slam dunk I suppose, but it is not. Paul was all about countering the influence of the Jews that needed to revert back to circumcisions and food restrictions. You can see this in all his letters. We know from Acts that nearly all sorts of food were permitted, and we know from Acts that the Christians did gather on Sunday - so when Paul talks about those weak in faith, he clearly has in mind those that need the legalistic framework of the Old Covenant. That is not to say that the moral code of the Old Covenant has been absolved, clearly not - but something has changed. So when we read both that Christians gather on Lord's day and that Paul warns about those that are excessively concerned about days (Rom 14, Col 2, Gal 4) - and the Church Tradition has preserved meetings on Sunday, it is not complicated. Sabbath observance belongs to the old Covenant. Ignatius of Antioch - the disciple of John the Apostle says "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death". In fact, I would say Rom 14 is directed to SDA. Furthermore, since bringing up the faithfulness to the Word, is that a test SDA will pass? It seems like SDA accepts re-marriage, especially for the "innocent" part. Clearly a violation of Scripture. Jesus never says anything about re-marriage being allowed for the "innocent" part. It is clear that SDA doesn't understand why this is so: The marriage is a holy sacrament pointing to the unbreakable vow from Jesus to his Bride. Even if the Bride is unfaithful, Jesus will not find himself another Bride (even though he is innocent). Furthermore, I find that SDA practices rebaptism for people that have sinned in this area - another unbiblical teaching. Source: family.adventist.org/sda-policy-on-divorce-and-remarriage/

[@rickfilmmaker3934]

Joe is Top Shelf! Good man.

[@ezequielayala5685]

The cuestión it’s how many established denominations have survive without a líder !

[@wayofjesus-thetruth4698]

It's pretty evident about the effect which can happen if we try to remove a authority which Christ established. Its time to learn and understand wearing on the openness to truth and keeping away the hatredness which can cover up the truth as well :)

[@lkae4]

The pope is wreaking havoc with his authority. So much so that millions of your brethren want him removed. According to you, this is hatred. Where does this hatred come from and what is the truth in your pope's destruction of Roman Catholicism as it has been taught?

[@wayofjesus-thetruth4698]

@@lkae4 kindly dont teach me , my own faith. And a small correction needed in your statement. You said "The pope is wreaking havoc with his authority. So much so that millions of your brethren want him removed" we do not need or asking or want pope to be 'REMOVED' because we are not such a kind that we can remove something which JESUS established. Pope Francis must be REPLACED with the NEXT PETER that's what many of us are looking for because we know very well than protestants that many times we get bad pope who doesn't make up to the mark and this can be pretty obvious because he is just a mere human being. So its not like protestant concept that works here that we don't like something and immediately we say that "Ok well lets start a new group" Noooo !!!!

[@lkae4]

@@wayofjesus-thetruth4698 In order to replace him, you have to remove him. Thanks for confirming. And I agree, Francis is a mere human being. But I think you just contradicted your own church views if you think Francis is just a mere human being.

[@wayofjesus-thetruth4698]

@@lkae4 Its you as a protestant believes some crazy stuff about pope. We, know very clearly that he is a human being. Peter was a normal human being so people sitting on his chair would obviously be the same humans. And to replace him doesn't mean that the authority which Christ established will be removed. Thats the reason I said clearly that the next peter must come up REPLACING the present leader

[@lkae4]

@@wayofjesus-thetruth4698 Nah. I've known Francis was a heretical universalist non-Christian for a long time. Millions of Roman Catholics are starting to believe that truth.

[@philoalethia]

JH made an important (and correct) point, which is that if the Roman Catholic claims about Papal Supremacy are true, then one should be a Roman Catholic. If they are not true, then there are likely better (i.e., more true) options available. Of course, each of the other options have their own difficulties, as well. Unfortunately for the RC position, there are no known sound arguments or solid evidences for Papal Supremacy, and there are several against it.

[@thepentacostalchatholicconvert]

Fantasticly good! 👍🏻

[@shlamallama6433]

I think that Catholic Apologists should be giving more attention the terminology of "binding and loosing" and what that means. Perhaps there should be a debate about that. I think it's possible you can get infallibility and succession from that phrase if it's talking about Rabbinic halakhic authority. Matthew 18 would need to be talked about to.

[@masterchief8179]

But I guess there are people talking a lot about it. Of course Jesus Christ gave all the Apostles together - the apostolic collegiate - the power of binding and loosing too (Matthew 18, 18), which reflects the complement for collegiality as far as ecclesial teaching AUTHORITY goes, so it must all be in compass with the perfect law-giver’s wisdom. It does not signify therefore an annulment of the Petrine authority, due to two theological facts: 1) it was given to Peter with specificity, anteriority and prominence, singularly addressing to him - even by name (and function, which relates to the name changing) - directly and individually among all the Apostles; 2) only to Peter Our Lord gave - individually - the “keys of the Kingdom” and no other Apostle or disciple were commanded to receive them from Jesus, but through participation. Thus it explains the convergence in the Church teaching/magisterial authority both of the 1) Petrine teaching authority in the power of the Keys (= Papal authority: Mt 16, 18-19) and the 2) gathered Apostolic collegiate teaching authority with Peter (not apart from Peter) (=Ecumenical Councils’ authority in communion with the Successor of Peter: Mt 18, 18). Those parallelisms tend to be more or less crystalline to deep and hardcore Catholic ecclesiologists, but I agree Catholics could be clearer since not anyone take those concepts for granted. Ecclesiology is much overlooked.

[@shlamallama6433]

@@masterchief8179 Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it and the following questions aren't meant as "refutations" of your position but as genuine questions. 1. Isn't Matthew 18 talking about the Church at a local level? The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible takes this position as well as (I think) Dale Allison and WD Davies in their second volume in their Matthew commentary series. What makes this seem the case is that the passage is talking about a particular person being taken before the Church authorities to be judged (resulting in either excommunication 18:17, or forgiveness and reconciliation with the community 18:13, 19). This seems to indicate that this is talking about the local church because in the early Christian communities, people going astray occur too frequently for all the apostles (or their successors) to get in a council. In fact, verse 19:20 seems to indicate you need at least two, but not all 12. How would you respond to this? 2. The authority to bind and loose seems to be talking about the authority to bind and loose *people* in the local christian community. However, this is different from binding and loosing propositions. Therefore it seems that the context specifies the binding of people without specifying the binding of propositions. Furthermore, if it was about propositions then the local court would be able to bind these Christians to a proposition that a different local community does not bind them to. This allows for a difference in theology among different local churches which seems counter to Catholic claims of unity. Your answers would be appreciated. If you prefer, you can direct message me (if that doesn't work just reply to this comment). I came to the conclusion that the apostles and their successors had the authority to excommunicate and forgive people but not define things. Peter's Binding and loosing Matthew 16 is unsymmetrical with this because the context implies it's talking about teaching authority and thus Peter had the ability to bind and loose propositions for the whole Church (since that's what's in view in Matthew 16). Thank you and God bless.

[@masterchief8179]

@@shlamallama6433 I agree with your observations about contextuality. I guess they are pretty accurate. But even if Matthew 18 deals more properly and directly with excommunication (= matters of discipline) and Matthew 16 deals more properly and directly with faith (= propositions on doctrine), the two contexts must be intertwined because of the parallelism which justly arises from the terminology of “binding and loose” in the two cases and senses. In Rabbinic tradition, the expression was applicable both to doctrinal and to disciplinary aspects. Suan Sonna is a young Catholic apologist that has made this explanations about Halakha (if I’m not mistaken). But if so, when referential to doctrines of faith (teachings about “the Law”) it was believed nevertheless that the ontological nature of the High Court’s judgment was distinct than the disciplinary judgment (and the Sanhedrin was “backed up” by Heaven to preserve the purity of the teachings). It would most certainly show a categorical difference between the wrong condemnation of Jesus when He was framed by the Sanhedrin (Lk 22, 66-71) and the teachings over the mosaic law of the Pharisees upon the authority of Moses’ “cathedra” (Matthew 23, 1-3). So it is pretty interesting: under those lenses, the interpretation of Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 more or less claims what Germans would call “Systematische Interpretation”, I guess. About Mt 18 being a reference to the local (authoritative) church (but not the universal church), I agree with you again. It concerns - in the immediate context - the way to act upon an obstinate sinner who refuses amendments at local levels, only without excluding the possibility of his action’s effect being broader than local communities. As far as a doctrinal proposition goes, I guess we would need to check again the more systematic interpretation: contextualizing Matthew 18 maybe with Acts 15 could fairly be described as an adequate way of understanding how the Early Church conceived collegiality (in doctrinal matters). Those would be my two cents! Thanks for you very thoughtful comment!

[@shlamallama6433]

@@masterchief8179 Thanks for your explanation! Yeah what I forgot to mention is I think that Acts 15 would be the justification scripturally for ecumenical councils.

[@Miatpi]

"I think that Catholic Apologists should be giving more attention the terminology of "binding and loosing" and what that means. Perhaps there should be a debate about that." yes that seems to be the crucial point.

[@ricobonifacio1095]

Why is Cameron the whole time he was listening, have a look like he was waiting for his turn in a rap battle? haha

[@TheOtherCaleb]

The Holy Spirit creates the Church and the Church is revealed via inspiration of the New Testament authors.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@DonnyBlips True. I’ve edited my initial comment.

[@Desta4508]

@DonnyBlips I agree with a lot of what you just said. I think then we’re going to have to distinguish what are these developments, mainly focusing on the controversial ones and if they’re permitted or not. We know The Holy Spirit cant lead The Church in error so I would subunit to yes in them being permitted.

[@emenem6131]

You got it!

[@alexwarstler9000]

There's at least 2 versions of Sola Scriptura. There is the Regulative Principle: If I cannot find it in the Bible, it is not necessary to practice or believe. The other is Lutheran-Anglican view (it has a name, it escapes me at the moment): That tradition is good and acceptable, but cannot contradict Scripture.

[@alexwarstler9000]

@YAJUN YUAN The Regulative Principle tends to devolve into what eventually birthed the Christian Church (denomination). But, I also tend to think that both views are the Regulative Principle with more or less steps.

[@alexwarstler9000]

@Be Skeptical Of Everything Rome doesn't have differing views on important doctrines?

[@alexwarstler9000]

@YAJUN YUAN I'm not sure I see why that is a bad thing. Would you care to explain why it is a bad thing to be in continuity with the Ancient Faith of the Church and be formed by it thoughts and practices?

[@scotthauck9898]

Matthew 16 is solely referring to Peter. Our Lord spoke Aramaic.

[@hallboy5]

In the first argument Joe brings up, he says we shouldn't expect the NT to be mentioning the Papacy because the Church created the NT, not the other way around. In this way, it is dis-analogous to the Constitution's mentioning of the Presidency (and not mentioning governors). But that argument seems to fall short when you ask the question, "Does the NT lay out requirements for/details about other church offices?" If following Joe's argument, you would expect the answer would be no. Why would the NT spell any of that out, when the Church already existed? And yet we find, in the NT, an astonishing amount of detail surrounding other Church offices, namely elder and deacon (obviously in the two passages cited by Gavin, but also in various references throughout the whole NT). Therefore, I think Protestants are totally valid in saying, "If the Papacy was present in the early Church, we would surely expect to see it mentioned in the NT and early Christian literature- other Church offices are!" So Gavin's objection still stands. The NT isn't creating the Church like how the Constitution created the USA, but the NT certainly seems riddled with implicit and explicit references to the Church structure. The absence of the Papacy amidst all those references is still glaring.

[@The_AgentSmith]

we need "Joe H. vs Jay Dyer" on Papacy.. Cameron being moderator

[@Matt-ck3pp]

nah...

[@AnthonyThomason14]

nah..

[@thecrusaderofchrist]

@@Matt-ck3pp why not (I'm actually curious)?

[@namapalsu2364]

Hell, no. Dyer only fit in a videogamer community.

[@ragelikecage4012]

Eric ybarra and Jay dyer have had their papacy discussion before, probably similar to what you'd see with Joe H

[@ApostolicStorm]

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” - 1 Samuel 8:4-9 “If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God: But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as it was against your fathers.” - 1 Samuel 12:14-15 Beloved, remember when the Israelites desired an earthly king over their heads in sinful rebellion against God? God gave them over to their delusion, and their king became an apostate snare to all the people. That without faithful obedience to God, they and their king would all perish. Papal Catholicism is as Biblical as the DaVinci Code. Peter was simply an Apostle of Christ, who had no further sanctified role. To think so, is to idolize a fellow saint, who was a mere disciple of Christ as we all should be. As for the earthly functions of the Church, we are to only obey Jesus Christ by faith. Our bodies are collectively the Temple of the Holy Spirit-so forcing the Church to be a physical institution misses the point completely. Also, according to Jesus (Scripture), there is absolutely no middleman or middle-establishment to intercede between us and Christ. To assume this defeats the entire purpose of faith, because why believe in Jesus, when we can venerate past saints and a sinful humanly Pope? Which is exactly the state of the Catholic Vatican: the Pope being the face of Christianity, rather than Christ Himself. If Jesus appointed Peter to be the Pope, then He would have clearly expressed this to all of the other Apostles, and all of the Apostles would have centered their evangelical operations around Peter-which never happened. Scriptural moments of Jesus simply praising Peter does not elect him to the man-made position of Papacy. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” - 1 Timothy 2:5 “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” - 2 Corinthians 5:7 “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” - John 18:36 “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” - Matthew 6:33 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” - Colossians 2:9 “I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” - Luke 18:8 “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” - Romans 3:11 “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” - Isaiah 53:6

[@jperez7893]

“…Upon this rock i will build my Church…” try to interpret this verse from the canonical Hebrew gospels. What does the grammar indicate? We now have Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew that is not from the Greek transcription. The newly discovered Hebrew manuscripts sheds light to a lot of troublesome verses of the Greek

[@soteriology400]

Why I believe the papacy aspect in Roman Catholicism is false. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7) Peter was one of the 12 to judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28-30) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome? Peter spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not the languages of Rome, which was Greek and Latin (Acts 4:13) Peter was assigned to feed the sheep of Israel, to the day he died (John 21) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome?) Peter was a fisherman, who had a boat which was instrumental for their gathering in their final days (John 21:3). Peter was in Babylon, Egypt, and Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt, (1 Peter 5:13) Peter was writing from or near Jerusalem at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, for the temple was in Jerusalem, not Rome. If Peter was in Rome at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, then this would make him a part of the scattered. He was writing to Jewish Christians in those 5 churches, who were scattered from Jerusalem, who had to leave for their gathering. They would have left to greet Mark for their gathering (1 Peter 5:13) then continued by boat to Peter, who was 100 miles south. Do you see the water channels leading/funnels to Babylon, Egypt? The logistics were already taken care of by God. If “Babylon” was referring to Rome, that would be a logistical nightmare. Peter would then escort them for their gathering, to Petra. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the earth split southwest of Petra, which indicates revelation 12 has been fulfilled. The 1260 days was from April 11, AD70 to September 22, AD73. If you are going to make this about a pope being in Rome, ask yourself, does this fit the biblical narrative? Where do you see the earth split near Rome indicating where their gathering took place (this place also has to have a history of flooding)? Eusebius did a major rewriting of history, to define an "orthodox" view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. He has fooled billions of people. I go over this in my channel.

[@nicolasramirez3944]

Dude your background looks soooo goooooooooood

[@locutorest]

State Governors are created in the constitutional documents of their respective states.

[@hallboy5]

@51:38, Joe claims "No one has ever gotten to the Trinity just by reading the Bible". I wonder what the early ecumenical council members would think of that statement! It seems that they thought they were clarifying and stating more explicitly the doctrine of the Trinity that could be discerned just by reading the Bible.

[@natebozeman4510]

I think his argument against Gavin's take was interesting... that the Bible isn't meant to build the church. I need to think about that. I REALLY didn't like his John 10 and John 21 shepherd argument. Jesus explicitly says that HE is the good shepherd in John 10, showing that He isn't referring to Peter, which means John 21 is nothing more than restoring Peter's 3 denials of Christ.

[@Jonathan_214]

I too thought his argument against Gavin's claim of Constitution mentions the President therefore the Bible should mention the pope was very interesting, showing as well that governors are not mentioned in the constitution. I also think we shouldn't be too quick to say "this argument wasn't good". I think he may have been trying to stay away from the common arguments for the papacy, as he mentioned Protestants are already familiar with them, and was possibly trying to show some other areas that the papacy could be seen. Also granting that passages can have multiple meanings. I will need to look into his book Pope Peter to get a better overall view of all the arguments he uses to come to the papacy.

[@natebozeman4510]

@@Jonathan_214 I am fine to concede good arguments that he made, but I am also gonna call out bad ones. The John argument was almost purely eisegesis. We know this because it ignores the fact that Jesus explains the parable in John 10 and says that He Himself is the shepherd. He wasn't referring to Peter.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

Nate, I appreciate that very fair feedback! I did a pretty bad job of explaining the argument from John 10, but if you take a close look at the passage, Jesus uses two back-to-back images. In the first ten verses, Jesus is explicitly the Gate for the sheep, and authentic shepherds arrive by the gate to tend the sheep. He is also the Good Shepherd, and that begins in verse 11. So I think it's easy to group both of those sayings into one, when they're not. As for the idea that Peter is being restored, there's clearly a connection between Peter's threefold denial and threefold affirmation, but the idea that Peter stops being an apostle in such a way that he needs to be restored is contrary to numerous explicit references in Scripture to him still being an Apostle between Holy Thursday evening and the period after the Resurrection described in John 21. I do a better job of explaining both of those angles in Pope Peter then I am doing here or in the interview itself (still working on brevity and clarity, sorry!)

[@natebozeman4510]

@@JosephHeschmeyer thanks for your response! I didn't expect to hear from you directly! I'm sitting here reading John 10, and it seems to me that Jesus is simply explaining the parable He just told, not giving a different illustration entirely. He reuses the language saying those who enter are thieves and robbers, and says He is the door in the second illustration, which seems to be exactly like the first illustration, except He then goes and calls Himself the door as well. If I'm misunderstanding, let me know, but that it what it seems to me is happening.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@JosephHeschmeyer You're doing excellent!! I really love your book Pope Peter. Converted last year. You manage to pack so many things in such a short time span that it's crazy. And you did actually mention that there were multiple shepherd parables in John 10, so no worry. It's just that people need to pay attention to every word :D. I was thinking of an argument for the interpretation that Peter actually was *the rock* - which I've outlined in a comment for this video. Essentially it says that if he was not *the rock*, then no need to translate his name (Paul called him Cephas from time to time). What do you think of such an argument?

[@Israel2.3.2]

Shame that early church members weren't historically minded. Thousands of Pauline letters lost forever any one of which would alter the structure of this conversation.

[@Jerome616]

For real.

[@tillo1981]

Cool to be Catholic 😎😎😎

[@dave1370]

Good guest and presentation. Now, maybe have a presentation arguing against the papacy by someone like Dr. Jordan Cooper if possible.

[@Miatpi]

He did have such a video with Dr. Ortlund last week?

[@acephilosopher9186]

Best argument for Protestantism: In N Out Burger Best argument for Catholicism: beards Decisions, decisions....

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

Their burgers are delicious, but have you tried In-N-Out's "fries"? Bland garbage. Just saying.

[@MaverickChristian]

Catholic priests also get to be in all the best horror movies. You think they'd ever do a good exorcist movie with a Lutheran pastor? Nope.

[@MaverickChristian]

@YAJUN YUAN Well, yeah, but the characters in question are Catholics even if the actors aren't.

[@Noseqquiero]

It would be upsetting if I heard anyone claim St. Peter was infallible St. Peter would’ve objected Joe’s view is awfully frightening. The only person that was infallible was Jesus. No man no matter what, is infallible. If that’s the best reason FOR a papacy, that’s real sad

[@josegeorge241]

Nobody said Peter was infallible 🤦🤦🤦🤦

[@totustuus3065]

You don’t have an understanding of how papal infallibility works. The pope is only infallible in certain statements if certain conditions are met….this is a fairly rare occurrence. Pope Francis is not infallible, Peter was not infallible.

[@hallboy5]

@24:08, Joe begins his argument about how Peter was prophesied by Jesus in John 10:1-10. He says that "someone" is the shepherd entering by the door, who will lead the whole flock. When John 21 comes around, we explicitly see Peter being called to shepherd the flock, fulfilling said prophecy. The shepherd in John 10:1-10 can't be Jesus, since Jesus is the door (v7-9), right? Wrong! From that very passage, we see explicitly that Jesus is the shepherd as well. In the very next verse after the section Joe points us to, verse 11, Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd". There's no mysterious prophecy here- the shepherd character is explicitly identified as Jesus and it isn't left for speculation. This only becomes more obvious when you compare verses 4 and 14 (the sheep know the shepherd/Jesus' voice). One might say, "but it'd be too convoluted for Jesus to be both the door and the shepherd!" Well... take that up with Jesus, but I think it's perfectly sensible for him to describe himself as both the way into salvation by his blood and the guider and protector of the saved.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

Here's a thought. If you consider scripture to be infallible, then isn't an infallible church needed to compile it? I mean, if we have a fallible church, or fallible leaders, then how can scriptural infallibility be ensured? Sure, you can say because of God, and because he is infallible, which is obviously true. But even if he is infallible, he still needs men to write down his words does he not, which would require them to be infallible in doctrinal matters also, otherwise, scriptural infallibility couldn't be ensured. Now considering that the bible wasn't compiled until the 4th century, that infallible church would have had to be in place prior to its compilation. And so, if the church has to be infallible by necessity to ensure no biblical errors, then it isn't really a stretch to assume an infallible head to the church, namely Peter and his successors. Edit: I actually postulate that infallibility goes all the way back to Moses himself, since the Torah itself had to be written infallibly. Jesus himself was confident in its infallibility to quote it. So, I would argue there has always been an element or an aspect of infallibility in doctrinal matters throughout the whole history of the Bible.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@YAJUN YUAN You are making many assumptions. On what basis do you say "this level of inspiration does not exist any more?" Is that scriptural or is it a tradition of men? You confuse sinfulness with fallibility regarding doctrinal matters. Whilst all men are sinful, not all are infallible on doctrinal matters. Furthermore, to ensure that the integrity of scripture is maintained, that each new copy over lengthy periods of time are true to the original, there has to be an infallible body of men, with a leader to ensure that this happens, and to also ensure no erroneous text is added to the already inspired text, as some have already erroneously done, mixing existing scripture with heretical ideas, such as Mormonism and Islam. There has to be an infallible body to also define to the whole world what is scripture and what is not, what IS the inspired word of God and what is not. The rooting out of heresies past, present and future is only possible if God does this in conjuction with an infallible body which cooperates with his grace to ensure that the sanctity of his word is preserved for posterity and for all time. When you realise this fact, then do the words of Jesus become apparent, that he will be with his church until the end of time, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Your protestant views prevent you from seeing the obvious. Now that it is apparent to you from what I've told you, it would be foolish to maintain it.

[@petethepeg2]

@@myrddingwynedd2751 "Your protestant views prevent you from seeing the obvious. Now that it is apparent to you from what I've told you, it would be foolish to maintain it..." I don`t call myself Catholic or Protestant but the arrogance of that statement is breathtaking, if you wish to win folk over .

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@@petethepeg2 How is it arrogant?

[@petethepeg2]

@@myrddingwynedd2751 Dear brother or sister, just re-read slowly that last sentence of yours and ask yourself the same question again! That is not exactly winsome is it! More like contention and confrontation ! Also you make your arguement seem like a fact when it's just your point of view!

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@@petethepeg2 I think it's incredibly arrogant to assume a neutral position, unless you're SDA, which for all intents and purposes is 'still' a protestant viewpoint. Its arrogant since you assume the neutral position is the right one, that both catholics and protestants are wrong, and you see above their petty squabbles and disagreements. I will change my mind if you can convince me the neutral position is the right one to hold. You see, you are like atheists who claim Christians are arrogant for calling certain sexual practices immoral, or like moral relativist who call Christians arrogant for claiming absolutes, like they're saying "how can you possibly know the truth?" or "who do you think you are to be telling me what's right and wrong?" It's a baseless accusation and slander to make the one who speaks the truth sound like the malevolent one, without taking into account the possibility that one has submitted themselves to divine revelation in humility. You offered no argument as to why my statement is arrogant, which implies you are being rather sneaky, merely trying to paint me out to be a bad guy for either speaking the truth, or if not the truth, at least my opinion. If anything, and I could be wrong, but I think you are the one being rather lofty here since you're a fence sitter, proudly exclaiming you can see the silly faults on both sides. If only we had your wisdom we could see what you see? Can you see the pridefulness in your neutral position?

[@junmahusay2721]

I am inclined to think that the rock is the office of Peter which was established for the service of the word of God .

[@haydongonzalez-dyer2727]

Nice

[@tonyl3762]

"the Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) Father, Son, and Spirit are all equal in being and Godhead, but who says there is not a hierarchy among them?? The Son did not send the Father. The Holy Spirit did not send the Son. Is there not a hierarchy and rank among them from what we see in Scripture? Perhaps you don't understand "equality" and "hierarchy" correctly if you see a conflict. To be controversial, father and mother are both equally spouses/parents, and, yet, is not the husband the head of his wife (to paraphrase Paul)?

[@Luther_Odoc]

Peter’s name is mentioned 114 times in the Bible and he is a primary witness to the resurrection of Jesus (I Cor. 15:5). In Mt 16:16-19 (“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”), Jesus entrusted to Peter a special role/mission (the change of name signify this, also in Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:42). He made him the head and overall shepherd of the Church (also in Jn 21:15-17; Acts 1:8; 2:14, 37) to guard Jesus’ revelation (keeper of ‘keys of heaven;’ also in Lk 22:31-32) and giving him special power and authority (that is to ‘bind’ and ‘loose’). Jesus also promised that His Church would not lose the mission entrusted to her (gift of infallibility). [ see "II. Theologians and biblical scholars (Catholics) today understand that Jesus founded the Church through a process." www.scribd.com/document/299847699/Understanding-the-Church ]

[@ThruTheUnknown]

Yes the east rejected the council of Ephesus REGARDLESS of the pope and Catholics have difficulty telling which 8th council is actually the 8th council because one Pope contradicted the other. The east haven't had an ecumenical council because the EMPEROR was the one that called them NOT THE POPE.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@DonnyBlips Good luck getting Latin mass back.

[@kevinbartolen5881]

@@ThruTheUnknown That was supposed to be a come back?

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@@kevinbartolen5881 Nah buddy u r doin much better than I.

[@Miatpi]

@@ThruTheUnknown Latin mass never left

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@@Miatpi Tell that to pope Francis who is trying his best to eradicate it

[@joshuascott5814]

I can’t be the only one who noticed that if you read just a few verses past where Jesus calls himself the gate of the sheep, he also says he’s the good shepherd (v. 11, and v. 14-15 restate this and call back to the ideas in the earlier part of the chapter about the sheep recognizing the shepherd), even though Joe specifically set up the argument by saying “you’d think Jesus would call himself the shepherd but he doesn’t.” I’m not trying to accuse anyone of dishonesty but at a minimum that’s really low-effort reading. Some of the other arguments are interesting but this one I think has zero force, or if any force it’s actually in the other direction since Jesus says he is THE shepherd who tends the whole flock.

[@joshuascott5814]

John 21 also reads a bit differently than what you would think based on his description. The other disciples DO bring the net to the shore after Peter jumps ship, they just don’t haul it into the boat. Dragging the net straight up, out of water and against gravity, is way different than dragging up a beach, especially if the boat is so small the weight would tip the boat (which means the strength of the disciples wasn’t even the pertinent limiting factor). And frankly I don’t see how any of this proves much. It’s a good example of finding what you already expect in a passage rather than the passage just meaning something clear.

[@MrAmericanaSam]

I really would've appreciated Joe reviewing the full four verses of 1 John 2:4-8. When you have the context leading into verse 8, it paints a very different picture of Joe's criticism toward Martin Luther. John himself, there in the letter, presents the idea that *Christ* is the cornerstone of the church, and that *we all* are to become "living stones" after Christ. It's there in the text. Colossians 2:2-4,8-10 My purpose is that they may be encouraged, that they may be joined together in love, and that they may have all the riches derived from being assured of understanding and fully knowing God’s secret truth, which is - the Messiah! It is in him that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. I say this so that no one will fool you with plausible but specious arguments. Watch out, so that no one will take you captive by means of philosophy and empty deceit, following human tradition which accords with the elemental spirits of the world but does not accord with the Messiah. For in him, bodily, lives the fullness of all that God is. And it is in union with him that you have been made full - he is the head of every rule and authority.

[@jonathanstensberg]

There's no contradiction between Christ being the Cornerstone and Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built. Ephesians describes all of the Apostles as the foundations of the Church. Revelation describes the New Jerusalem as having twelve foundations. And as Peter says, we are all to become living stones. Pulling everything together, one would never conclude that all references to rocks are references to Christ. Rather, one would conclude that the different rocks serve different rolls in the edifice of the Church, a living temple for God built up by each living stone resting upon the foundations beneath it. It's really quite similar to Paul's famous Body of Christ, in which different persons serve as different members in the body with Christ as the head. The difference is that Peter and the Apostles are singled out as having particular foundation roles in the edifice--without which the whole thing collapses. Hence it is quite fitting for the Peter and the Apostles to have successors, such that Church always has its foundations in place--just as the body of Christ should always have its heart and vital organs. Once you see the whole picture, it's pretty obvious that 1 Peter 2:4-8 is oozing Catholicism, just like the rest of the Bible.

[@MrAmericanaSam]

@@jonathanstensberg Perhaps. Still, with Paul touting Christ as head and the Johns reiterating that there are multiple, equilateral foundation stones, the political revolution of the Papa looks even more extraneous than with my original point. As always, I suspect truth and wisdom lie somewhere in-between, crying out for us to seek and find her. I cannot see how Roman Catholicism is laced throughout scripture, but I can see and agree how Catholic Faith is.

[@Haexz1]

Do any church fathers link Luke 22:32 to the papacy in any way? So many (if not all) of these arguements just feel post-hoc, you begin with the position that Vatican I is correct then just read all of scripture through that lens.

[@lucaspacitti182]

"Since then, beloved, we see so great a protection divinely instituted for us, it is reasonable and just that we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our leader, giving thanks to the eternal king, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, for having given such great power to him whom He made prince of the entire Church, so that if anything, even in our time, be rightly done and rightly disposed through us, it must be attributed to the working and governance of him, to whom it was said: “and thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren,” and to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, in response to the threefold profession of eternal love, said three times, by way of mystical insinuation, “Feed my sheep.” Without a doubt, the pious shepherd does so to this day, and he fulfills the command of his Lord, confirming us by his exhortations, and praying for us incessantly, so that we may not be overcome by any temptation..." (Leo the Great, Sermon 4, PL 54: 149-52)

[@Haexz1]

@@lucaspacitti182 Not trying to do some gotcha but I don't trust that quotation, 'sermon 4' isn't in the schaff collection and the only source I get when I search that up on the internet is a Catholic apologetic book which then references back to a Italian (or Latin maybe idk) book from 1866 which I can't read... Do you know where I can read the whole sermon it would be a interesting quotation if it's authentic.

[@lucaspacitti182]

@@Haexz1 Read "Leo The Great: Sermons (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series)" translated by Jane Patricia Freeland, C.S.B.J., and Agnes Josephine Conway, S.S.J. Or go to the Patrologia Latina online and read the original

[@Haexz1]

​@@lucaspacitti182 Thanks for that just read the whole sermon. I don't see what this has to do with the papacy really, Leo says Peter is the shepard of the church but never links that authority Peter had to himself or the papacy. The quotation continues on and says '"Feed my sheep." Doubtless he now does that. As a dedicated shepherd, he carries out the mandate from the Lord. He strengthens us with his exhortations and never stops praying for us that we might not be overcome by any trial.' Leo is saying it's Apostle Peter not the Pope or the papacy that strengthens the brethren and feeds the sheep, you are making a link there Leo himself doesn't make.

[@lucaspacitti182]

@@Haexz1 This is a sermon Pope Leo gave on the anniversary of his elevation to the See of Rome. He is saying the Apostle Peter to this day gives a divine protection to "us" (royal "we", used in all papal encyclicals), confirming "us" and praying for "us". In Sermon 5, he says the Apostle Peter to this day presides over his see and has conveys the stability of the Rock to his successor. It's okay if you interpret it differently, but for me it's very clear that he believes all the promises given to Peter (Mt 16, Lk 22, Jn 21) continue in his successors

[@theandybee3050]

Cameron- *This isn’t a response to Gavin…* Papacy dude - *Immediately addresses Gavin’s argument*

[@footspike55]

He said he was gunna do that tho.

[@ryanperez8179]

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28 KJV Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 KJV Jesus loves you repent You're a sinner in need of a Savior That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 KJV

[@junmahusay2721]

Jesus, the Word of God is the Rock. Those who believe in the Word of God are called stones because their faiths bear the Word of God in them. The office of Peter, entrusted with the Word of God , with the task of safeguarding it and teaching it correctly is the rock on which " I will build my church." This rock, the sure bearer of the 'Word of God" is the true measure of the correct faith, on which membership in the Church is anchored. Those who believe as the rock teaches are stones that make up the Church of Jesus Christ, who is the cornerstone.

[@gussetma1945]

How about a case for dressing like an adult?

[@stevenwall1964]

Cameron I really wish I could get in touch with you about your questions on Catholicism. I saw you question someone who mentioned to you that Jesus said that he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Jesus also said that he would be with the Church until the end of the age. Jesus also said that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth. So if you think the Catholic Church failed then what do you do with these comments. You said people are sinful so why could they not make a mistake. But why is it we trust that the Church got the trinity right, or the incarnation right? They were established before we even had the NT Bible. Why do we trust them? Because Jesus said he would send the Spirit of Truth to guide them in ALL TRUTH. Sorry not trying to yell but just emphasize. If you cannot trust what Jesus Christ said about His church and why we should trust anything; then who are you going to trust? Jesus seems to be beyond clear that the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. That He will be with the Church to the end of the age! That he will send the Spirit of Truth to guide the Church in all truth. So are you going to believe Jesus's words? If Protestantism is right then those words of Jesus were meaningless. And then for some reason since the Catholic church erred if you believe that; then God let there be 1600 years of no true Church on the earth. Is that possible? Then when the Protestant Reformation occurred there were 25 contradicting versions of different churches that couldn't agree on anything? Can that really be the unity that the Bible demands for the Church? You could not say that Martin Luther and the other Reformers had been guided to all truth because they all had a different truth. That is why I am becoming Catholic. If I am missing something I would love to have someone clear this up for me. I would love to hear why people don't take Jesus words at face value. How could we say the Holy Spirit led the Church to determine the trinity and the incarnation but then let it fail in regards to the Papacy and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? That just seems to be absurd to me. My name is Steve. Would love to chat about it.

[@toddthacker8258]

Paragraphs are your friend, Steve. They make your writing a lot easier to read. Protestants believe that God works through many institutions on this earth, including the Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox, etc. You do realize that the Orthodox think that they are the keepers of the flame, the true church, the true apostolic successors, etc.? Why are THEY wrong? We can disagree and still be unified around Jesus. Maybe we should focus more on unity and acceptance between different institutions and less on purging those who disagree with us on something. All believers are part of the Church. The Church doesn't have to be one huge, worldwide institution that tells everyone what to do. The Trinity and the incarnation are both concepts well-rooted in the words of Jesus, the apostles, and the church fathers. The books of the Bible were also pretty much agreed upon by the early church. Not so much the papacy, etc. People who need one church with a supreme leader making all the decisions remind me of the Israelites begging for a king. I mean, if it makes you feel better then who am I to judge. But God would have been MUCH clearer about this if the Pope was really a thing, in my view.

[@stevenwall1964]

​@@toddthacker8258 I did reply to your comment. But I think it was too long so I did post it at the top of the comments section. It is probably too long for you to want to deal with but I did respond. Thanks again.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@stevenwall1964 I appreciate you taking the time! I looked about for your comment in this section (using "newest first") and did not see it. Is it possible that you posted it in another thread?

[@stevenwall1964]

@@toddthacker8258 Hi Todd, Thank you for responding. I have responded you a few times but it is just too long I suppose and the “Comment” Section won’t take it. I will try to be more brief. Please don’t think I am being belligerent. I just have question about how you see the evidence. I was once an atheist who thought Christianity was false because it was so divided. The New Testament in agonizing clear language demands that the church be unified. Clearly Jesus says in John 17 that he wants the church to “be one” and he gives a reason. It is so the “world will know” that Christianity is true. No other religion is unified and so Jesus says it twice. He wants the church to “be one” so the “world will know.” Then he says he wants church to be “perfectly one” so the world will believe. Paul ratifies that with dozens of passages that say the church must be one. Paul demands that the church “agree on everything and that there be “no divisions” among them (1st Corinthians 10). In Ephesians 4 he says that church should have complete unity so that believers are not tossed to and fro by many different doctrines. When I read the New Testament as an atheist I wrote what Jesus said about the church. 1. “The gates of hell would not prevail against it” - Matthew 16 2 It had to be united. John 17 “That they may all be one so that the world may know…” 3. It would face persecution - John 15:20 4. It would go to all nations - Matthew 28 5. Jesus would be with the church until the end of time. Matthew 28 6. Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to guide the church “forever.” John 14:17 7. Jesus would send the holy spirit to guide the church in “all truth.” John 16:13 8. Jesus gives the ultimate authority of judging sin to “THE CHURCH.” In Matthew 18 he says if someone sins then if the issue cannot be resolved “one-on- one” then you should get two or three witnesses. And if the issue is not resolved then it gets taken to THE CHURCH . And whoever does not listen to THE CHURCH is to be separated. THE CHURCH has the ultimate authority when it comes to judging what is sinful. And obviously false teaching is sinful. 9. Paul confirms that the church must be unified and he says that the "pillar and foundation of the truth is "the church." That lines up with Matthew 18. We actually see this system of Jesus play out in the New Testament. In Acts 15 people start a false teaching that Non Jews have to be circumcised when they convert to Christianity. Paul confronted them and they would not stop. The church held the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD or so and it says that they came to a decision. The wrote a letter saying “it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit…” and they made a ruling. The church was being guided by the spirit just like Jesus stated. I became convinced of the resurrection and of the Christian truth claim because Jesus said he would build a unified church that the gates of hell would not prevail against despite being persecuted but that it would go to all nations. And Christian apologists point out that the unity and growth of the early church is proof of the resurrection. That convinced me that Christianity was true. When I read the writings of the early church fathers it was these men. Clement 95 AD - - Ignatius 107 AD - - Paipas 130 AD- - Polycarp from Smyrna in 150 AD - - Justin Martyr of Rome (150 AD) - - Hegesippus 170 AD - - Irenaeus of Lyon (France) in 180 AD - - Origen (215 AD), - - Cyprian (250 AD) -- Hilary 315 to 367 AD - - Athanasius 298 to 374 AD - - Eusebius 260 to 339 AD - - Gregory of Nyssa 335 to 395 AD - - Gregory of Nazianzus 329 to 390 AD - - Ambrose 339 to 397 AD - - Jerome 347 to 407 AD - - Augustine the Great 354 to 430 AD . Starting with Ignatius he called the church the Catholic Church which simply means the Universal Church. And though you Todd say that you don’t see the Papacy, these guys certainly did. From Irenaeus forward these men claimed that it was a tradition handed on by the apostles that Peter was made the leader of church based on Matthew 16 and many other passages that show the Primacy of Peter. So this early church even when you read a Protestant church history scholar is the Catholic Church. I read JDN Kelly’s book “Early Christian Doctrine.” And I read Jarislov Pelikan’s 5 volume set on church history. Pelikan who was Lutheran at the time said that the early church fathers were “nauseatingly Catholic.” Besides the Papacy being in place very early (as the Bishop of Rome, the name label “papacy” came later) Kelly and Pelikan confirm that the early church also believed in 1) The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 2) Baptismal regeneration and infant Baptism. 3) Salvation by faith through “infused grace” which helped the believer to be “made holy.” This was the unified belief of the church for 1,000 years. So this is my question. How is it not literally incoherent to claim that the unity of the early church is part of the proof that Christ was resurrected and really was guiding his church; but then 1,000 years later someone looks back on the early church and claims that they got some of those doctrines completely wrong? That makes no sense to me. You asked why are the Orthodox wrong? It is because they got angry at the Pope in 1054 and when they could not resolve it they looked back on the early church and just declared that the Papacy was an error from the start. And that is every Protestant’s claim as well. They look back to the early church and claim that some doctrine the church developed was an error and yet they cannot agree on which ones were errors and which to keep. Look at what one is saying when they look back to the early church and claim that some doctrine was totally wrong. They are saying that the early church was unified and that great unity is evidence that proves that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead and was guiding his church. But then the claim is made 1,000 years later or 1500 years later that some of things the church was unified about were completely wrong??? How is that not incoherent? These people on this list all went back to the church that existed for the first 1,000 years. I would invite you to look at their stories. Kenneth Howell former Protestant Professor. David Mills former Protestant professor. Kenny Buchard former mega church pastor. Marcus Grodi, Former Protestant Pastor. Francis Beckwith, College Professor and president of the Evangelical Theological Society. John Henry Newman, Scott Hahn, former college professor and Presbyterian pastor. Dr. David Anders former Protestant Reformation history professor. Dr. Douglas Beaumont former Protestant Professor. John Bergsma PhD in Biblical Studies, former Protestant Pastor and College Professor. Al Kresta former Protestant intellectual. Tim Staples former Pentecostal Pastor. Keith Nester Protestant Mega Church Pastor. Chris Osgood former Protestant Pastor, Jeff Cavins, Former Protestant mega church pastor. Mark Galli former Protestant Pastor.. Paul Thigpen former Pentecostal preacher, Steve Wood, Former Evangelical Pastor. Noah Lett a Lutheran Pastor. Jeffery Hendricks a Methodist minister. Jason Reed a Protestant Professor. Ian Murphey Baptist Minister. Sean Page former mega church pastor. David Currie - wrote the excellent book” Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic” James Papandra - he went to Fuller Seminary as a church historian.. Eric Ybarra former Protestant Intellectual. Matthew Thomas who used to work with JI Packer is a college professor. Cameron Bertuzzi eventually did consider my argument which I am sure he heard from others more important than me. Robert Lewis Wilken who was and Early Church Professor. Ken Hensly is a former Baptist pastor. He does a You Tube Channel called “On The Journey with Matt and Ken.” You can watch the many different series he had about how he was Baptist Pastor for 15 years and he ran into the very same evidence that I describe here. Pat Flynn was an atheist like me (only a lot smarter) and came to the same conclusion after he was a Christian. It seems simply incoherent concept to look back and claiming that the Holy Spirit led the church into egregious errors. Steve Ray is a former Protestant who set to prove what you believe which is there is not enough evidence for the Papacy; but instead he found the evidence overwhelming. You can see it in the book “Upon This Rock.’ Take a read and maybe you will see the evidence in scripture of the Papacy because there is a lot when you look. Dom Chapman is another former Protestant Intellectual that tried to prove the Papacy was not Biblical. He ended up putting all the evidence in a book called “Studies on the Early Church Papacy.” The evidence of the Papacy was overwhelming for this guy who was a prior anti-Catholic. God Bless you and thank you for taking an interest in my comment.

[@ericcarreno]

Evidence min 55:00

[@colinbrown9476]

Not finding this convincing. The best source we have on the government of the early church is the New Testament itself. There is simply no reference in Acts or any of the epistles to Peter as the supreme apostle, the others having the duty to obey him as their superior. I just don't see it anywhere. Matthew 16, John 10, John 21, Luke 22, none of these prove either the absolute supremacy of Peter, succession of office, infallibility, Peter as the vicar of Christ on earth... It just isn't there. You do not have to believe the New Testament created the church to recognize its primacy in considering the government of the church. Historically, the Pope didn't call any of the seven ecumenical councils. Papal infallibility wasn't even defined until Vatican I in the 19th century. I am just not seeing it.

[@babylonsfall7]

Hello all, It seems to me that in this very video there is found a biblical argument against the infallibility of the pope. Namely in same section that is used to establish Peter as the founder, Peter is also called Satan and a stumbling block. Then in 1 Peter 2:8, we see Peter refer to Jesus in a similar way. Both the rock and the one who makes stumble. My point is that the very fact that Peter is both the rock and the one who stumbles seems to suggest that he was fallible. Thus the idea of infallibility is man-made. Personally I think what Jesus was doing was establishing Peter as an authority figure over his church, perhaps even the founding one. I think Catholicism has layered on the doctrines of man and have taught them as scripture, bringing condemnation. This is the same type of thing that Jesus spoke strongly against in Mark 7:6-13. So not a topic to take lightly, which is why Protestantism began in the first place.

[@morpheusgreene2704]

the pope is not infallible 99% of the time, only when he speaks ex cathedra.

[@cesaraugustoramirezzamora6967]

Si el protestantismo tuvo que comenzar 15 siglos después, están volviendo a inventar la rueda. Pueden interpretar como quieran, pero antes de los protestantes ya había Iglesia y Biblia.

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

48:49 This is a huge misrepresentation of the late Kallistos Ware and the Orthodox in general. You say Kallistos said "the orthodox don't know how many councils there are" as if they live under a rock. Kallistos knew EXACTLY how many councils the ORTHODOX subscribe to. What he might not be able to tell you is how many councils the Catholics have had since 1054.

[@achilles4242]

It is true though that there is a debate within EO as to the number of Ecumenical Councils. That’s different from which councils should bind the faithful, though, considering there have been pan-Orthodox synods. And, even though you hear different online, EO are bound to those as well.

[@Christian_Conservative]

Why no Orthodox?

[@josegeorge241]

No peter

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@gussetma1945]

This nitpicking NT passages is Christian PilPul.

[@mynameis......23]

Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”... .. . .

[@JeanRausis]

The difference between the arguments Gavin makes and the arguments Joe makes is absolutely telling. With all due respect to Gavin, he just takes one passage after another, analyzes it, and says, "there's nothing here." As if each passage was enough on its own. On the other hand, Joe gives a meta-reading, historical, contextual, deep and connecting each passage to its history and everything that encompasses it, and suddenly everything becomes clear and seems to make absolute sense. This is the main difference between Protestant intellectuals, again without disrespecting them, and Catholic intellectuals. The former, victim of Sola Scriptura, are incapable of complex, deductive argumentation of what is not in the Bible. Joe brings this out well, showing that not everything is found in Scripture, and that there are many things that are not in Scripture that are nevertheless easy to deduce and demonstrate *by them*.

[@toddthacker8258]

So your position is that, to support THE most critical office in the Church that EVERY Christian should know about and submit to, God requires "a meta-reading, historical, contextual, deep and connecting each passage to its history and everything that encompasses it." I don't know, Jean. Seems like with something THIS important God would have been just a touch clearer, rather than requiring an advanced theology degree. Regular people can understand pretty much all of the other critical elements of Christianity just from the text.

[@wthibeau]

How does a Protestant watch this and still doubt the historical and theological legitimacy of the papacy?

[@connermcginnis]

Did you watch the conversation with Gavin?

[@wthibeau]

@@connermcginnis entirely unconvincing. They’ve also debated on other channels. It’s not close.

[@wthibeau]

This is meant with all respect. The New Testament clearly attests to Peter’s primacy. Church Fathers who knew the apostles attest to the establishment of a hierarchy and line of succession from the first century.

[@connermcginnis]

Look what Tertullian had to say on the topic. It’s not as cut and dry as you might think.

[@connermcginnis]

Also, Gavin gave a very good argument on why the NT does NOT lay out Peter’s primacy. Very logical and convincing. Again, it as cut and dry as you think. Clearly so, because that’s why Cameron B. Is going on this journey.

[@gastonjaureguix]

The Trinity IS in the Bible and IS in the Old Testament, but if you never dare to study it, Deuteronomy 6:4 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a](A) The word “one” is the same word for one in original texts is the one used for genesis 2 “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united(A) to his wife, and they become ONE flesh” As you can see this word is used for a compund not for unipersonal. Come near(A) me and listen(B) to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;(C) at the time it happens, I am there.” And now the Sovereign Lord(D) has sent(E) me, endowed with his Spirit.(F) Notice the authority of the Spirit here 10 Yet they rebelled(A) and grieved his Holy Spirit.(B) So he turned and became their enemy(C) and he himself fought(D) against them. If you think the Holy Spirit is a force, you cant grieve a “force” “1 cor 4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit(A) distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone(B) it is the same God(C) at work.” You can see the triune God in this passage very clearly Also Then he blessed(A) Joseph and said, “May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully,(B) the God who has been my shepherd(C) all my life to this day, 16 the Angel(D) who has delivered me from all harm(E) -may he bless(F) these boys.(G) May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,(H) and may they increase greatly on the earth.”(I) So who is gonna bless the boys? the Angel or God? As dr Michael Heiser would say, “The answer is YES, there are a lot more, but ill leave it at that

[@mynameis......23]

I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” AMEN and AMEN.. .

[@JohnVandivier]

Judges are not a triangular structure bruh the kingship was second best and it was triangular

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Is 3rd Esdras Scripture, yes or no? And why? I say no, because it was not affirmed by Christ and His Apostles in the 2st century. It was not accepted by the Jews, specifically the Pharisees. There is no internal evidence that it is divinely inspired.

[@gussetma1945]

Peter's authority is passed on because he is a BISHOP. He succeeds as Bishop of Rome.

[@ninjason57]

So then does that also mean he is the supreme bishop?

[@beowulf.reborn]

Two or three verses is all it would have taken for every Protestant (who takes Scripture to be inerrant, and God-breathed) to willfully submit to the office of "Pope". If God truly intended for there to be such an office, and for the Pope to be this great force that prevents schism, as Joe says, then why such a glaring silence? Furthermore, rather than being some great force of unity, the Pope is *_literally_* the cause of so many Schisms in Christianity. From early on in Church History we have a "Pope" trying to excommunicate an entire province of Christianity for disagreeing with him, only to have the rest of the Church rebuke him for being schismatic. And then of course we have the Great Schism, and the Protestant Reformation, recall that the Protestants did not intend to leave the Church, they were trying to Reform it, it was only after they were excommunicated by the Pope that they formed their own denominations.

[@Desta4508]

I think Matthew 16:18 is a very strong verse for the papacy, at that point you only need one more verse and I do think there are a couple that have true distinctions from Peter to the rest and Joe noted some of them here. Of course it’s still not ideal for the average Bible reader, but I think we’re going to have to take account how the Early Church interpreted them to a higher level. As for saying the Pope is the cause for many schisms, I just don’t know about that. When there is a certain way The Church, that Christ Himself established, is teaching, the faithful are to submit too it. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Reformers had good intentions, but they also had interpretations and ideas that were opposed to what The Church thought. We can’t really put it on the pope that he didn’t accept the reformers ideas, that contradicted The Church’s ways for 1500 years. The Catholic Church remained but like Joe stated, how many denominations are there now? And how many of them are opposed on different doctrines to each other? The Great Schism is of course tragic as well, but putting everything bad happening, on the pope, isn’t fair mainly because it wouldn’t be accurate too. Being One is the goal at the end and God willing, it will happen, but for now we’re going to have to distinguish what doesn’t from what does have the fullness of truth and submit too that.

[@beowulf.reborn]

​@@Desta4508 Scripture is explicitly clear that there is only one Rock, and that that Rock is Christ/God Himself. When Jesus calls Simon "Petros", it literally means, little rock, and it is to show that he (Petros) has been joined to the Rock through his profession of faith. In the same way that we are called Christians, because we are followers of, and joined to, Christ. Likewise, all Christians are called to be lively stones (by Peter no less), just as Christ is The Stone. "For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a Rock, except our God?" ~ Psalm18:31 "He alone is my Rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be greatly shaken." ~ Psalm 62:2 All that being said. I, and many Protestants, have no problem with affirming that Peter had a leadership role amongst the Apostles, though we see him as the first among equals. But even if he was the highest in position and authority, that still wouldn't come anywhere close to establishing the office of the Papacy. There is no mention that such an office is transferable, nor that it is infallible. Also, why should we assume that it is the Bishop in Rome that is the "Pope", and not the Bishop of Antioch? Since Peter established that church too according to tradition. Again, it makes no sense for such an important doctrine to not be mentioned anywhere in Scripture, especially since it is the cause of so much division in the Body of Christ.

[@Desta4508]

@@beowulf.reborn You make very good points. As for the Petros interpreted to be little rock point, I’ve heard it before but that’s just not the consensus view of that interpretation, especially by the early church and for good reason A number of Protestant scholars even affirm the Catholic view on it. I think Joe really did a good job of the focus Jesus was showing on Peter. Jesus telling us this was revealed by His Father in Heaven and then the binding and loosing part which is literally taken to mean infallibility or an undisputed authority in Judaism, and if that wasn’t enough changing his name to Rock, as a play in words and we know from Scripture itself God changes names to people appointed for a new journey and ultimately a new “them” is being ie: Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel etc. This is just Matthew 16, but the evidence here when interpreted correctly, seems very clear and was taught as clear from the beginning our Religion. This kind of goes to your other point of what makes the Bishop of Rome have more authority than the bishop of Antioch which is a legit question. One place I would point to is Pope Leo and not only what he taught but the way he taught. He taught and spoke infallibly. He knew fallibility wasn’t some dictatorship, he knew The Head and The Body of The Church are connected but he never went into it with a proposal looking for debate. It seemed they understood clear what Matthew 16 was presenting and he, as almost all church fathers have epistles on it. The Tome of Leo was accepted by the East, a teaching not only of Christ having 2 natures but on matters of the papacy. It’s just sad that there is division and disunity in the church. Ultimately we pray for unity but we should also discern what currently has the fullness of truth and submit too it, allow both evidence from history to weigh each other and pick the correct one, even if it’s uncomfortable, we’re obliged too.

[@Desta4508]

@DonnyBlips If it’s ginger ale, I’m in😂

[@billyg898]

@@beowulf.reborn *When Jesus calls Simon "Petros", it literally means, little rock, and it is to show that he (Petros) has been joined to the Rock through his profession of faith. In the same way that we are called Christians, because we are followers of, and joined to, Christ.* These points has been thoroughly rebutted that even scholars who use to make this claim no longer do. Let's break this up: *When Jesus calls Simon "Petros", it literally means, little rock* No it doesn't. The distinction between petros and petras was gone by the 1st century. In fact, even in the 3rd century BC, Apollonius of Rhodes, in the Argonautica, writes that the main character "seized from the plain a huge round boulder...four stalwart youth could not have raised it from the ground even a little." The word he used for huge round boulder was 'petros'. Does that sound like a little rock? Also, the word 'petros' had fallen in to disuse by the 1st century. Matthew refers to rocks of different kinds often, yet the only time petros is used by Matthew or any NT writer is when referring to Simon Peter. If Matthew wanted to call Peter a little rock, he would have used 'lithos'. In fact, Matthew uses lithos in other occasions, such as referring to the small stone you wouldn't give to your child in 7:9, and also the boulder that covered Jesus' tomb. A further point is that we know that Jesus likely said this in Aramaic, calling Simon Kepha and saying that on this *kepha* he will build his church. John 1:42 has Jesus say that Simon will be called 'Cephas" (A transliteration of "Kepha", which is Aramaic for rock). You might say that John was originally in Aramaic and translated to Greek, thus explaining why he used Cephas, rather than Petros. However, Paul also called Simon "Cephas" and he was writing in Greek. If Jesus called Simon "Petros", not "Kepha", why would Paul take the Greek "Petros", translate it in to Aramaic, "Kepha", then transliterate that back in to Greek as "Cephas"? That makes no sense. No, Jesus called him Kepha, and Matthew, writing in Greek to a Greek audience, wanted to convey that the name meant petros specifically, not merely lithos. And, as I said earlier, the distinction between petros and petras was gone by the 1st century. *it is to show that he (Petros) has been joined to the Rock through his profession of faith* Then why didn't Jesus change anyone else's names after their profession of faith? Read John 1. There are literally 4 confessions. John the Baptist says “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world...A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me...I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One." Then we have Andrew declaring “We have found the Messiah” (which John explains means Christ) to Peter. Then we have Phillip: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Lastly, we have Nathaniel who says directly to Jesus (and notice how similar this is to Peter's confession): "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” All of those confessions occur and not once does Jesus change any of their names. And, as I noted earlier, John 1:42 is this same chapter, where Jesus calls Simon "Cephas". Yet, we don't see any confession from Simon here. So all those confessions are mentioned in this one chapter, but Simon, who has no confession mentioned is the one Jesus calls Rock, but you want to claim that it's about his confession? As I said, these points have been thoroughly destroyed that those who use to make them have stopped.

[@asiaaviator5353]

What does the word NOT mean? (I love to ask this first question to the Mormons when they come knocking cuz if we can agree on English how NOT means NOT then the total apostasy never occurred! And Mormons at least admit it can be only either the Catholic Church (first) or the Mormon church as the one true Church.)

[@asiaaviator5353]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Hey, sure. So I ask the young Elders of the Mormon temple: "What does not mean?" They usually say, "Huh?" And I repeat myself. With an awkward smile looking at each other one of them usually says to me, "It means not." And we chuckle. Then I ask, "So does it mean 'maybe' or 'yes' or 'somewhat'?" and they say, "No, not means not." Then I say, "Cool. I agree. Now, can you turn in your Bible please to Matthew 16:18 and read it aloud for us. They do. Then I ask, "So, if as you said, 'Not means not!' then how does the Mormon church's idea that evil DID overcome good and the gates of hell DID overcome the church until Joseph Smith fixed it square with Mt 16:18's NOT?" They stammer. I wait. And pray. They say, "We, uh, can we, uh, research this and come back next week?" I say sure. And I add, "I'd be very interested to see how the Total Apostacy can be true and this NOT be true too because if the Total Apostacy is true then it seems like Jesus would be a liar. So, until you show me some proof, I'm gonna go with the fact that Jesus is the Carpenter par excellence, and when He builds something He builds it to last! Not something that would fall apart only 67 years after He built it!" Then when they come back we rehash how not means NOT. And then I ask what does "all" mean? :-)

[@ThruTheUnknown]

The arguments seem to boil down to Peter does something no one else does ergo pope. Well John is the only disciple at the cross ergo he's the pope. The arguments are really bad.

[@SalvusGratiumFidem]

Not only that, but John contains the triple peter do you love me? From Jesus. If anything it shows peters downfall before Jesus restores him.

[@TKK0812]

Jesus also renamed John, was called the disciple whom Christ loved, Jesus gave him the Revelation, and he was the first to be called to discipleship by Jesus. All these things clearly demonstrate the primacy of John. Obviously this is all nonsense, but it's how I feel anytime I listen to a catholic argue for the pope.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

There are no good arguments for papacy

[@ClassicPhilosophyFTW]

Ah, shameless anti-Catholicism; love it. :) Tell me, what structure does the Davidic kingdom have? What line is Jesus descended from? What is the difference between Abram and Abraham? What do keys mean, and what exactly is the power of binding and loosing (as understood from 1st Century Jewish sources)? You are free to remain Protestant, but this kind of caricature is unbecoming of a Christian. I can do the exact same thing on you: "The arguments seem to boil down to All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" therefore sola scriptura. The arguments are really bad. See how utterly unconvincing and a waste of time this is? Time to pick up the game then

[@SalvusGratiumFidem]

@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW Where many Catholics outright lie is when they say anyone who's not Catholic is a protestant. History does not agree in the slightest. Secondly Peter was the man sent to preach the gospel to the Jews. We're not Jews. Paul's our guy and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said to follow him as he follows Christ. Anyone following Peter isn't being honest to what scripture says. That's an excellent argument that casts aside whether Peter is the rock or not(even though 1 corinthians says Jesus is the rock) Gentiles follow the man ordained by God to spread the Gospel. Not the man ordained by man.

[@Seven_1865]

Using his American history example, Acts does not clearly point to a pope. It would be weird if a history of early American history made no mention of the office of the president.

[@jasonkirklin2263]

Dig in to some Catholic interpretations of (1) the appointing of a successor for Judas and (2) the Jerusalem Council.

[@Seven_1865]

@@jasonkirklin2263 they appointed a successor to Judas as an Apostle. That doesn’t point to a pope in any way. The logical conclusion you might draw is that each apostle got a successor, but eventually you’d run out of living people who met the qualifications clearly set up in Acts 1. The decision in the council of Jerusalem was given by Jame the brother of Jesus, not Peter. If Peter was the supreme leader of the church he would likely have given the decision. I don’t see how either of these events help the case for a pope.

[@jasonkirklin2263]

@@Seven_1865 Yes, that’s one way to interpret these passages. But they can also be interpreted in a way that recognizes the authority of Peter in the context of the Apostles and at a Council. So the question isn’t just whether either side can do exegesis. The question is how to read Scripture and how to understand tradition. Your response indicates only that the Catholic understanding of a few texts in Acts isn’t persuasive to you. Fair enough. But it is persuasive to many. How do we decide whose interpretation is right? I think one of the things Joe is getting at is that at least part of the Catholic response to what you’re saying is that the conditions you’re setting on Scripture for how it ought to talk about the papacy are not consistent with how God reveals things in Scripture. In other words, part of the Catholic claim is that you’re looking for the wrong kind of evidence.

[@Seven_1865]

@@jasonkirklin2263 the only way you get to your conclusion is if you’re presupposing your position. The council of Jerusalem affirms the authority of James not Peter. Yes Peter has some authority and input, but I don’t see a way of reading that and coming up with Peter’s supremacy. As for evidence, I think it’s unconvincing to just say I’m looking for the wrong kind of evidence. But since you’ve said that, what is the right kind of evidence.

[@jasonkirklin2263]

@@Seven_1865 Re: evidence, in general I’d say we’re not looking for a fully developed doctrinal statement on the papacy. Rather, look at how the early church operated. After all, they are the preservers and teachers of God’s revelation to us. Consider Joe’s comments about 1 Clement and Irenaeus. Is the papacy somewhat disputed in the early church? Yes. But not as disputed as orthodox Christology. It takes longer to come to an orthodox understanding of Christ than the papacy. Why trust the Church on one but not the other? Re: Acts 15: Yes, James (bishop of Jerusalem) gives the final word. But nothing about the papacy says the Pope has to talk last or most. Note that James’s contribution is pastoral. “Here’s how we’ll handle this situation with Gentile converts.” But he appeals to two authorities at the beginning of his speech: Peter and the prophets. They provide the doctrinal ground for his pastoral pronouncement. Note also that after much discussion on the issue it is Peter who speaks and resolves the controversy. Then Paul and Barnabas say “Yeah that’s what happened to us too” and James says “Yeah, and that’s what the prophets say, so here’s what we’ll do.”

[@kiwicoproductions2828]

A debate between Joe and Jay Dyer would be insane.

[@jamesmisfeldt264]

I don't think there are many people willing to work with Jay

[@teddrickmilsap5994]

Hermeneutics expert if it doesn't say it create it.

[@jeffross4429]

This is what happens when you come up with a doctrine and then go back and pull verses out of the to fit your doctrine

[@Jerome616]

If the Bible is the “final” source of Christian instruction, then what part of the Bible sets forth the notion that anything in the current Bible should be used at all. If you don’t have tradition (aka. Coming up with a doctrine), then you have nothing you can stand on at all.

[@chapter404th]

@@Jerome616 the Jews said the same thing about their tradition in Jesus day and even still today. You see how futile that argument is?

[@Jerome616]

@@chapter404th the difference is Jesus, obviously.

[@chapter404th]

@@Jerome616 you still don’t get the point. The Roman Catholic Church is a Gentile version of the Scribes and Pharisees.

[@Jerome616]

@@chapter404th in some ways yes. They are. But so are pastors and Bible study leaders and youth pastors , so in and so forth. We all lean on the Bible AND tradition whether you realize it or not. At the end of the day, the Bible simply does not cover every aspect of religious life that a church leader might run into. Thus, they end up having to interpret scripture to fit the situations they encounter. From simple things like how to be save, to complex things like like how to run a church service.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Speaking of authority and succession. How do you explain the "bad popes" from the Middle Ages. These guys were so bad that they could not possibly have been followers of Christ. That is to say, these "vicars of Christ" were not even Christians. I've noticed that that subject of never dealt with.

[@josephssewagudde8156]

Some of the kings of Israel were evil and even worshipped idols. Did God ever withdrawal recognition of the monarchy in Israel which he created?

[@jaredbajer712]

The job description of bishop isn't described so therefore we can make up a supreme office like the papacy? I don't think so. Ironic how he uses the argument of silence to justify the papacy. It's not prescribed in scripture which is not a small detail that can be shrugged off. So much of Cathlolicism is unbiblical traditions which was exactly what Jesus condemned about the Pharisees.

[@jaredbajer712]

@DonnyBlips Everything he said can be easily refuted. So much speculation to invent the office of the pope making inferences from what the text doesn't say at all.

[@blakebuoy5407]

I don’t think you watched the same video :)

[@Desta4508]

@@jaredbajer712 I don’t know if you’re really engaging the arguments he’s presenting though. “Just because it doesn’t say so means that it is so”, is just very far off from what he was really saying. Being sold on there being no papacy and then hearing out why there might actually be one is what we should strive to do over perhaps mistakenly misrepresenting important arguments being layed out and If you don’t mind me asking, which one of his points do you think can be refuted and how?

[@jaredbajer712]

@@Desta4508 To summarize I just disagree with everything he said. Nothing he said was a slam dunk against protestantism or proof or even convincing evidence to support the idea of a papacy. It's a lot of wishful thinking and trying to find Scripture to back up a man made office. Jesus is our high priest, he is King, he is Lord, he is our advocate, Savior, and intercessor, according to Scripture, not the pope, not Mary, or any other human being. He did not instruct us to set up a theocratic government on Earth. He will reign in his kingdom when He returns. The apostles were the highest living authorities immediately following Christ being directly commissioned by Him and we have the word of God they left us which is all sufficient along with a personal relationship with the our Lord. Jesus is sufficient in every way, it is Him we follow.

[@Desta4508]

@@jaredbajer712 I think his staring points were very telling about Protestantism and it basically gets down to interpretation. Not our own interpretation but The Church’s interpretation, The Church Jesus left us is interpretation. If we read Scripture trying to find The Church, instead of understanding The Church, guided by The Holy Spirit is what wrote Scripture and that this same Church guided by The Holy Spirit will not prevail against the gates of hades, then we’re doing it wrong. Wishful thinking of a man made office is kind of unfair to say but even then if I were to put that statement against countless of Early Church Father’s interpretation of The Church, whose correct about it? I agree with you heavily on Jesus indeed being our High Priest, King and Lord and Saviour. Not Mary, not the Pope. But your next comments are your interpretation of what His will is for us, saying He didn’t leave a Church but just the The Bible, contradicts how The Bible came out to be, considering The Church was the one who canonized The Bible. This is the really sad part honestly, a lot of people deny The Catholic Church because of misunderstandings and them wanting to be closer to Jesus, not knowing He built The Church. It sometimes seem polemics and conspiracies against His Church block a lot of our minds of accepting it. God bless you my brother.

[@goor1322]

What is the origin of the Roman 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 and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Following are a few examples: Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first 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. The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice. Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. 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. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well. The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of 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, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous 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.”

[@billyg898]

So much false statements, so much to go through... *In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy* Not explicitly, but it doesn't explicitly state many doctrines. Many, if not most, are inferred. The NT tends to just mention something which already assumes the doctrine. The word Trinity is no where in scripture, it isn't spelled out in the NT and smart unitarians can make strong attempts to explain away the passages that seem to assume it. Doesn't mean it isn't there though. Similarly, there are many many passages in the NT that is best explained by the idea of the papacy. Just because some can attempt to explain away these passages, like Jesus giving Peter a unique authority (separate to the others) to bind and loose for instance, doesn't equate with "no mention". *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...worship/adoration of Mary* The Catholic church does not teach worship or adoration of Mary so this is a moot point. *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers* The bible also never mentions blinking. Are you gonna stop blinking, or will you be reasonable and say that the bible doesn't explicitly oppose blinking so its fine? There is no explicit opposition to doing so, and the bible does promote petitioning Christians who are alive for their prayers. The saints are more alive and closer to God than we are, so like blinking, what's the problem exactly? *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...apostolic succession* No mention? The apostles pray to God then make Matthias an apostle, successor to Judas, in Acts 1 through the laying on of hands. It's the first thing they do after Jesus ascends. 1 Timothy 4:14 has Paul indicating that Timothy was given authority by the laying on of hands, and in 5:22 warns not to be hasty with passing on that authority through the laying on of hands. The early church recognized Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus and apostolic succession was ubiquitously understood by them, almost like it came from the apostles. *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments* Sacraments impart grace. That's what makes them sacraments. Sacrament of the Eucharist - Jesus says explicitly that the lords supper is for the forgiveness of sins. To have sins forgiven is to receive grace, AKA a sacrament. Sacrament of Reconciliation - In John 20:23, Jesus also explicitly gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins as well as withhold forgiveness. Why do that if he doesn't want people to come to them to be forgiven? Of course he does. This is the leaders of the church forgiving sins. With apostolic succession, that's the foundation for confession. A sacrament. Sacrament of Baptism - I don't really think I need to explain this. Even many who don't believe in baptismal regeneration typically still believe baptism, in some ways imparts grace. I think I'll leave it there. This is getting too long. But just that alone indicates no one should just take your word for it and should be doubtful that you are being truthful here.

[@Jerome616]

Do you just save this kind of post for special occasions, or did you actually write this out just now. Either way it’s quite impressive. Not the arguments, those have been debunked for years and years and yet people still bring them up. But the fact that you can post something so comprehensive and yet so wrong., that’s quite impressive.

[@goor1322]

@Bryce Gladwin They are facts that cannot just be dismissed. not ever have they been debunked because it's historically accurate and corroborated

[@johnyang1420]

Jesus started Catholic church. You are against it.

[@josegeorge241]

I stopped taking this comment seriously when i read Egypt being birthplace of isis

[@colonalklink14]

The real reason for all the Denominations is because they all teach a different mixture of faith plus works equals salvation nonsense just like their mother the Roman Catholic Church. Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.

[@prime_time_youtube]

If this case for the Papacy is among the best arguments, Roman Catholicism is doomed. I am still intrigued by the Orthodox Church, I just cannot understand those weird descriptions about God's energies.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@DixonCameronS LOL! This is an Apologetics channel. We are talking about arguments, cases, and reason... not numbers. Roman Catholicism is wrong because it necessitates the Papacy...which is obviously a false teaching. I Clement 42 (a supposed Pope, LOL) clearly states there would be bishopS as leaders and not one monarchical bishop, as does Hermas Vis. 3,5,1. Ignatius, WHO WAS A BISHOP APPOINTED BY PETER (Eusebius, Church History 3, 36) talks about many famous Christian authorities of the time, and NEVER EVER mentions A bishop in Rome. The Shepherd of Hermas nowhere talks about a bishop in Rome, but always refers to leadership in Rome in the PLURAL FORM. So all historical evidence says there were no Supreme Bishops in Rome in the First Century.

[@alexwarstler9000]

Essence-Energy Distinction is hard to follow, but once it clicks, it makes total sense.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@DixonCameronS Why do I have to repeat myself again? It is irrelevant if 100% of the population converts to Roman Catholicism, this video is about the arguments for the Papacy which is unimpressive and pales against the historical data that demonstrates that there were not Roman Supreme bishops in the First Century.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@DixonCameronS Angry? I just showed Catholicism is false and you did not even care to answer. I am not angry, you are just desperate because historical data is against Catholicism. Why you keep talking about Catholics, that I don't know.

[@Desta4508]

@@prime_time_youtube Perhaps you can get a deeper dive into one his case on the papacy from his book “The Early Church was a Catholic Church “. Even though I thought he had great points, an hour video obviously shouldn’t be enough to sway ones mind.

[@crosseyed5004]

A tangent to the point of the video but on the point Joe makes at 51:38 I have to strongly disagree with him that no-one comes to believe in the Trinity from the Bible alone. I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness. It is true that they misinterpret and ignore numerous Scriptures and make claims against the Trinity. However, I became a believer in the Trinity (and helped my two younger brothers to believe afterwards) that the Trinity is true ONLY because of the Scriptures alone. No appeal to church history, no appeal to creeds or councils or early christians. It was merely demonstrated to me (and later my brothers) that the Bible clearly shows that all three persons of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, each share the nature, titles, power, deeds and authority of YHWH depicted in the Old Testament and God in the New Testament. The only thing not in the Bible is the word "Trinity" which is a useful word to use as shorthand for the concept.

[@toddvoss52]

Agree an overstatement. But the argument still holds that some won’t - ie your former Brethren in JW. More to the point is the true consubstantial divinity of Christ .

[@silveriorebelo2920]

the reference to the Church teaching was indeed present and indispensable iun your search, as it is shown by the fact that you studied the Bible trying to verify if the Christian representation of God as Trinity is the true one...

[@LM-jz9vh]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible: Primitive Nonsense"* Google *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* Google *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* Google *"Reasons for disbelief: The top ten reasons I am an atheist - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies - Psychology Today"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible - Is it the Word of GOD?"* Google *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* Google *"Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association"* Google *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* Google *"Does the Ipuwer Papyrus Refer to the Biblical Exodus Account? - Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy"* Google *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* Google *"The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. - News24"* Google *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* Google *"40 Problems with Christianity - Hemant Mehta - Friendly Atheist - Patheos"* Google *"The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity"* Google *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell""* Google *"You Need To Consider The Possibility Your Religion Is Mythology"* Google *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* Google *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* Google *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"* Google *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* Google *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

[@Golfinthefamily]

CCC 841... muslims and catholics adore the same God.... CCC 2010 you can merit grace.... which is an oxymoron. The Pope believes atheists can enter heaven (without faith it is impossible to please God). These are all false by scripture.

[@jonycruz2430]

Catholics never bring up the 5 fold ministry recorded in Ephesians by Paul. Also again in 1 Corinthians and recorded by Luke in the book of acts. The church was lead by apostles, prophets, evangelist, teachers and pastors.

[@CPATuttle]

No

[@lior38]

I'm really not some anti-catholic or something, but I hafta say this case was very weak...

[@namapalsu2364]

It's possible that you'd find Suan Sonna's case to be stronger. Go search him on youtube.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

The 3 fold do you love me is because Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Gosh these arguments are really bad and really desperate IMHO.

[@billyg898]

No one denies that the 3 fold "do you love me" is because Peter denied Jesus 3 times. However, he doesn't just say "do you love me". The first instance, he says "Do you love me *more than these*?", as in more than the other apostles. He is asking Peter for something that he wouldn't and couldn't ask of the others. If you are alluding to the reinstatement theory, there are some serious problems with that, considering Peter is still recognized as one of the 11 prior to this morning. This event happens after Jesus has already commissioned the disciples in John 20. Even Luke 24, which is also prior to this morning, where Jesus appears to the disciples, including Peter, in the closed room and says "You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you". Jesus doesn't just accept Peter's 3 fold affirmation. He makes commands of Peter to feed his lambs, tend his flock and feed his sheep, something he never commanded of the other apostles. When Jesus makes the disciples in to apostles, he tells them to cast out spirits, heal diseases, and proclaim the message. At no point does he tell them to feed his lambs or tend his flock or in anyway have leadership over the entire flock. This is something he only tells Peter. As Joe points out, in John 10, Jesus says that "The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep" then precedes to say "I am the gate". So, if Jesus is the gate, then who is the shepherd? Well, Protestants might say "We'll just after this, Jesus says twice "I am the Good Shepherd" so he's both the gate and the shepherd who enters by the gate". However, not only does that not make a lot of sense, but he doesn't say the one who enters by the gate is the Good Shepherd. It seems he is making a distinction between himself and the shepherd who enters by the gate. If we look at 2 Samuel 5, when God calls David to kingship, he says “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel”. That was a call for David to headship. By telling Peter to feed his lambs and tend his flock/sheep, in a Jewish context, this seems like an allusion to having headship like David. Not only that, this is ow the early church understood Luke 22 as well. They didn't recognize the reinstatement theory.

[@Desta4508]

@@billyg898 Good response Billy G