The Secret World Of History's First Pope | St Peter's Holy Relics: The Quest | Timeline

[@dirkmolen9392]

Interesting documentary. One little thing though: when Emperor Constantine is mentioned, Emperor Justinian is actually shown...

[@gabrielsantamaria61]

Very interesting, but the image of the emperor described as Constantine is actually Justinian :)

[@tmvga]

I noticed that also. Not too careful there. Hmm ;)

[@anycyclopedia]

Yes

[@MultiSUPERLATIVO]

Gabriel Santamaria, I am always skeptical about documentaries. People here on youtube seem to believe in anything. Your comment is important to demonstrate that one has to be alert.

[@KazgarothUsher]

Spot on!

[@christianmalik9996]

Exactly they done many rookie mistakes in this documentary.

[@geoffhunter7704]

Despite an unremarkable beginning as the video progressed it began to hold my interest more and more and i am glad to say that it proved so absorbing and interesting programme,Well done.

[@mandabean.2405]

The structures they built were so solid with phenomenal detail. There is a serious issue with modern technology that our structures today can't compare.

[@toddrobbins4608]

Well we can build structures like that we just don't. Most of what we build now is designed for a specific purpose. It's far more function over form. We build stuff to perform a function. We don't build stuff to honor and commemorate, to truly celebrate. Not like they used to it at any rate

[@OldDunollieman]

Moronic comment.

[@toddrobbins4608]

@C L really? Funny the Taj mahal was considered one of the 7 wonders of the world. I don't think that's considered a modern structure by any stretch of the imagination. I get the impression you probably never actually been to St Peter's basilica or some of the truly spectacular works of architecture you can find in Europe or Asia. I'm sorry friend but the ignorance here is your own

[@mandabean.2405]

@C L They are absolutely not. They could not duplicate the pyramids. Anything from the late 1800, early 1900s are barely still standing. Buildings built today will not be standing in thousands of years. They are lucky they can build a car these days to last 10-15 years. Everything is done with cheap parts and cheap labor. No quality anymore. So if you don't like my comment then move along and troll elsewhere because it's staying.

[@alexandergaus493]

@@toddrobbins4608 exactly. We could very well build a structure to last for ages, but why should we spend all that money and time for a building, of wich we don't know, if we still need it in such a long time? In very special cases we do, by the way. Just look up "Svalbard Global Seed Vault". A really interesting structure with a very long term function. We are capable of far more, then some people do believe. We just spend our resources differently, not necessarily better in many cases.

[@joebombero1]

There really should not be any controversy here. The bones under St Peter's are likely the real bones of the first Pope. The bones found in the other church are likely Peter's also. The explanation is easy. Constantine's mother, St. Helena, encouraged excavation throughout the empire. It was her doing that the birthplace of Christ was determined as well as the place of crucifixion and the tomb. It would have been easy for her to find St. Peter's tomb as certainly local Christians kept the memory alive. It is likely at least some bones were removed from the tomb when Constantine built the first St. Peter's basilica. The original altar is still there, directly under the current altar at St. Peter's basilica. It makes sense therefore that the current altar is directly above the original tomb, as Constantine would not have built St. Peter's basilica there had he not found the original tomb and put the altar directly above it.

[@TheElizabethashby]

PETER WOULD NOT EVER BEEN MADE A POPE

[@debramoss2267]

Oh my goodness! Clever deduction, yes!

[@gordonpark5549]

😮❤

[@anycyclopedia]

The video forgot about St. Helena

[@anycyclopedia]

@@TheElizabethashby READ MATTHEW 16:18

[@alienmarqz7053]

The bones can be both in Peters basilica and in other old Churches. There is a tradition in the catholic church to embed bones and relics of saints in altars. It doesnt mean that the entire skeleton are there, just a small piece of relic will do.

[@J_a_s_o_n]

Where did the Catholic church get this demonic practice of burying bones under churches? It's DISGUSTING

[@luminousem763]

Oh yes! Thank you for the historical reminder.

[@ivaldez5715]

​@@luminousem763a lot of people don't know.

[@nbenefiel]

All Catholic Churches have a relic embedded in the altar.

[@nbenefiel]

@@DeezNailz Protestants believe in predestination and salvation by faith alone. I think both are heretical. “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”. What they think. Half of them seem to think we kill young children, drink their blood and use their skin to make hosts. Heck, half of them think Trump is the second coming.

[@lblizzardblizzard776]

The leaps are indeed breathtaking.

[@BOLLOCKS1968]

I thought that it is Good Friday I would learn something more about the Popes and how it works. Happy Easter!

[@pokpokishification]

i'm also here watching in 2024 because it's good friday

[@pravinshrisunder5094]

St Thomas Cathedral Basilica Chennai Indi s also built on Relics of St Thomas called as Patron saint of India.. St Thomas bones preserved in 4 churches in south India ,St Thomas came to India in 52 Ad and was martyred in 72 AD

[@Madmen604]

I visited the Church there he is said to have founded, in Kerala. There is an old Jewish population there as well.

[@ultron3693]

​@@Madmen604 Yeah, the Cochin Jews. Though a lot of them have now immigrated to Israel and other developed nations and the remaining ones are mostly in Kottayam District nowadays.

[@Madmen604]

@@ultron3693 I never met any though. Fascinating.

[@Zubeneshemali]

Perhaps, but that still predates Catholicism by about 250 years!!

[@xavy28]

An interesting fact I learned is that St. Thomas might be Jesus’ twin brother. “Tomos” (might be spelled wrong l) means twin in Aramaic, the language the first Christian documents were written. When translated to Greek they were written the same way and then when translated to Latin it changed to Tomas because they thought it was a name. The writing of Thomas speck of him and Jesus looking similar. The story of Thomas did not fit the virgin birth narrative so they were taken away from the main bible and Thomas was labeled as doubting Thomas.

[@PapaRocks]

St. peter would likely say, “ It’s not about me; it’s about Lord Jesus.”

[@carolswiedomstephens]

True that

[@prominentmagpie7153]

we know? but christ appointed st peter as the head of the church on earth, are you going to follow christs word or not?

[@mzt7595]

Thank you Father Jesus Christ for giving us your one true Catholic Church

[@arbitScaleModels]

You don't know your own theology do you?

[@SoldierOfGod778]

Ha you are a sheep to a church of wolves

[@mzt7595]

@@SoldierOfGod778 It’s to bad Martin Luther started sects on 10/31/1517

[@heritage195]

That Vatican Obelisk was originally in Karnack in Egypt but was moved to the Circus Maximus in the 1st Centry. It was then moved to the Vatican in 1587

[@merekaracooper1593]

Yes they removed from original sights to establish proclamation of the lands stolen. None of the obelisks belong to the Vatican none.

[@addd_diii]

And the obelisk is also one of the influence of paganism. Just like the catholic church who has hundreds of "christianized donctrines" from the pagans.

[@ryansumpter6993]

It was moved to the square in 1587, however it had been in the circus since it was brought from Karnak.

[@acampbell8614]

Cleopatra gave three obelisks to Rome and had them transported to Alexandria. Only one made it to Rome- the one that eventually ended up at the Vatican. The other two sat at the docks in Alexandria for centuries until the French took one for Paris, then promptly lost it when the ship sank. The British took the remaining obelisk for London and it is now known as Cleopatra's Needle and stands on the Embankment in London. Ironically, the heiroglyphs on it's sides tell a story of a god who was born of a virgin, died and was raised from the dead after three days to reside among the stars. The god's name was Osiris and we know him as the star constellation Orion.

[@bcfu8146]

@@acampbell8614 thanks for these details.

[@RandomMoves923]

"Jesus left the synagogue and went to Simon’s house. Simon’s mother-in-law was very sick. She had a high fever. They asked Jesus to do something to help her. 39 He stood very close to her and ordered the sickness to go away. The sickness left her, and she got up and began serving them. Luke 4:38-40

[@J_a_s_o_n]

A MIRACLE like we see today

[@TSmith-ns45]

@@J_a_s_o_n I think the point was that the first “pope” was married. 😅

[@TimeTrekTaless]

Fascinating historical insights! The journey of the Vatican Obelisk and the mysteries surrounding St. Peter's tomb add layers to the rich history of Rome and the Vatican.

[@redline4184]

St peter,pray for us❤

[@studentoftheword6115]

The Bible says to pray to Jesus directly.

[@jznbxl]

@@studentoftheword6115 Clearly a neo-protestant making a strawman about the catholic church's stance on the "intercession of saints". smh

[@sonjiachilds]

Do you think Jesus loves Peter more than you?

[@jznbxl]

@@sonjiachilds No one is saying that.

[@edalbanese6310]

He is dead. Jesus is alive!

[@johnt8441]

Pope Urban II could have had part of the bones moved to another church to assure he had an insurance policy against any usurper. That the terra cotta jar also has the names of the next three popes also leads me to believe this may have been in his mind.

[@paopaoaquino5354]

The presence of the supposed relics of St. Peter in 2 churches-- in the Vatican and in a chapel some kilometers away-- does not necessarily question the authenticity of the one in the Vatican. It has been the custom of the Church to distribute fragments of the bones of various saints. It has also been a custom of the Church to bury relics of the saints and martyrs in the altar.

[@rickhnat9641]

There engravings and writings on the tomb, indicating it is Peters grave site. You have understate there is oral and written tradition in the first 5 centuries of the Church. Protestant divisions did not occur until the 13th century. Now there have always been false teachers and heretics inside and outside the Church. Judas was but the first of millions of schismatics and heretics in Church history

[@J_a_s_o_n]

NECROMANCY IS SIN!

[@georgeo785]

Peter was married and never went to rome. He was an Apostle to the Jews

[@ivaldez5715]

​@georgeo785 Then why doesn't Christianity rule in Israel? Because you're blaspheming.

[@nbenefiel]

All Catholic Churches have a relic.

[@AndreasVulpes]

Saints aren't "worshiped," they are "venerated." For being a documentary on a key Christian figure, their familiarity with actual Christian terminology is disappointingly lacking.

[@VangelisFilms]

They also said Peter betrayed Jesus 🙄

[@theresasmith8972]

Agreed. It's more for SENSATIONALISM than for accuracy.

[@theresasmith8972]

Right? He didn't betray- he denied knowing him.​@@VangelisFilms

[@GeoffreyChilesTV]

Absolutely: if you call yourself Christian and believe in the Resurrection, then yes, saints can intercede for you. Where is that? Paul’s letters, Hebrews, Revelation.

[@GeoffreyChilesTV]

@@VangelisFilmsand then repented three times

[@13minutestomidnight]

Although this is an interesting documentary, it's a ridiculous debate. Even if you had a box from the right time period saying "Peter, the First Pope" it would be impossible to determine whose bones were inside. Today you can find the names of celebrities scrawled all over different objects but that doesn't mean those objects belong to those celebrities (or are even vaguely connected to them - they can just be a fan's handwriting). Peter was a huge celebrity in antiquity, and a huge fixation of a hyper-religious population, so there's no telling what was done with his stuff or his body. He could have even been buried in a different country and an early Christian raided his grave, stole his bones and bought them to Rome to start a new church with. For all we know, all of his stuff was taken and buried with other people as sacred objects. More, importantly, archeologists should all know this is a pointless discussion. Archeology can only ascertain the traces of what still physically exists. Things like physiology and pathology of a person can leave traces in their bones (and even traces of how they lived), but not their identity - you can only say there's supporting evidence of someone who fits certain parameters. Furthermore, lots of evidence has been lost or destroyed over the years for many different reasons, so you can't say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, either. Saying "we're not 100% sure whatsisname was here 2000 years ago" like that means anything is stupid too, because you can never be sure about someone's whereabouts that long ago. Even records of where someone died very publicly with a whole crowd watching (like Caesar's assassination or Jesus's crucifixion) could themselves have been fabricated at the time or later, so you can only say "our sources say this". I mean, seriously. In any case, religion of any kind is all about faith, so don't start complaining now about wanting "evidence" to back it up.

[@museluvr]

Its based on faith.

[@yosef8060]

The part about Jesus' death is in the bible, so it is beyond mere folklore!

[@13minutestomidnight]

@@yosef8060 Eh, I’m treating the bible like a contemporary primary source for the sake of argument, in which case plenty of mistakes can get made by people recounting events later on. My point is that the archeological evidence is never going to be that specific. And of course, if you’re basing your reasoning on faith, then the archeological evidence is irrelevant anyway.

[@yosef8060]

@@13minutestomidnight true

[@tracylalonde4972]

You make very good points that I agree with.

[@Air-bear]

Gadfly here 🙁. I believe it is vital to up hold our history. You can’t worship the past and ignore the future. You must look for knowledge constantly 😶‍🌫️🥶

[@joebombero1]

One apocryphal story of St. Peter in Rome was whenever he heard a rooster crowing in the distance, it would cause him to pause and grow reflective. I always loved that story. It makes the city of Rome seem more real. I like to think it is a true memory of the real man that has survived the millennia, although it could have easily taken place in Antioch.

[@sharonwhiteley6510]

But what about the fact that the Apostle Peter was Jewish? How can he become a Catholic Pope? I find nowhere in the Bible dealing with Peter's conversion prior to his death.

[@loneranger1265]

@@sharonwhiteley6510 because of the simple fact that Jesus was also Jewish UT it is only after Jesus's crucifixtion and reserruction that there came to be a new faith the Roman Catholics or Christianity as we now say

[@eugenemartone7023]

@@sharonwhiteley6510 probably missed it because he was using another name at the time.

[@Awakeningspirit20]

That's an amazing story I've never heard! It makes Peter himself more human. I've come to pause and grow reflective whenever I heard birds because of their role in keeping me grounded in faith. They're like messengers from God, their song captivates you. Birdsong was used in a Gregorian Chant Solitudes album, this is the true reason for the association. There's a lot of pre-Christian symbolism about birds that became adopted by the early Church and the various cultures in it.

[@Dapaker]

@@rambrosius7006 Well written, you have a very good understanding of the subject.

[@gnomely1]

This documentary is actually rather like a tabloid newspaper. Many of the comments are contrived to give sensational conclusions that are inaccurate and cast doubt on the authenticity of some of their other documentaries. Peter didn't betray Jesus, he denied knowing him, that was all. HIs humanity was shown as his courage let him down when he was afraid. Much of the tradition isn't essential to the integrity of the Catholic church as is often the case.

[@rjones83061]

de·ny verb 1. state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of. LOL

[@nikowaqaisavou9371]

True

[@georgeo785]

Peter was married and never went to rome. He was an Apostle to the Jews. roman emperor constantine started catholicism around 325AD mixing roman tradition and pagan idolatry from babylon and Christianity. The result is a man made cult

[@Thereishope33]

​@@georgeo785 very true Peter was married

[@renesedonio3340]

The Catholic Faith is rooted in the Apostolic Traditions and The Holy Bible as confirmed by historicity.🙏😇❤️❤️❤️😇🙏

[@jimj808]

We don't need any such relics etc. for power and glory but only Jesus Christ is Power & of all glory over all! PRAISE THE LORD!

[@H.C.Q.]

Relics, icons, crucifixes, etc all help us draw closer to Him. They aren’t essential, but they are helpful to many.

[@cgo225]

The film suggests the "bones in the box" story is suspicious and open to question. In fact, when preforming digs, modern archaeologists always catalogue arefacts and box them for further analysis, off-site, at a later date..... Oftentimes, it can be many years after the dig when artefacts are re-visited.... There are entire warehouses containing thousands of boxes of artefacts from thousands of digs that haven't been examined for decades - so the finding of St Peter's bones in a (catalogued, labelled) box a few years after they were dug up is nothing suspicious but perfectly consistent with how modern archaeology works!!

[@PomahXomehko]

If Tacitus and Josephus doesn't mention Peter in Rome then Peter was never there at the time of the fire of 64AD . He was elsewhere during the Acts by Luke it's a puzzle to solve .

[@prominentmagpie7153]

and why is that? tacitus never wrote about a lot of people, didnt mean they didnt exist

[@vickyabramowitz2885]

This documentary ended strangely. It seems like it was cutoff in the way that I would expect a Part 2 to follow.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

Indeed.

[@gmantov]

Yeah I thought the same

[@user-vv6sy2ox4q]

Agreed.

[@lindamarion4098]

Yes - inconclusive. However the proposition that Jesus would elevate Peter to the status of a prince is totally unbiblical.

[@kyrie0033]

And 27:15. Intead of "...Peter is not", the voice in off starts over the lady's voice.

[@DavidLee-mp8us]

Pope John 23rd came after Pius Xll not Paul 6th

[@ledafrancescamichela5519]

yes I believe that St Peter did come to Rome, moreover I am sure that the christians that went to pray and pay homage on St Peters' tomb would not have mistaken it for a pagan tumb. And the fact that after that lots of people called their children Peter testifies to the fact that Saint Peter really did come to Rome and really was a very special person for the christians of the time. "Peter" was not a name, it was a word that meant ROCK. There are no precedents of people called "Rock". Naturally christians that were aware of the existence of an ex fisherman very poor who had came from Palestine, who was a jew, not a real roman and therefore "second class" would not have set up a shrine unless he indeed had been a special person starting from the fact that he spent years elbow to elbow with our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans used to cremate their dead. The deceased poor and the slaves were usually thrown in the rubish, there was a large area in which romans dumped anything that they wanted to throw away, including the bodies of the dead and unwanted infants. The custom of burying the dead was jewish not roman! If any the romans made urns of the ashes of the dead. Any pregnant woman who met Saint Peter and believed in his message and of the work of Jesus Christ, would have considered heresy to call her child Jesus for it was to equivail the child to God or to the son of God but would have surely considered calling her child Peter (Rock) who had had the priviledge of spending a few years elbow to elbow with Saint Peter.

[@J_a_s_o_n]

Non biblical beliefs

[@roytaylor2161]

In actual fact, Pope Paul VI's predessor was Pope John XXIII. Officially Romans stopped being called 'Latins' in the year of Rome's founding, 753 BC, though being used as an epithet for their language stuck. It's the first time I've ever heard Christianity referred to as 'Christianism'. Most dictionaries and Wikipedia prefer 'Christianity'.

[@marcelleoreilly7719]

It lost a bit of its credibility with the Pius Xll to Paul Vl mistake….

[@AltagraciaRosas-gh7bi]

specialist in Christianity = expert in theology & teachings of Jesus specialist in Christianism = expert in history & humanities of Christians ...not the same thing

[@ledafrancescamichela5519]

From the death of Saint Peter a lot of children were called Peter, which in ancient Greek meant "Tomb Stone" I lived and studied for 8 years in Greece and my teacher of litterature was Greek 100% and she had also qualifications for ancient greek and she tought us that in the old greek version of the Bible and Gospels, the world that we translate as Peter or Rock is not any rock, is "grave rock" grave stone". She was a truly outstanding teacher and I am sure that she tought us the right thing because she was Orthodox and the topic of the lesson was the correct translation of the Bible, and eventually the shism between catholic and orthodox church and books that were written about it at the time and the historical context.

[@patrickiezzoni2052]

A brief google search would show that you either misunderstood, or your teacher is completely wrong.

[@peterbovold2571]

I wrote a paper on this very subject in college. I found it very, very difficult to find evidence of any kind.

[@allanhalldorson7006]

Good for you! you are correct and will not find ANY evidence because there is none! it was simon MAGUS not simon peter that went to rome!. Jesus told his apostales where to go. Jesus told Peter to go to the Jews, not the gentiles. So the bible is correct not the papacy!

[@brucebarber4104]

@@allanhalldorson7006 🤣🤣🤣

[@georgeo785]

Well Peter was married and never went to rome. He was an Apostle to the Jews. roman emperor constantine started catholicism around 325AD mixing roman tradition and pagan idolatry from babylon and Christianity. The result is a man made cult

[@newkboots]

I suppose you are going against the historical consensus. Peter died in Rome. So I’m not sure how he would have never been there if he literally got crucified there.

[@albertaowusu3536]

Trust in the Lord who said 'upon this rock I will build my church.'. He build the Church on St. Peter literally.

[@nakinilerak]

Has this been translated using Google Translate? Christianism is not the same as Christianity (I am sure the Pope would be surprised to find that he is the head of Christianism), and there is a difference between Martyr and Martyrdom. Really surprising in a professionally produced piece.

[@jeremias-serus]

Sadly I can confirm it's not a mistake on their end, it's part of a new progressive movement to "align" Christianity with the other religion, compare to Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism.

[@nakinilerak]

@@jeremias-serus Wow - thanks, I didn't know that. I thought Christianism meant a fundamentalist attitude similar to Islamism. Or will Islam be replaced, too? Frankly, I don't care either way, as I am an atheist. I just love words.

[@randomvideos3187]

It's just the same... for the first 1500 years,. There was only one Christian Church, the Catholic church. Being Christian that time means being Catholic.

[@crobinso2010]

@@randomvideos3187 Wow you really need to learn your history if you think there was only one form of Christianity for 1500 years.

[@J_a_s_o_n]

@@nakinilerak We do not recognise anyone like the Pope in Christianity. WE only know Jesus Christ the head of the church.

[@peterplotts1238]

"Christianism" isn't a word, but the producer's use of it is instructive.

[@mzt7595]

2000 yr old Catholic Church Luther didn’t agree with gods church. Hope protestants can come back home.

[@RobertEWaters]

Historical evidence for Peter being a pope, or ever even visited Rome, is pretty sparse. He's tradition's first pope, not history's.

[@helives2630]

@@drjanitor3747 Jesus is head of the Church.

[@kathrynjordan8782]

@@helives2630 You are correct. Regardless if you are Catholic or Protestant, Jesus is head of the Church. He will ALWAYS be head of the Church.

[@ringthelivingbell]

Peter would have never allowed himself to be called pope, since it means Father, and Jesus said to call no man father. We have ONE Father.

[@Alvarezsnwl]

@@helives2630 and Peter is his Vicar

[@Alvarezsnwl]

@@ringthelivingbell saint Stephen called the pharisees fathers in acts 7:2

[@kerry8506]

Why would a small container with shards of the bones of St Peter mean that the tomb under the Vatican didn’t contain St Peter’s bones? Don’t these people know that it is the norm for the Catholic Church to take small pieces of the bones of Saints and place them in churches all over the world? And yet these saints also have permanent tombs that contain their remains.

[@J_a_s_o_n]

Why do Catholics keep bones of the dead ? IDOL WORSHIPPERS! NECROMANCY IS SIN !

[@bryanphilippi8419]

The Roman Empire didn’t fall it just turned into the Catholic Church . Every pope might as well be an Emperor

[@uncommon_name9337]

More like the ghost of the Roman Empire.

[@Kitiwake]

Not so. They maintained separate jurisdictions for much of the last 2000 years.

[@djdadu]

Roman empire continued way over the pope in Constantinople

[@WindyBritches]

Kind of a silly comparison. The Catholic Church doesn’t conquer land or enslave millions of people. Yes, they have tremendous wealth, but pretending it’s the same as a countrys wealth is disingenuous. Most of it is made up of artifacts, and the cash they do operate with feeds/clothes/educates millions of people around the world as well as supports the church infrastructure (lotta priests and nuns that don’t make any money, schools, maintenance, etc. )

[@MrAzboGaming]

One of the most moronic, untrue hot takes

[@MichaelMorrow-x4k]

wait.. why are these religious scholars not aware that judgement and forgiveness can ONLY be granted from the creator? The Assignment to Judge (2 Corinthians 5:10)has been given to Jesus from his father. Why don't they know this its literally in the books written by Paul

[@cgo225]

The film failed to mention that the bones which were found, wrapped in (very expensive, and ancient) purple/gold cloth were individually identified.....and the bones of the feet and hands were MISSING from the wrists and ankles onwards. This is consistent with removing a crucified body, in a hurry, if you were unable to remove the nails for some reason. We can never know for sure obviously, but it's an interesting piece of information that's consistent with the crucifixion victim in question.

[@toddrobbins4608]

There's a whole lot of people with their heads up their keesters in this video. Folks it doesn't make one iota of difference how or where Peter died or where he was entombed. What matters isn't how Peter died it's how he lived. Merry Christmas

[@OldDunollieman]

Most people ,who are not brainwashed from childhood, recognize religions as a total scam run by charlatans and scoundrels. E;G. Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism, Protestantism, Bushism etc. etc. Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Jim and Tammy Baker , Oral Roberts, et al are pretty representative of these money grubbers.

[@psychologymajorptsd62]

As a non-Catholic, I completely agree. You have to remember, Catholicism has been very attached to their worldly items connected to God ever since the beginning. The bones are another physical symbol of the Pope’s connection to God, and another tool (one of many) used by those in power (again, one of many) to retain their power. Humans in general are very fond of their physical manifestations and, more importantly, reminders of power.

[@toddrobbins4608]

@@psychologymajorptsd62 well I can't speak for what Catholics are or not attached to. I can point out that without Catholicism there wouldn't be Christianity. It was Catholicism that protected and nurtured the faith through all those dark years of persecution. For the first couple hundred years Christianity was not a very popular idea at all. But they held on despite incredible odds and survived. Because of that we have scripture. We have a Bible. We have all of that preserved down through history thanks to the Catholic Church. Honestly when you look throughout the history they managed to survive events that are quite astounding. So even though you may not agree with all of the tenants of the Catholic Church just try to be a little more generous when you think about them. Because without them whatever brand of Christianity you practice probably wouldn't exist. Just food for thought

[@bja2477]

"CHRISTIANISM" really? Makes me seriously question the accuracy of the rest of the programme - from the very first sentence.

[@theresasmith8972]

Exactly! Literacy, especially "AI", or narrations on these vids is lacking and poor, sometimes, at best. Also, seemingly one sided on occation.

[@jessicacandelaria3801]

Christianism: plural-s the religious system, tenets, or practices of Christians. I've never heard it said that way, decided to look it up.

[@christopherlyon4980]

It's a real word...

[@janiverster6162]

Christianists are known for their wisdomism 😂😂😂

[@John081590]

When they were talking about Constantine @ 41:00, isn't that a mosaic of Justinian I?

[@thejeffinvade]

Yes, in Ravenna.

[@healhands5760]

From year 60 up to year 2024. the successors of the Church Authority remains UNBROKEN. proof that Jesus is guiding His true church until the end of time. Which is the Catholic Church starting from St. Peter His apostle. 🙏🏻

[@johncarter1288]

Odd, if Jesus was to walk the earth today, anyone thinks He would appreciate seeing crosses around the necks of His devotees? Was Jesus materialistic? How come the Vatican even owns its own bank? Jesus Christ was everything the Vatican is not!

[@theobserver9131]

I don't think it's just the Catholics, the whole damn religion is pretty much anti-Jesus. I think the alleged message of Jesus is awesome. It would be nice if his followers were too.

[@johncarter1288]

@@drjanitor3747 Sure, a filthy rich organization like Vatican telling the world is against poverty and hunger but then do not do a thing pratical to help! Hypocrisy at its finest.

[@jhosk]

You seem to get it

[@MarkfromNewYork]

If such a man existed and came back today they would put him in jail or an insane asylum immediately, he would be considered a threat to all world governments and banks.

[@87aggietim]

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤑🤑🤑🤑

[@peterchristie1096]

I take more heed of the teachings of Jesus himself and the Apostle Paul.

[@judeugwu4987]

' “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” ' Luke 10:16

[@kathrynjordan8782]

What I wonder is was Peter crucified in Rome? Nero had St Paul beheaded at the time he was in Rome the last time he was there. Was Peter in Rome at that same time or was he at a different place like Jerusalem or Antioch? It is an interesting documentary.

[@alexandergaus493]

I do have another question. I do not ask that to undermine anyones knowledge and/or opinion. How can someone know, if bones are human, without knowing, wich part of the body they belong to, as that monk early in that documentary said he does?

[@jeffreybayer4386]

According to the Holy Bible, Saint Peter flees the city of Rome and has a vision of Jesus Christ going to Rome. Jesus tells him that He is going to be crucified. Saint Peter understands this to mean that He is being crucified in Rome, so he returned to his persecutors, but insisted on being crucified upside down because he is not worthy to be crucified like his Lord and Savior. It's in the "Acts of the Apostles" which is one of the books of the New Testament in the Holy Bible!!

[@kathrynjordan8782]

@@jeffreybayer4386 Where in "Acts of the Apostles"? I thought I had heard somewhere that Peter was crucified upside down. I just didn't know where.

[@jhake67]

stop this nonsense... nobody knows how paul, peter and the other apostles died. there are no historical records, no historical proofs and no archeological findings to back up these legends and myths!

[@evelynfelix3363]

00

[@Tsedek_ben_Shimon]

Only one problem... Peter was not in Rome, much less Italy. He was to witness to the Jews in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Acts 18:2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, *recently come from Italy* with his wife Priscilla, because *Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.* And he went to see them,

[@nandolopes9897]

So, you was there?

[@Tsedek_ben_Shimon]

nand - Hmmm... no content on your KZbin channel. That is typical of trolls and shills, so which are you?

[@billy-kr3xx]

He could of went after the reign of Claudius.

[@Tsedek_ben_Shimon]

billy - scripture is very clear that Paul's ministry was to the gentiles, and Peter's was to the Jews. Peter stayed at or near Jerusalem the rest of his life. Paul went to Rome.

[@billy-kr3xx]

@@Tsedek_ben_Shimon From Peter in 1 Peter 5:12-13 "With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." Babylon was a code name for Rome.

[@jimmyqdizon8840]

My dad don't preach but he's cops and his millitary veteran and firefighter . Till now still working everytime you here the siren 🚨

[@dandelionne]

Helen Bond mentions @29:17 that there is complete silence of the bible if Peter was in rome. But there is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “ The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Then there’s early historical reference - Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

[@Kitiwake]

Evidence is evidence and that's evidence

[@dansmart8001]

The majority opinion in scholarship is that Peter the Apostle did not write 1 and 2 Peter.

[@billy-kr3xx]

@@dansmart8001 Would you rather trust someone giving their opinion 100 years or 2000 years after the events?

[@dansmart8001]

@@billy-kr3xx Literally dozens of books were written in the 1st and 2nd centuries by authors claiming to be one of the Apostles; most were rejected by the early church as inauthentic. Several of these fraudulent books seemed to have slipped through, however.

[@billy-kr3xx]

@@dansmart8001 Several of the books, which you claim to be fraudulent, are known as scripture, why do you call them fraudulent?

[@dancf]

5 Thomas asked him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus assured them, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14 repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves. Maranatha Lord Jesus.

[@archangel_metatron]

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

[@gnomely1]

There is nothing wrong with there being two reliquaries. The relics of saints have often been distributed widely. The relics in bothe these reliiquaries can easily be from the same person. There's not an entire skeleton present between both. In other words there's nothing controversial about the two reliquaries.

[@randomvideos3187]

True

[@J_a_s_o_n]

All IDOL WORSHIP

[@awakeningfaith2290]

exactly, they did it to many and they know that.

[@nikowaqaisavou9371]

@@J_a_s_o_n True

[@georgeo785]

The problem is that Peter was married and never went to rome. He was an Apostle to the Jews. The emperor constantine started catholicism around 325AD. Mixing tradition and pagan idolatry from babylon and Christianity. The result is a man made cult

[@danielbutler946]

Why is there not a grip on your own brand of religion

[@arthurnas3941]

Jesus is the the answer to our salvation not some relic they try to look for in the ground for the church is a spiritual place where two all more gather togethere for the worship of christ ❤

[@Jakub-oy8ed]

41:21 Mosaic image, which is repeatedly referred as Emperor Constantine is in fact an image of the Justinian I, Byzantine emperor, around two hundred years after the Constantine. It's quite strange that the creators of this documentary didn't realize such a significant mistake🤨

[@Seven-ld9zv]

Funny how (even in this very informative documentary!) Jesus is still shown as the only blue eyed blond haired person as oppose to all the black haired dark eyed people that surround him. It's like seeing a white tiger within a group of black panthers.... and most people, even today, take it as an accurate representation of Jesus.

[@allanmowz]

I suspect that is in large part due to Roman Catholic idolitry where images of him are everywhere. Jesus was of course an outdoor working scruffy Jewish carpenter for a couple of decades before he started teaching. He possibly still made woodwork while he was teaching to provide for his family. He was the eldest child and his mother was under his financial care by Jewish law. (Same reason he instructed John to take over that role when he was dying.) Some of the apostles likewise continued their trade to provide food and income while teaching after the ascension. His hands would likely have been scarred long before the cross by chisels and the like. And of course being Jewish he would have had short hair and a long beard, probably brown or black hair and brown eyes. It's specificly stated he wasn't anything special to look at physically.

[@MGR1900]

@@allanmowz If Jesus had direct siblings it would have been against Jewish law to give his mother to the Apostle John. And if you knew your Bible, you would understand how those “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are not his direct siblings.

[@barbeeska]

That's not blonde and that's not blue eyes either 😂

[@Cici-st2yz]

​@@MGR1900so you don't believe that Mary had other children?

[@prominentmagpie7153]

well jesus had brown hair, no one depicts jesus as having blonde hair and whos to say jesus didnt have blue eyes?

[@Frank-ky8bk]

Well it can't be much of a secret if there's a story on KZbin about it.

[@jeraldbaxter3532]

Interesting how this video calls it Christianism, not Christianity. What's up with that?

[@arpahal-fayette3870]

I did not know before that Vircengentorix of Arverni was also imprisoned for 6 years there by emperor Julius Caesar, just as Saint Peter and Saint Paul then later were placed there by emperor Nero.

[@antonijadragoje4910]

Oh, you are so transparent. Please care of your own, not ours. Peace be with you🙏

[@nicholasderusha]

(12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

[@nicholasderusha]

Hmmmmmm..!? :p ;)

[@godschosen5312]

Which bible do you use my dear? Have never come across such a verse

[@nicholasderusha]

@@godschosen5312 none. Just the Gospel of Thomas. 😇👍💞❤️♾️

[@sunsettersix6993]

Every time they mention Emperor Constantine, they show a mosaic of Emperor Justinian..... Why???

[@jawanauselton9197]

Maybe it's because when you've seen one roman emperor you've seen them all🤣🤣

[@Liams.ca22348]

Thanks for the information❤

[@esmysyield2023]

Jesus didn't call him the rock for nothing. Peter actually means The rock. His original name was Simon.

[@AlexanderYamada]

"I don't know what part of the body they belonged to, but they were clearly human." Possibly the best one sentence example of the willing blindness and absolute idiocy required to believe in the absurd BS of organized religions I have ever heard. Amazing.

[@renesedonio3340]

It insults your intelligence for it's Wisdom!🥰🥰🥰

[@sarahr1994]

My immediate thoughts, as well! How do you know if they're clearly human??

[@prominentmagpie7153]

@@sarahr1994 because wtf else is it going to be, istg athiests must have a whole in their brains

[@prominentmagpie7153]

"Possibly the best one sentence example of the willing blindness and absolute idiocy required to believe in the absurd BS of organized religions I have ever heard. Amazing." that doesnt make any sense at all, grow tf up

[@andrew-xr1de]

After watching this documentary I found glaring falsehoods and statements that were WRONG. Therefore its a documentary I would NOT waste time on watching.

[@nickbarton3191]

Always found it odd the church's elevation of St Peter when it appears that St Paul had a larger role. At least Paul definitely reached Rome.

[@dadtheripper]

I've always thought that it was an accident of history that more of St. Peter's role in the early church hasn't come down to us.

[@nickbarton3191]

@@dadtheripper I suppose it's because Jesus called him the rock. Yet much of the doctrine is Pauline and Paul was a Roman citizen and travelled everywhere establishing early churches.

[@2brokeToBeWoke]

Shows you politics was at work even then.

[@2brokeToBeWoke]

The only one a sant. In all three religions is Abraham. Muslim,Jewish, Catholic. Wonder Why?

[@TheLawDawg]

@@nickbarton3191 Jesus actually called him a pebble, which was probably somewhat of a rebuke to Peter's pride. The rock (petra) was the truth of the statement made by Peter in that verse about who Jesus was. Peter was not listed as the first Pope until the third century when someone claimed that he had been the bishop of Rome. There is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome and the title is probably the result of Rome attempting to claim dominance over the church during a period when the seat of the church was in Jerusalem. Peter's location after the middle of Acts is unknown and it is likely that this was seized upon a few hundred years after he died to concoct the story.

[@Sugarsugar-24]

God buried Moses so that the people wouldn’t worship his bones. I always thought it was odd that the church has so many bones on display.

[@J_a_s_o_n]

You are RIGHT. It's called NECROMANCY which is SIN

[@keeperofthedomus7654]

....OR Moses was assumed bodily into heaven to later appear on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus. 😊

[@BT.TTRight]

bondage (any sort) is the Devils Game..... Read the words, do not give it power to hold you hostage. God Gave us freedom. Jesus gave us education. So , no idea why people are so clingy to things that is material made or from man.

[@gern7535]

Wonder how long before Ancient Aliens will say Peter was an ET?

[@StefanMusicHuntley]

Jesus was the 👽. That's why Spielberg had ET die and get resurrected. Look at him standing in the ambulance. LOL JESUS CHRIST IS THE WHITE MAN'S BUDDHA.

[@michaelpcooksey5096]

The authority of the pope does not rely on relics, it is on biblical testimony of Christ directly giving him that authority and the full understanding at the time [church fathers] and in all subsequent ages of what that meant. Decisions need to be made? Take it to Peter ... Gentiles also allowed to be Christians? Take it to Peter ... the chair of authority was clear from the very beginning.

[@wesleysimelane3423]

LOL

[@Cici-st2yz]

May I ask, where is this written?

[@michaelpcooksey5096]

@@Cici-st2yz Papal authority? Matthew 16:18 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.' Later on St. Paul came to Peter as the known head of the Apostles for verification of his assignment to and views concerning the Gentiles. He got it! Point being ... Paul did not go off on his own without aligning himself with the known church authority.

[@autumnvickydanny]

If you I don't chair and clouds give red sometimes rain in a week or sit down on where is it . That's how much sense your comment makes

[@michaelpcooksey5096]

@@autumnvickydanny Matthew 16:18 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.' Later on St. Paul came to Peter as the known head of the Apostles for verification of his assignment to and views concerning the Gentiles. He got it! Point being ... Paul did not go off on his own without aligning himself with the known church authority. You can choose to believe what you wish and seek truth if you actually want it. But honesty is painful ... The god in the mirror will never bring you joy or peace.

[@luizprado1077]

Imagination can lead people wherever!

[@2brokeToBeWoke]

Pre conception will lend a crooked path leading to what you expect. Question everything in every case. There is only one truth...everything else is perspective.

[@sonnylambert4893]

Now as then!

[@theobserver9131]

Imagination took us out of the trees, and gave us everything that we have today. It even put us on the moon. I know that you are poking fun at religion, but let's not belittle the value of imagination.

[@2brokeToBeWoke]

@@theobserver9131 How do you reach the conclusion I'm poking fun as you say. You seem to be doing more of that calling religion imaginary.... Do you work for DISNEY?

[@theobserver9131]

@@2brokeToBeWoke sorry, I confused you for someone with a brain. Carry-on.

[@andykaufman7620]

What? If you forgive the sins of someone on Earth then Heaven will forgiven them and if you don't then Heaven will not. That is the type of belief the Puritans would have thought were tainted about Catholicism. That means that you as a human won't forgiven someone's sins and so God wont' either, but if you forgiven their sins then God will also likewise forgiven their sins. That basically means it is not Jesus or God forgiving the sins, rather you the person apparently wronged, or in some position to judge others, so you get those 'least ye not judge others types of sentiments in the New Testament. The line about binding on Earth and likewise in Heaven are not about forgiving others, or judgement either. Entering Heaven is not something a single being, other than God would possess, and if anything God itself would solely hold some control like this. Also Jesus was not trying to 'build a separate religion, so the concepts of a 'rock upon my church is built' when Jesus comes from a real family lineage and that would mean that Jesus is sleecting a non-family member as a replacement, just like Jesus took up a mantel of leadership for the one he replaced. Ultimately, this is part of the story of how a Jewish heresy was co-opted by Rome, and the leaders, such as Jesus's brother James, were replaced and whatever resulting 'church' ends up in Rome. Keep in mind that all Bishops were equal at that time, so politicizing religion saying, for example, that the Bishop of Rome, is more elevated in importance over other Bishops is Hubris, and God would not favor one Bishop over another. That is like saying Jesus loves some people more than others, and contradicts the universal loving doctrine upon which the persona of Jesus is built. It would be like saying, if there was a Rabbi, and that Rabbi were viewed as more favored by God than other Rabbi's and thus all other Jews should follow that particular Rabbi, but if Yahweh truly loves Jews and all Jews, then God would not, nor ever, do that, but then again, there is no Pope of the Jews. Unless you want to say Jesus is, but then he was not a Rabbi, or was he. Maybe Yahweh favored Jesus over other Rabbi's and thus Jews should follow Jesus. Maybe there is something to the Jews for Jesus movement. --- Of course, all of that ignores the fact that there was originally 5 popes, and we still have a couple of them today, as yes the Coptic Church is still a thing, and if Constantine is really the first 'Christian emperor' and if he made Constantinople the new capitol, then why wouldn't he make the Bishop of Constantinople the head of Christendom. He would IF that were the case he was the first Christian emperor. Instead they split into 5 separate, and co-equal regions, so the Bishop of Rome was only one among others, not the center but again, since the Byzantine empire survives the Western empire, again, it makes more sense if a single leader is chosen, that the person would be the Bishop of Constantinople to make the Pope, and the split between Eastern and Western churches is not for a while, centuries, so this type of elevation of one Bishop to primacy over the others, as a single penultimate religious (and political) leader, then is a later idea inserted, as it contradicts what these Early Christians would have done. They clearly would not, and never elevate Peter to some penultimate status way back in the first couple decades or so after Jesus's birth. At best Peter becomes a Bishop of Rome, one among many other Bishops, and all equal to the others. That's the reality, and all this other stuff is a palimpsest of centuries of, well we could call it, disinformation for its time, layer after layer woven into a tapestry that justifies politicizing that one Bishop is elevated, and it should be the Bishop of Rome, and that process occurs right after Jesus 'anoints' Simon as Peter. Why would Jesus favor one of his disciplines over the others, if he is truly spreading a new religion, which he was not, but say he was, then he would have anointed all of them equally to 'go forth and spread the Gospel'. Jesus wasn't trying to do that, but had he, then he would have done that and not elevated Rome, as Rome was, and Shhh this is a big super-secret, the very place that ultimately had Jesus killed and crucified. Turns out Rome's leadership was not a big fan of Jesus, so why out of all the places on planet Earth would Jesus say 'Simon you need to go to Rome, that city that hates me so much, and you will be the leader for any and all other Christians, which is totally not Judaism, even though all us Christians are in fact Jewish people, and you will convert non-Jewish people not to Judaism, as why would we want to do that, but instead our special brand of Jewish heresy, Christianity'. Simon replies "Sure thing boss man'. I'm sure the Romans will embrace me and allow me to spread your message, since they clearly want you alive and the leaders of the Jewish community completely agree with the Romans too. they have our back. No one is going betray us. I have had this feeling so I have good feeling about Rome as the place we need to center Christianity on'. Come on, the entire story of Simon becoming Peter and then somehow elevated to some first Pope, when in reality he would have been, at most, a Bishop who might have set up a church in Rome, but that would not be more or less important than any other and considering the hostility that Christianity received, Rome would be probably the most dangerous place to go to.. Imagine you are a real terrorist, and say you were a terrorist against the United States. Let's pretend, why would you go and set up shop and be open and publicly operating in Washington DC, the capital city that is clearly trying to wage a War on Terrror. Either you are the world's most stupid terrorist, OR something more is involved and in reality someone in Washington or connected to ti, is protecting you as you are ultimately advancing their own agenda, hence you are perfectly safe. Sort of like how they found Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, and the Taliban were basically created and cultivated by the Pakistani intelligence service so it is no accident the so-called 'close ally' of the US is the very place Osama Bin Laden, the world's most hunted 'enemy' of the US was hiding. That is historical irony at its finest. The whole concept that Peter is someone that will go then to the most dangerous place ever at that time to start The Church, is ludicrous, especially the concept that he should now lead above all other Bishops. That is pure narcissism, and against the foundational teachings of both Jesus and really, original Christianity, insofar as it existed, as the Jewish Heresy it rightly was. Maybe Simon was one of the originators of this disinformation campaign in the decades after Yesha's death. He was not the only one, and not alone by any means though. In fact, powerful interests in Rome would need to intervene and help for something like an establishment of a Church with some sense of security. If anything, the Church would seek a refuse far from Rome, to set up shop and build a solid protected base of operations, if you buy into the concept that Christianity is supposed to be some centralized religion, and not DIFFUSED so that each and ever head of a church, a Bishop are granted the same authority and power. That is because that is in fact how it was in the early decades, and only later when Rome politicizes and "Romanizes" Jesus and his followers and whatever is called Christianity does it truly get made into a 'separate religion' from Judaism, and clearly one given some measure of connection to at least some powerful interests in Rome to protect the movement.

[@kuhnemund6523]

I have to wonder how authentic some of this film’s claims are, given it says in several places that Christians “worshipped” St Peter. Catholics don’t worship saints--they “venerate” them and ask for intercession. Only the deity is worshipped. From a raised-Catholic atheist.

[@hyknusa3538]

reliques or bones of saints were shared in parts and given to different churches

[@nikowaqaisavou9371]

May i ask why, and for what purpose?

[@joelapp]

He wasn’t the “Pope”. He was the bishop of Rome. One of several bishops at the time. It wasn’t until some time later when one of them decided they were in charge of the whole church.

[@masada2828]

Correct! It wasn’t until Phocas in 606AD that he confirmed the Bishop of Rome to be, Universal Bishop. Rome was the ecclesiastical half of Rome while Constantinople was the military half.

[@thebigalow2]

He was the pope

[@joelapp]

@@thebigalow2 there was no such thing.

[@thebigalow2]

@@joelapp there was his name was peter

[@joelapp]

@@thebigalow2 nice to know you are utterly ignorant of church history. The title did not exist back then. There were 7 bishops all equal in power. There was no “pope” until the Empire of Rome decided he should be in charge.

[@TheCrewChief374]

The only reason they keep perpetuating this rumor of a story is to continuously the lie that the Catholic Church is a legitimate church that believes and has it faith in God and in son Jesus Christ. Which is the furthest thing from the truth, there was no need for Simon bar Jonah (Peter) to go to Rome, since Jesus Christ Himself sent Paul to Rome.

[@J_a_s_o_n]

#TRUTH!

[@finalscorce]

Right! They are Lucefrians🤢🤮

[@hubertjoseph8643]

I Love Jesus ❤️

[@kevinjamesparr552]

Show to me historic fact This is something no one can supply

[@whiterosesforthebrideofchrist]

Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium (2 Peter 1:5-11) because he was commanded three times to feed the sheep (John 21:15-17). If you give totalitarian control to any group of men you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. "...Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Acts 28:26, 27). It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11). And Peter wrote to the sheep and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we do what he says that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly." Peter has been feeding the sheep by sharing the keys to the kingdom with anyone who will do what he tells them to do in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall. So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people to do what Peter said? Why don't they teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall? Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). ... ... ...

[@krishyyfan5153]

Acts 15 = MAGESTERIUM... 🙄

[@bertclayton6597]

Anyone ever wonder if St. Peter or any of the apostles would welcome them if seen in person?

[@lindaellis4183]

Peter was the apostle to the Jews as Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, seems Rome is still trying to appear legitimate.

[@lostyears5256]

Sounds like segregation from then and still exists now in the church

[@czerwonymotyl948]

XD. U have dokuments from 105 year which telling u f.g. "to church in Rome who is first in love"(Ignacy from Antiochia). And many other patristic sources. Maybe learn history about u dumb protestant religing

[@porkc78nj19]

Catholic ❤

[@sarah45737]

The music is distracting and distasteful. Maybe the original documentary was produce to a higher standard.

[@johnphelan8300]

Here is the truth which confirms our common sesse. Peter, was NOT the first pope, the second third or 4th pope. It is a lie to believe abything else. It is equally important to believe nothing emanating from that magnificent wealthy cortupt institution located on the 7 hills until you can prove it to the entire satisfaction of your own spiritual discernment. I am not joking! Praise the lord. Amen!😊

[@masada2828]

NEVER would Peter the Apostle exult himself to be a Leader of an apostate Church. Remembering also Christians were persecuted right up to Emperor Constantine 325AD when he adopted Christianity as the religion of the Empire (to unite the Empire).

[@mamamia601]

For the first thousand years of Christianity, the whole Christian world was CATHOLIC, until the Great Schism of 1054 and Protestantism of the 16th century Reformation came along. You speak of Christians persecuted prior to Constantine's adoption of Christianity. One of those martyred is St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who once wrote, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

[@propermindset87375]

Your statement is full of accusations. 1. If you accuse the Catholic Chruch to be apostate, then why does it still stand today? To whom did it turn its back to? Didn't Jesus say without Him, we can do nothing? And those who do not remain in Jesus will, like the parable He told, wither and be thrown away. And yet, the Roman Catholic Church still remains as it was, maintaining the unbroken line of apostolic succession. 2. Per your words, Constantine adopted Christianity, which is historically true. What particular religion did he adopt? Is it your religion? 3. Remember the famous story why Constantine converted to Christianity?

[@stephenjones2881]

You have some issues guy. And you're wrong

[@prominentmagpie7153]

no he didnt you heathn liar, grow up and repent, god wont take to kindly to liars like you

[@bernipfeffer6481]

Pray for us 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@J_a_s_o_n]

Learn how to pray if you want a relationship with our Father God through the Holy Spirit

[@KevinEontrainer381]

Not only he is the first pope, he is also the OG "The Rock"

[@wesleysimelane3423]

Lost soul!

[@kellytraveler4748]

If it’s the one true church why doesn’t Jesus return there.

[@prominentmagpie7153]

@@kellytraveler4748 what?

[@daguard411]

Of the many things quite incorrect that the Catholic Church promotes as true is that an inverted cross is evil. When crucifixion is given as a sentence it was quite common that inverted crosses were a common sign posted or painted by they related to the criminal begging the Romans to use an inverted cross method of execution because, as St. Peter knew, it is much faster and much less agonizing than an upright crucifixion.

[@gunterra1]

Keeping the bones of an ancient apostel of the early church as holy relics shows me how depravend this so called church obsessed with materiality has become.

[@tucsonorganist]

I suggest that Timeline take this content, sprinkle liberally with some aliens, and hand it off to the History Channel.

[@diandoxlee7346]

Is it possible to trace the bloodline of Peter? Maybe there's a great-great-great grandchild that shares his DNA then test it for comparison?

[@psychologymajorptsd62]

That would be like looking for a paper needle in the ocean.

[@diandoxlee7346]

@@psychologymajorptsd62 Yeah. It's just that I came across with those 'geneaological dna,' contact tracing... Naah, just wondering. 😀

[@robames1293]

And make him/her Pope

[@J_a_s_o_n]

@@diandoxlee7346 if you are a believer you can ask the Holy Spirit.

[@ronaldmachado757]

Acc tradition Peter tho married had no issue but an adopted son ...so his DNA died with him unless he was NAUGHTY...like BerGOGlio...

[@kenmcdaniel6913]

The Apostle Peter was not a Pope. There were no popes at Pentecost!!!! Peter was an Apostle of Christ and has nothng to do with Catholicism!!!! All man made nonsense!!!

[@benbenwards9999]

He was not the leader nor head also. Jesus Christ was and is.

[@prominentmagpie7153]

peter was the literal pope, christ created catholicism (mathew 16:18-19) the bible is man made, grow up

[@Steve-nm9qy]

If anyone is looking to anything or anyone other than the person of Jesus Christ for salvation, he is not a Christian. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me. " John 14:6

[@Brab82]

I thought you wasn't suppose to worship idols

[@balke7935]

‘Peter was a fisherman, so he was probably sturdy’… again, this is about the level of ‘proof’ supporting the entire catholic theory that Peter ever even came to Rome, let alone that these are his bones 😂

[@anycyclopedia]

The Vatican did a test on those bones and found they are 2000 years old and belongs to a 60-year-old man, but it isn't confirmed whether it's St. Peter's or not

[@balke7935]

@@anycyclopedia so the Vatican tested some bones they say they found - very important bones on which not only the foundations of the basilica are built on, but the entire Catholic Church. Hardly a surprise that they say it’s evidence & proof… that’s what they’ve done for 2000 years ‘look at this old bit of bone… it’s Jesus’ toe, now give us some money’.

[@anycyclopedia]

@@balke7935 The thing is that the Vatican didn't want those bones to be in power. The bones were found almost 2000 years after Papacy began, until then no one needed Peter's bones to convince the authority of the Pope. The Catholic church does not need those bones to convince people it's the true church.

[@balke7935]

@@anycyclopedia finding them is extra substantiation though, surely you can see that. Apart from that, there isn’t even any evidence that Peter the humble fisherman went from Galilee to Rome, let alone set up shop there.

[@anycyclopedia]

@@balke7935 Church Father Irenaeus (2nd century) wrote in one of his books that Peter founded the Church in Rome. If you don't want to belive you don't want to but the truth is truth

[@scotthillman5084]

Why is this age restricted?!?

[@MrTaxiRob]

because children shouldn't have spiritual hoaxes pushed on them

[@cherylcallahan5402]

*TIME-LINE WORLD Documantries appreciate your videos Listening from Mass USA TYVM 💙 🇺🇸*

[@romeoantiquina6389]

The picture of Constantine on the video showed is Justinian II. Not Constantine.

[@MilkmanC]

He betrayed Jesus as part of the reasoning for faith. It was to show Peter no matter how strong he is in his beliefs and loyalty, God's will is above all. His plan will is what we are here for and we need to follow. Just an assessment. I grew up Catholic. My new religion is "I'll See you Guys There, Please be Nice on the Way"

[@sharonwhiteley6510]

How can the Catholic church claim Peter, an Apostle of JESUS, when both were Jewish? I have asked this before and treated either as an atheist or totally insane. To me, it's a very simple question. The Apostles and JESUS were Jewish. When did Peter become Catholic? As far as Peter denying JESUS 3 times, the Bible states Peter was forgiven by CHRIST when He arose from the Tomb, before His ascension to Heaven to sit at the right hand of GOD.

[@MrTaxiRob]

Grifter Paul, who never actually met Jesus, stole his legacy as a RABBI from his own family and turned it into a cult.

[@josephmaxwell5033]

All of the Christ’s Apostles were Jewish. Jesus Christ was and remains the Jewish Messiah. Although, He is still denied by the Jews. Nevertheless; followers of Jesus Christ, even after His death and resurrection would meet in the Jewish Synagogues. That meeting and preaching was practiced until the Jews themselves declared them as followers of Christ as not Jewish at which point they became known as Christians or followers of Christ. Catholic, which means Universal or all, was adopted and remained used as synonymous with followers of Christ. Catholic and Apostolic refers to the Origins now of the Catholic Church. Decreed and affirmed throughout the conclaves and councils of the early Church and including those up to this time. Christ himself established His Church under the authority of St Peter, His Apostle. Catholicism is a direct descendant in Faith from the original Jewish believers in Jesus Christ. The Jews remain our older brothers in Faith as the chosen people of God. Peter was the first leader of the Jewish sect that was later to be called Christian and Universal. I hope this clarification in historical reference and explanation assists you.

[@MrTaxiRob]

@@josephmaxwell5033 no it doesn't, because it's a lie. Christ established nothing, he didn't create any dogma or ritual, he only gave sermons. Jehovah's Witnesses are closer to early Christianity than anyone else in that regard. Paul is the one who created the church as we know it, the early church was coopted by him and his sect grew faster because they baptized as many gentiles as they could. The OG Christians, adherents descended directly from the Apostles themselves, were declared heretics at Nicaea.

[@josephmaxwell5033]

@@MrTaxiRob If you will not Listen, then you cannot learn, which makes you stupid. Good Bye!

[@MrTaxiRob]

@@josephmaxwell5033 sorry Your Highness, but I've been listening since I was a child. You haven't provided anything to contradict anything I've said, you only hold fast to what you BELIEVE to be true. I'm done listening to the same old regurgitated trash; history is a series of real events with real consequences, not your fantasies about what you think they meant. There is a sufficient enough lack of evidence for a historical Jesus to begin with, but giving you the benefit of the doubt doesn't even support your case within the confines of belief in his physical existence.