When did the Papacy Begin? | Origins of the Catholic Church

Рет қаралды 31,068

Жыл бұрын

This video explores when the Papacy first began and the driving force behind the the origins of the Papacy itself.
If you enjoyed this video, like comment, share, and 𝙎𝙐𝘽𝙎𝘾𝙍𝙄𝘽𝙀!!!
Make sure to comment down below about your favorite historical event/figure! P.S. We might make your request into a video 😉
Instagram: 𝐚.𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.𝐢𝐧.𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲
TIK TOK: @𝐚.𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.𝐢𝐧.𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫y

Пікірлер: 542

@ScottPalmer-mp1we 2 ай бұрын

I get that an argument form silence isn't necessarily a clincher, however, it does seem strange that Peter never remotely claims to have any office like Pope in both of his epistles. I think that is telling.

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

Which is exactly the problem in regards to those who do claim he was the pope. Since they have nothing, no evidence, just silence. Not just silence, Peter doesn't even resemble what they are claiming.

@ScottPalmer-mp1we Ай бұрын

@@Anastasis1.4 The Didache doesn't have anything remotely resembling the office of the Pope either. In fact, it is an almost completely non-Catholic document which is surprising if the Catholic Church is the first one.

@mitchellosmer1293 22 күн бұрын

FYI: Paul never mentions Peter in all his letter while in Rome. Never mentions meeting!! Really odd!!! FACT:The title "pope" was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East, it was used only for the bishop of Alexandria. Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "pope" used of him. FACT:REGARDING Matt 16:18-19 Jesus didn’t single out Peter. That scripture is misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. The scriptures show that the apostles were no different. - The Rock is spiritual, not human. - Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. - Eamon Duffy is a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that Matthew 16:18 alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was forming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation. - If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Ananias went to see Paul, not Peter. FACT:When was the first church in Rome built? Built as early as AD 280, Santa Susana is considered the oldest church in Rome. For a Cistercian sisters' monastery established on the property in 1587 that is still there, the present church was reconstructed from 1585 to 1603. Since that was the FIRST Catholic church built on Rome, HOW COULD Peter be the first Pope of the Catholic church in Rome??? >>>Romans 3:4 KJV God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, And mightest overcome when thou art judged. >>>FACT: Peter as The Rock Yahshua (Jesus) was speaking Aramaic, not Greek, as many claim. So when people argue over the “original Greek” he supposedly spoke, it is the beginning of confusion, which is why there are so many “contradictions” people see. The translations can suffer not only over many languages but many centuries, and the personal biases of individual translators, and one has to understand the intended meaning from the original language as much as possible. FACT: Peter never claimed to be pope, no one in the new testament called Peter pope. There is absolutely nothing in the new testament that indicates that Peter was a pope. The title pope was a blasphemous title CORRUPT men decided to put on Peter centuries later. Jesus said in Matthew 23:9 “9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Why would Peter give himself the title and position of someone called father aka pope. Peter would never dare disobey the words of Jesus by calling himself or giving himself the title or position of father/pope. Peter means pebble or small stone, Peter was not the rock Jesus meant when He said “upon this rock”, Jesus was talking about Himself, Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said “upon this rock I will build my church”. Jesus is the foundation, Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built upon. Christianity cannot exist without Jesus but Christianity can exist without Peter. Jesus is the One who shed His blood to save mankind, we are not saved by the blood of Peter. Why would the church be built upon Peter, Peter is a man of many faults, let’s not forget that Peter betrayed Jesus three times. Why would Jesus build His church upon a faulty man like Peter. Peter is not the Lord and Saviour of mankind, Jesus is the only Lord and Saviour of mankind. Jesus Christ is the faultless rock upon which the church is built upon. Psalm 18:2 “2 The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.” Jesus Christ is the rock, Psalm 18:2 is very clear when it says the Lord is the rock of salvation. Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built upon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petrus Cephas never claimed to be Pope and demanded servitude and submission.In fact Apostle Paulus confronted him by chiding him for his fear of circumcised Jewish Christians. Further Apostle Peter and other Apostles addressed themselves as fellow servants of the gospel and disciples of YESHU [ Salvation] MESHIKHA [ The Anointed One ].The pagan Triune God was unknown to the disciples of Our Lord, as they preached only ADONAI ELOHEINU and YESHU MESHIKHA. FACT: And thou art Peter “Petros,” “little bity stone” “feminine gender word” and upon this Rock “PETRA” “Bedrock of the resurrected Christ” “masculine gender word” l will build My church. The Foundation Is Christ, Not Peter! “church of Christ” (MATTHEW 16:18; ROMANS 16:16) Petros means, “little stone.” PETRA means, “Bedrock.” CHRIST IS PETRA! 1 Corinthians 3:11 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.

@ScottPalmer-mp1we 22 күн бұрын

@@mitchellosmer1293 Your post brings up many salient points. Thank you for your detailed discussion. It is also interesting that Peter is never mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the letters to the seven churches (chapters 3 & 4) nor in any of the rest of the book. A related issue I see is the belief that there was some kind of "early church". If there was such a body, then it could give justification for an overseer (bishop,) over the all of the churches. I only see evidence in the NT for local churches having their own government as discussed in I Tim., Titus, I Cor.) as examples. My understanding is that the term in Greek for church is a called out assembly (a congregation). In fact, most references to the church in the NT make no sense unless the church is only a local sovereign body. My contention is that, had Christ given Peter some ruling authority, it would have been over a congregation, not some universal mystical body.

@spiritualhammer392 6 күн бұрын

He didn't write them either. Completely made up character.

@larrybedouin2921 2 ай бұрын

It was Peters confession of faith that Jesus would build his church on. Not on Peter himself. When Jesus came into the coasts of *Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, *Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God* And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and *upon this rock I will build my church* and *the gates of hell* shall not prevail against it.” {Matthew 16:13-18} "upon *this rock* I will build my church" is a demonstrated pronoun. No different than, Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy *this temple* and in three days I will raise it up.” {John 2:19} "the gates of hell" Here Jesus was using satire, for the pagans believed that the gates of hades was at a cave in Caesarea Philippi. “And I will give unto thee *the keys of the kingdom of heaven* and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” {Matthew 16:19} The keys to the kingdom is not exclusive to Peter, for anyone can open the kingdom of heaven by their witness of the gospel to unbelievers. “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” {Matthew 10:32} 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} And that *every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord* to the glory of God the Father. {Philippians 2:11} Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. {1 John 4:15} And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, *If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest* And he answered and said, *I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God* {Acts 8:35-36}

@trishkearney 11 күн бұрын

You have so many false teachers like this one, so how do you know who is trustworthy. Anyone who can make a video is good enough for you.

@larrybedouin2921 11 күн бұрын

@@trishkearney My teacher is the Spirit of truth. The truth has never been popular amongst the rebellious and the deceived.

@trishkearney 11 күн бұрын

@larrybedouin2921 Satan can appear as an angel of light, and he has been a deceiver since the beginning. That's your teacher.

@larrybedouin2921 10 күн бұрын

@@trishkearney It is a sin to bare a false witness. Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God? {Psalm77:13} ...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. {Hebrews 8:5} The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows. Jesus Christ is the door to the sanctuary; He is the door to the Kingdom of heaven. He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness. He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice. He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit. He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles. He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world. He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints. He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment. Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice. In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months. How so? This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation. And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church. She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments. She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man. Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God. Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense. Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth. This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God. And goeth into perdition.

@noj72lao-fr1oh 10 күн бұрын

Seems like they have big misunderstanding or misinterpreting '' And I also Say to you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church''. Did it Say like 1. Peter, You are the rock the church I will build. 2. Peter, you are the rock the church will be built.

@bridgefin 4 күн бұрын

An attack on the papacy or the church is merely an attack against Jesus.

@noj72lao-fr1oh 4 күн бұрын

When ddi the POPE can level the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the Bible?

@bridgefin 3 күн бұрын

@@noj72lao-fr1oh The pope is the Lord's, or King's, prime minister on earth. Jesus is still in charge but he can operate through his church.

@rickswineberg 5 ай бұрын

The word "anti" in antichrist does not mean someone who is going to be openly anti (against) Christ. That word "anti" in the original Bible language can actually mean "IN PLACE OF". So could the bible antichrist be someone who has actually put himself "in place of" Christ? Well, we have further Bible evidence to support this. In 1 John 2:18-19 it says that there were "many antichrists", who "WENT OUT FROM THE CHURCH". In other words, John is pointing to the fact that those "antichrists" were WITHIN THE CHURCH!! Not only that, but Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 calls the man of sin the "son of perdition". Now there is only one other place in the Bible where the name "son of perdition" is used, and that is in John 17:12 talking about JUDAS! And what was Judas? A professing follower of Christ Jesus. Someone who deceived from WITHIN the "church". "The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who TAKES THE PLACE of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity." (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994). "ANTI" - Christ = "IN PLACE OF" Christ!

@bridgefin 5 ай бұрын

He's the prime minister to the King Jesus and all prime ministers have the keys to act on behalf of the King. Those who attack Jesus by attacking his church are the ones who would usurp Jesus' authority and that would include many who frequent such posts as this.

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

The pope is no doubt the ANTI- CHRIST the Bible speaks of. The catholic church is Babylon the great, the mother of HARLOTS and the ABOMINATIONS of the earth.

@mitchellosmer1293 3 ай бұрын

How does the "our Father prayer start? "Our father, who ART IN HEAVEN"!!! Not on earth!!! >>> Home" is where the heresy, idolatry and blasphemy is.: Blasphemous titles claimed for the pope have been embellished and enlarged over the centuries. But a few of these boastful claims appear in an ecclesiastical (Roman Catholic) dictionary, by Lucius Ferraris, entitled Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Vol. VI, pgs. 438, 442, article "Pope." The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48, speaks of this book as "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge," and "a precious mine of information." ---"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God." ---"The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. . . ." ---"He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor and king of kings." "Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions." ---"So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope." ---"The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom." ---"The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God." The above quotes are from What's Behind The New World Order? Go to CatholicNewWorldOrder.com and click on the top link. ---------- ---"The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." -Decretal De Translat. - Espiscop. Cap ---"I am all in all and above all, so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do ALMOST ALL THAT GOD CAN DO . . . What therefore, can you make of me but God?" -Pope Nicholas, quoted in Antichrist by Ian Paisley, pg. 54. ---"You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth." -Pope Pius XI, April 30, 1922. The pope calls himself God, i.e., "Lord God the pope," "another God on earth." "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," Pope Leo XIII said in an Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894. "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh," the Catholic National said in July 1895. And every priest is an "Alter Christus," Another Christ. So every priest is Jesus. Plus, during the Mass the priest transubstantiates the bread into the literal, "real presence" of Christ. In other words, man creates God. He is "the creator of his Creator. . . . 'The power of the priest,' says St. Bernardine of Sienna, 'is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.' . . . As the Word of God created heaven and earth, so, says St. Jerome, the words of the priest create Jesus Christ." -The Dignity and Duties of the Priest by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Ch. 1, Part IV, pg. 11. How is any of this not blasphemy?! Christianity teaches that the pope is the Antichrist. The proud pontiff's official title is Vicar of Christ, meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ translated into Greek is Antichristos, in English Antichrist, also meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ and Antichrist are the exact same word in two different languages. Vicar of Christ in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei, meaning Vicar of the Son of God, or Vicar of Christ. VICARIVS FILII DEI. Add up the 11 Roman numerals and you get 666. Rev. 13:18. angelfire.com/on/3angels Revelation 13. 1 I . . . saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns . . . and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the dragon (Satan) gave him (the beast) his power, and his seat, and great authority. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast . . . 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies . . . 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." Rev. 18:4, 5. If the Catholic religion iS the one Jesus taught, then why is it called the "Apostate church"? And why is it called the "Whore of Babylon"? Revelation 17:5 Why will it be destroyed? www.soonrussiaattacks.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Rome_Destroyed.htm

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

@@mitchellosmer1293 You: How does the "our Father prayer start? "Our father, who ART IN HEAVEN"!!! Not on earth!!! Me: No one said that the Father was on Earth. As to your copy and paste job I will not reply. U could wallpaper this page with such antics but it is a waste of time and effort.

@mitchellosmer1293 3 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin ----- The [Catholic] Church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon [the Roman], temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. .The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful: the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this very hour in Persia and other lands. .Hence the Church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon." -William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in The Catholic World, p. 58, March 1894. >>>> Jesus gave Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” not the keys to heaven.1 A key was a badge of authority ( Luke 11:52 ), and then as now was used to open doors. Peter used the keys Christ gave him to open the door to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost ( Acts 2 ), to the Samaritans after the preaching of Philip ( Acts 8:14-17 ), and to the Gentiles after the Lord had sent him a vision and an appeal from Cornelius ( Acts 10 ). >>>

@wjf0ne 3 ай бұрын

Why do they ignore the question Jesus asks Peter, "who do you say I am," and he answers “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” The rock that the church was to be built on was the unerring faith that Peter exhibited not the man who is destined to die like us all.

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

Because Jesus then renames Simon to Cephas and says that he is building his church on this cephas.

@yosef6664 18 күн бұрын

Christ was referring to the Church being built on the Rock of Revelation through the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is "The Rock" and chief Cornerstone of the Church. Here is what Peter himself said: 1 Peter 2:4-8 NLT - You are coming to Christ, who is the living cornerstone of God’s temple. He was rejected by people, but he was chosen by God for great honor. And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God. As the Scriptures say, “I am placing a cornerstone in Jerusalem, chosen for great honor, and anyone who trusts in him will never be disgraced.” Yes, you who trust him recognize the honor God has given him. But for those who reject him, “The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.” And, “He is the stone that makes people stumble, the rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they do not obey God’s word, and so they meet the fate that was planned for them. The metaphor of Jesus as the "rock" is a significant theme in Christian theology and appears in various scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments. Here are key passages that refer to Jesus as the rock: Old Testament References Psalm 18:2: "The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." Isaiah 28:16: "So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: 'See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.'" Deuteronomy 32:4: "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." New Testament References 1 Corinthians 10:4: "and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." Ephesians 2:20: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone " Romans 9:33: "As it is written: 'See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.'" These scriptures illustrate the theological importance of Jesus being referred to as the rock. In the Old Testament, God is frequently called the rock, symbolizing strength, stability, and refuge. The New Testament writers apply this imagery to Jesus, emphasizing his foundational role in the church and his identity as the Messiah, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies.

@Magic818100 5 ай бұрын

Let me clarify this, he died in the year 331AD or AD but you have to know the years and this is where a lot of people don't know how to explain it. By 325AD Constantine before his death was already talking about a Roman Catholic Church. What happens is that after he dies in the year 384AD, which is 4 centuries later, the Catholic Church is made in Rome --- You read the scriptures well, it doesn't matter if he is Catholic or Protestant. The scriptures say very clearly that after the death of Christ. Christ appears to his disciples during the 40 days. And what is the conversation he has with them. Regarding the KINGDOM OF GOD, this was the important thing about all of this and that is the least that the church touches on, nor do they know how to explain well what the kingdom of God is, but that is another study. They ask their Messiah: When are you going to establish the kingdom of Israel in Jerusalem? They didn't tell him in Rome, they didn't tell him in Syria, nor in Egypt. They were specific when you are going to establish the Kingdom of Israel in Jerusalem? what is it that we know today PALESTINE. Christ tells him to go to Rome and wait for the holy spirit. NO! He told him to go to JERUSALEM and wait for the promise. And what happens when the holy spirit falls on the disciples who now become Apostles. They begin to preach the message of the Kingdom of God of a sacrificed Christ and a resurrected Christ, now the message changes He says that about 3,000 people are converted, then they continue preaching and about 5,000 people are converted. ALL of this is HAPPENING IN JERUSALEM, NOT IN ROME THE CHURCH BEGINS IN JERUSALEM the body of Christ begins in Jerusalem No one was using the Catholic name at that time. What's more, Paul was not yet saved, all of this is happening to him. Now when God saves Paul some time passes because it didn't happen right away. So I had to Paul learns so Paul writes a letter to the believers in ROME. But that does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church begins there. Because when you look at the Bible Paul also says that he writes the letters to the CHRISTIANS OF GALATIA. But no one says the Catholic church of GALATIA. I realized that people like to use that Paul writes to the BELIEVERS of Rome but they do not cite this when Paul writes to these BELIEVERS of GALATIA Paul is not writing to a single Group that calls itself what exists today Roman Catholic that did not exist the church begins completely in Jerusalem and the scriptures do not lie they are converting in droves in Jerusalem, in Judea and even expands throughout Syria yet There was no church in Rome and that is the problem I have with many of my Catholic Christians. I hope I have clarified and you were able to understand what I meant. Let's remember that many sects in the second and third centuries used the name Catholic in Greek to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity. But these things, the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches do not. they know. I'm going to be honest with you in the Catholic and Protestant churches, a lot of teaching is needed. There are few who know this too. Well, God bless you and God protect you.

@trishkearney 8 күн бұрын

St Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and martyr disciple of St John the Apostle was the first to refer to the Church as Catholic. A long time before you say it happened. No one will believe you are an expert in Church history.

@jaypee1010 4 ай бұрын

For my Catholic brothers and sisters, you will be in my prayers. It’s ridiculous to claim Simon bar Yonah (Peter) as the first Pope, he was a Jew who observed the Sabbath, ate Kosher and attended God’s feast in the temple as did Yeshua (Jesus). Many in the Body accept this notion that“ On this Rock” I will build my Ekklesia ( Congregation) refers to Peter, this is furthest from the truth. Although his name was changed to Peter ( Petros/ small rock), Yeshua our Lord is referring to himself “The Rock” ( Petra ,which mean big or massive rock), he’s the foundation. You see, our Lord is also called a Rock, Mountain, The Stone in the “ Old Testament”, so why would Yeshua give Peter the power and keys of his Dominion? Although Peter acknowledges Yeshua as the Messiah in that same passage, he was the cowardly one who denied our Lord 3 x’s before the Cock crowed ( Morning prayers) when things got heated. I pray brothers and sisters that you stand firm when things get heated…..Peter was a Tzadic , A Servant, an Apostle and an Elder, not the Succesor Principis Apostolorum ( Successor of the Prince of the Apostles) Blasphemous. Beside the Lord said not to call anyone on this earth “Father” only the one that sits on his heavenly throne. The office of the Pontifex Maximus uses a kind of subterfuge to gull the masses. Remember, this is the same pietistic office that stood right beside ruthless kings and rulers consenting to the eradication of many throughout the ages especially my Tzadic brethren. No one reaches the Heavenly Father but through Yeshua the Messiah. John 14:6

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

The papacy is Catholic. You don't get a say; and you don't get to reject 2,000 years of history.

@LeightonPosey 3 ай бұрын

@@bridgefinthe papacy is the dragon in revelation... Wearing the triple crown... Son of perdition...

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

@@LeightonPosey Show me where Scripture says that and not just God's enemies.

@LeightonPosey 3 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin the Popes title is "In Place Of Jesus On Earth" blasphemy of the utmost...

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

@@LeightonPosey The pope is the prime minister to the King. The King always rules and the minister handles the dirty work of every day management. A similar position existed in the Davidic kingdom and it was call the "master of the palace". You can read about it in Isaiah 22. You had said: the papacy is the dragon in revelation... Wearing the triple crown... Son of perdition... Me: You failed to show me where Scripture says this. Don't waste your time looking for it. It is the legend of the enemies of God and they apparently have you in their coven.

@pragasamanthony3251 3 ай бұрын

Funny, Petrus Cephas never claimed to be Pope and demanded servitude and submission.In fact Apostle Paulus confronted him by chiding him for his fear of circumcised Jewish Christians.Further Apostle Peter and other Apostles addressed themselves as fellow servants of the gospel and disciples of YESHU [ Salvation] MESHIKHA [ The Anointed One ].The pagan Triune God was unknown to the disciples of Our Lord, as they preached only ADONAI ELOHEINU and YESHU MESHIKHA.

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

You have no idea what Peter claimed.

@salachenkoforley7382 2 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin : Doesn't have the slightest idea....

@mitchellosmer1293 22 күн бұрын

@@bridgefin quote----You have no idea what Peter claimed... unquote Really?? So you want to write your own version???? And claim it is the truth??? Petrus Cephas never claimed to be Pope and demanded servitude and submission.In fact Apostle Paulus confronted him by chiding him for his fear of circumcised Jewish Christians. Further Apostle Peter and other Apostles addressed themselves as fellow servants of the gospel and disciples of YESHU [ Salvation] MESHIKHA [ The Anointed One ].The pagan Triune God was unknown to the disciples of Our Lord, as they preached only ADONAI ELOHEINU and YESHU MESHIKHA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thou art Peter “Petros,” “little bity stone” “feminine gender word” and upon this Rock “PETRA” “Bedrock of the resurrected Christ” “masculine gender word” l will build My church. The Foundation Is Christ, Not Peter! “church of Christ” (MATTHEW 16:18; ROMANS 16:16) Petros means, “little stone.” PETRA means, “Bedrock.” CHRIST IS PETRA! 1 Corinthians 3:11 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

@bridgefin 22 күн бұрын

@@mitchellosmer1293 Stop the silly little stone lie. Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. Cephas in Aramaic ONLY (your favorite word) means ROCK.

@TioKeats 5 ай бұрын

At 2:01 you said and I quote “and Peter himself understood this as he LED THE CHURCH humbly and imperfectly I might add in the years after Christs resurrection” which is the primary expectation Catholics have for any anyone who assumes the duties of the Pope with Jesus most definitely as ruler and lord of us all. Are we not supposed to have a hierarchy of authority that is based on apostolic succession the way Jesus told His apostles to go out and make apostles of their own? I’m not saying a man can’t be corrupted just because he was elected as Pope because humans still have their flesh to contend with no matter their station in life and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a difference between influence and power though. Influence is usually an effect caused by love love and power is about domination through fear. I won’t deny throughout the history of the church a number of poor choices were made that got many different Popes elected. The shortcomings and character flaws of those men were responsible for so much evil being done in the Lords name not the office of the Pope who’s whole authority is about being Gods spokesperson in physical form on earth that can mediate and rule on disputes that greatly that could result in huge divisions in the body of Christ. I don’t say all this to argue who is right but I also don’t want what I believe misrepresented as I’m sure most Christians agree with. I do wish Protestants would stop thinking like it’s the 17th century and we are going to fight an actual over differs between us. Catholics view Protestants as our closest allies and brothers that we would defend from the growing number in the world that don’t want either of us to exist anymore. Catholics just want to be treated with the same respect we show you but until then we will love you and pray for you and support you all the same.

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

Peter means pebble or small stone, Peter was NOT the rock Jesus meant when He said “upon this rock”, Jesus was talking about Himself, Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said “upon this rock I will build my church”. Jesus is the foundation, JESUS is THE ROCK upon which the church is built upon. Christianity cannot exist without Jesus but Christianity can exist without Peter. Jesus is the One who shed His BLOOD to save mankind, we are not saved by the BLOOD of Peter. Why would the church be built upon Peter, Peter is a man of many faults, let’s not forget that Peter betrayed Jesus three times. Why would Jesus build His church upon a faulty man like Peter. Peter is not the Lord and Saviour of mankind, Jesus is the only Lord and Saviour of mankind. Jesus Christ is the faultless rock upon which the church is built upon. Psalm 18:2 “2 The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.” Jesus Christ is the rock, Psalm 18:2 is very clear when it says the Lord is the rock of salvation. Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built upon.

@TioKeats 3 ай бұрын

@@efef6853 Your response is the stereotypical Protestant response to the Catholic Church hierarchy that seems like you may have copy pasted from somewhere else because it made no kind of argument for the point I made. Peter is responsible for founding a great number of churches and even though they had their difference Paul respected Peter. If Peter was so flawed why did Jesus choose him to be one of the 12 and which one of Jesus’s Apostles would have been better suited. He was the obvious choice as leader and the other 10 even looked to Peter for leadership. I’m not sure about the eschatological interpretation about the scripture you are referring to when it comes to the foundation of the church but I do know Peter was highly favored by Jesus. Also if the Catholic Church governing body is “unbiblical” than every other Protestant denomination is also unbiblical because they have a hierarchy of governing bodies sometimes with a single leader. I never seem to see those groups criticized in the same light. The point was never about who the “rock” was Jesus was referring to though. Read my original comment, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, try again.

@Paul-uv6mb 3 ай бұрын

Thats why we have the truth faith, orthodox church! We are not heretic's.

@danielnguyen2791 Ай бұрын

Hades?

@Crystal_G_1989 2 ай бұрын

Catholic was the nearest connection to the Apostles and disciples of Christ every places they visit or Martyred there always have a Catholic Churches this is common sense that the Church has direct connection to Jesus Christ.

@michelduarte5283 Ай бұрын

I loved this "scientific" approach- > Lets dive in to church History -> Ignore any Christian document that stated the Primacy of the Church of Rome from the first three centuries (Pope Clement I Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Ignatius Epistle to the Romans, Against the Heresies of Irianeus of Lyon, St. Cyprian of Carthage).

@erizaodoh1229 6 күн бұрын

But aren't those churches founded by Paul?and why did Paul say that Bishops should have one wife and modest children? Did the bishops of the Bible marry while our current ones don't?

@Hoenhime344 6 ай бұрын

you said NOTHING for 4 min.

@Xtremes0ccer 5 ай бұрын

And you displayed your spiritual blindness in a second.

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@gmpgstudios4122 2 ай бұрын

Bro forgot to mention Matthew 16:19

@hglundahl 3 ай бұрын

3:41 Noting that a) you never tried to pinpoint an exact moment b) you equated basically secular power of the Church with papacy. Also, your quote of Matthew 16 stops at verse 18, where did you leave verse 19?

@franaldo93 4 ай бұрын

Saint Peter as the first pope..

@user-zo4nk4uq7z 5 ай бұрын

Peter was not the 1st Pope.

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

Umm -sure he was. Encylopedia Brittanica online says he is.

@pakanpadiary1321 Ай бұрын

Prove it

@kepha5065 4 ай бұрын

The dogma of Trinity has officially been reaffirmed in the 3rd or 4th century as well. Does it imply that it is a false doctrine?

@JosephSmith-ph4xr 4 ай бұрын

Don't know about 'False' but certainly post-apostolic and it is anachronistic to read it into the NT. Nowhere does the NT teach that God exists as one being but three persons who are co-equal, co-eternal etc. Indeed the language of substance/ essence is not biblical but stems from Greek philosophy. The God of the Bible is strictly unitarian. Jesus prayed to and worshipped his God. The resurrected Jesus had a God.(John 20 :17). The glorified Jesus in heaven itself still had a God. (rev3 :12) That is why there are hundreds of scriptures that differentiate between Jesus and God. The first belivers in Jesus , Jews, saw Jesus as the promised messiah and that is why the claim of the gospels is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. (Mat 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9 :20; John 11 :27)

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@JosephSmith-ph4xr 3 ай бұрын

@@efef6853 : I fully agree with you that the Church is built on the fact that Jesus is the messiah/Christ and that death could not retrain him. However, you need to be careful when quoting scriptures that apply to YHWH. Psalm 18 is appled to YHWH. Jesus was not alive at this time. Jesis is not YHWH. But YHWH is the God of Jesus. (John 20 :17; Rev 3 :12).

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

Well, the trinity doctrine is false. You can't "reaffirm" something that wasn't affirmed by God.

@heinmadsen-leipoldt2341 5 ай бұрын

If Peter was the first pope as some or most believe then I wonder about the verse where Jesus told Peter get away from me Satan or go away Satan or whatsoever I'm not really sure what Jesus's actually words were but I do remember he called Peter Satan or something like that

@bridgefin 5 ай бұрын

That occurred in Matt 16 when Peter said he would protect Jesus. Not exactly satanic behavior.

@k27ism 4 ай бұрын

Also, why pray to Mary, when Jesus refused to be praised in such a way but rather said that those who obey God's will are truly blessed?

@bridgefin 4 ай бұрын

@@k27ism No pure human obeyed God's will with more good consequence than Mary. And since Jesus gave us his mother as our spiritual mother it is natural that we ask for her help.

@icemanred 4 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin Yes it was. Peter was protesting against Christ upcoming sacrifice. The only one that would try to prohibit Jesus from doing what He came to do (being obedient unto death. Being obedient to the Father) would be Satan. Peter's comments, according to Jesus, were being influenced by Satan. Just like Peter's proclamation a few verses before where he said Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God were influenced by God the Father. If Jesus said get thee behind me Satan, how is it not satanic behavior? This does not mean that Peter was a child of Satan, but that his comments were of the devil.

@bridgefin 4 ай бұрын

@@icemanred Matt 16:21: From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he* must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” Promising to defend your master is never satanic. That is heroic virtue. Peter, like the rest of the apostles did not yet understand the NEED for Jesus to suffer and die. Peter was thinking as a loyal human would think. Of course satan knew that Jesus sacrifice would be deadly to him and would do anything to prevent it. So satan can use Peter's loyalty to try to persuade Jesus not to go forward without Peter ever considering going against Jesus or sinning. Just the same is satan using YOU to try to discredit Peter and thus, Jesus' only church. You are no less satanic than Peter and I could make the case that you are more so.

@1234poppycat 3 ай бұрын

At 2:23 He states "Peter lead the Church imperfectly and humbly I might add" So Catholics could go along with that. We have no evidence of Catholic leaders being called Pope until 103 but as admitted we have a continual line of leaders guiding the Church and some not that perfect .... lets face it Jesus appointed his apostles and we have JUDAS ..... so it is not the will of God that all appointed are perfect !!

@michaelgrego3893 5 ай бұрын

I love it. Peter was not chosen to lead the church but led the early church imperfectly. The part of about on this rock, Petras was not towards Peter but to all the Apostles even though the Apostles behaved differently. “They drew lots to pick should would replace an office. Mean while thousands of years later not during the early church it was decided to create the idea that Peter was the head of the Church. The thought process is so convoluted that it is difficult to ignore for some one that is actually paying attention.

@mikecrawford8394 5 ай бұрын

there have been 266 Popes starting with Peter . Is that to convoluted for you???

@michaelgrego3893 5 ай бұрын

Mike I was quoting and mocking the author of the video. Did you not watch it to know that?

@mitchellosmer1293 5 ай бұрын

@@mikecrawford8394 quote---there have been 266 Popes starting with Peter .. unquote Nope--NO ONE after John was qualified to be an apostle!!! NO ONE after John was qualified to be an apostle!!! Acts 1:1-3 Qualifications #1---Seen Jesus be baptised #2--Had to walk, talk to Him #3---be a witness of His resurrection!!! --With that in mind. QUOTE the BIBLE that tells an ANYONE, other than the apostles that qualify!!!! Irenaeus mentioned 15 popes up to his time in the second century when addressing the heretics. . Acts 1:21-22 qualifications to be an apostle----See Jesus be baprised. Follower of Jesus. Witness His resurrection. That would be in 33AD!!! Linus---born: AD 10 ---Volterra, Italia, Roman Empire --Age 23 when Jesus died!!!

@dollyschwall8537 5 ай бұрын

Jesus said Petra is stone not rock. JESUS CHRIST IS THE Rock. .Jesus on this Rock means ..He is the Rock ..we are living stones.

@catherinesikazwe86 5 ай бұрын

@@mikecrawford8394Peter was a Christian. He was not a Catholic.

@RaptureIsNEAR7634 5 ай бұрын

Peter according to jewish tradition is not a levite or judah who have authority over the church or leadership.

@spiritualhammer392 6 күн бұрын

You can't touch this subject in just 4 minutes.

@louisvega-oe2sc Ай бұрын

Every prophet, deciple and true beleiver has been given the keys to the kingdom, not just Peter, and is set opon a rock, "The rock of salvation, JESUS CHRIST!" The keys to the kingdom are, #1- the word of God, and #2- the Spirit of God..

@bridgefin 23 күн бұрын

Jesus gave the keys ONLY to Peter. When he did that he said "you" to Peter in second person singular. Jesus never said what you claim.

@fredricos9468 5 ай бұрын

A few verses down Jesus tells peter,"Get behind me Satan, for you are an offense to Me.

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

Yes - and later on Jesus asks him to feed his sheep. What's your point?

@fredricos9468 5 ай бұрын

@@raymondvasquez6967 The The "ROCK"was the confession Peter made, the Jesus is the Christ,the son of the living God! Just like Mary, who is in the grave waiting for Jesus return!

@fredricos9468 5 ай бұрын

@@raymondvasquez6967 The only other time Jesus said that was to Satan himself! Even Peter said he was not to be worshiped.

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

@@fredricos9468 No. It is not.The Protestant author, Oswald J. Smith, D.D., a well known anti-Catholic, asks the question as follows, “Did Jesus say he would build his Church on Peter?” To this Oswald responds, Jesus did say, and I quote . . ., ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt 16:18). But He did not say He would build His Church on Peter . . . The Greek word for Peter is ‘petros,’ meaning ‘a little stone.’ The word for rock is ‘petra,’ meaning ‘The Rock.’ What Jesus said was, ‘I will build my Church on The Rock.’ He himself was The Rock. He never said He would build His Church on Peter, ‘a little stone.’ That would be too faulty a foundation. In 1 Peter 2:5-8, Peter himself speaks of believers as stones and of Jesus as a rock. So, in Eph. 2:19-21, Jesus is the Corner Stone, the Foundation. The Church, therefore, is built not on Peter or his successors but on Jesus Christ Himself-The Rock. After the initial catechesis regarding Jesus as the King, we turn to the interpretation quoted above. In the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 there is a peculiarity that can be confusing. The word used for Peter, as Oswald notes, is Petros, whereas the following word translated as rock is petra. “Thou art Petros and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Why is there a difference? In the original Aramaic in which the text was written, there is only one word that would be used for “rock” in this case, and that is kepha, a masculine noun. “Thou art Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” Translating the text into Greek is where the difficulty occurs. In Greek, the word for rock is petra, a feminine noun, and according to Greek grammatical rules, a man cannot be named with a feminine case ending. Thus, to deal with this problem the translator was forced to replace the feminine ending of petra (-a) with a masculine ending (-os), modifying a Greek word to fit the particular circumstance. The exact translation into English would read, “thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church,” leaving no room for misunderstanding. Therefore, since we see that Mr. Oswald’s argument regarding Matt 16:18 has no linguistic basis, we can now address the second part of his argument. Reading Mr. Oswald’s argument carefully, we see that he identifies Peter with the believers mentioned as stones in 1 Peter 2:5-8, thus making Peter simply one of the believers with no special character as the foundation stone. Unfortunately for Oswald and other Protestants who make this argument, the Greek word used in 1 Peter 2:5-8 is not Petros as Oswald would have you believe but rather lithoi (pl.), the generic word for “stone” in Greek, having a range of possible meanings. In fact, when reading the context of this passage in Greek, we learn that Jesus, the corner stone, is also identified by the same Greek word (lithos, sing.) as that of believers. According to Oswald’s interpretation, we would be forced to conclude that Jesus is actually, ‘a little stone,’ an interpretation that even Oswald would reject as absurd. But, is not Jesus the Corner Stone and the Rock of our Faith, as Mr. Oswald states (cf. Eph. 2:19-21; 1 Cor 3:11)? The answer is, yes. Jesus Christ became man for one reason: to give us a share in his own life (cf. 2 Pet 1:4). Through baptism into Christ we become part of the body of Christ. Each one of us is given a certain character proper to Christ alone. ‘One is an eye, one is a foot, another is a hand’ all members of the One Body of Christ, which is the Church (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-31). Based upon this Catholic and Biblical understanding of our salvation, a salvation of participation in divine life, it is to be expected that Jesus would give a share in his character as the foundation stone to the one who is chosen to receive this gift. Let us stand upon this sure foundation, which is Peter, and let us rest assured that this house, the Catholic Church, will not fall, for it has been built by the Wise Builder who builds upon the Rock; “and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock” (Matt 7:24-25).

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

@@fredricos9468 Bad theology here. Also, Mary is the Queen of heaven. Notice that the angel Gabriel addresses here with "Hail" - a title reserved for royalty. Gabriel is a member of God's heavenly court. So, yes, God recognized her Queenship at the start.

@mylamberfeeties875 29 күн бұрын

God said satan rules the world until Jesus comes with a new name on his thigh. To not ever follow man to always follow the word

@shariffroberts3193 5 ай бұрын

This is not historical it is literature..

@eileenahern-ku9nx 3 ай бұрын

Dont know what papacy is so ill leave it be ❤

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

That doesn't stop the vast majority of anti-Catholic posters! I applaud your integrity.

@blazel462 4 ай бұрын

Another question…Peter was married, so how does the Catholic church get to priests who are not married? If who the Catholic church says was the first pope was married, then where does the restriction come from? "When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever." -Matthew 8:14, NIV

@DonnaStevens-hs4uv 4 ай бұрын

Right on.... Jesus telling Peter thou art Peter and upon this rock i will build my church... Ministers can have wifes on the rock foundation...why they think making preists absatin from marriage and still be on that original rock is amazingly .This is like the LGBTs stealing a rainbow flag... maiking rainbows there own...

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

It is not a doctrine but merely a practice. If you can bind and loose Heaven and earth then telling men that they must be celibate to be priests is covered under that authority.

@DonnaStevens-hs4uv 3 ай бұрын

forget that.... why any religion wants to make it stricter??? stupid idea @@bridgefin

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

@@DonnaStevens-hs4uv We'd rather see people get to Heaven than be comfortable while here. Paul said it would be better to be celibate like him. We are just following Scripture while you are rejecting it.

@DonnaStevens-hs4uv 3 ай бұрын

and you sayng Paul is your model?? you guys dont even follow Paul....OMG..@@bridgefin

@angiejones968 5 ай бұрын

Acts 2 is where Jesus began His Church. Jesus is the Church "I am the Way the truth and the Life" Jesus is Head of His Church, not the pope. Don't add to His word or take away from it. Which the catholic does both. The real 2nd commandment Thou shalt not have any graven images . Which catholic do , ( the rosary, worship of Mary, and yes even your pope) so many lost soul is so sad.

@bridgefin 5 ай бұрын

God commanded Moses to make a so-called graven image. So either you re wrong about statues or YOUR god is a sinner.

@dabass438 6 ай бұрын

Pope is a Greek nickname for Father, like Pop in English. The Greek speaking Presbyters in Alexandria first called their Archbishop Pope about AD 90. The Greek speaking Presbyters in Rome first called their Archbishop Pope about AD 120. The Catholic Church came into existence after the coronation of Carolus Magnus 25 December 800. In the Orthodox Church no cleric had ever coronated a Roman Emperor, nor any other civil servant, so Pope Leo (I forget his number) was the last Orthodox Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and the first Catholic Pope. A replacement Orthodox Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West should be elected, as was done in Alexandria after Chalcedon, when the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of Africa was deposed as a Monophysite, becoming the first Coptic Pope.

@bridgefin 6 ай бұрын

Are you aware that you have posted a blatant lie? 800? Do you want me to quote Irenaeus in the second century posting the 15 Catholic popes up to that time? Or how about Ignatius of Antioh referring to the only church as the Catholic Church in 107ad?

@kellyblakeborough3371 6 ай бұрын

It is Miaphysite, denoting single instead of monophysite , one. This was the confusion of the interpretation of the trinity

@CR-ph4ww 6 ай бұрын

linguistically the Latin word Pope is borrowed from a Greek word pappas, (“father”), the title, since about the 9th century, of the bishop of Rome, the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Papal state according to Britannica started its roots after the splinter in 5/6th century in Rome when the Rome Bishopric wanted to have a papal state and the original Byzantine Church refused to ordain any ranks above Bishop according to scriptural teachings. This started after Constantine move the capital of Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium where the Apostolic See over all Christian congregations was located. Rome's congregations were underground until Constantine legalized Christianity. In the power vacuum of Constantine's move of the capital of the empire to Byzantium where the Apostolic See was located, the congregations in Rome sought to elevate their congregation in to a State Religion and take power from the Byzantine Bishopric. Depending on sources the RCC started splintering in the 5/6th century and this became official in the 9th Century AD. Before that the highest rank was Bishop to my understanding and research.

@bridgefin 6 ай бұрын

@@CR-ph4ww Peter was pope on day one of Christianity. When he died it was Linus, then Clement. Linguistics and fantasy stories are nice but history is where the answer lies.

@glennlanham6309 6 ай бұрын

complete BS....you missed a guy named Leo the Great, about 400 years earlier, who clearly thought he had Papal authority..even Clement of Rome around 80 AD was stepping in on a dispute WITHIN Corinth...why? becuase he was nosy? or he knew he had authority over over churches...

@dollyschwall8537 5 ай бұрын

Great message ..

@freddyblandon9092 3 ай бұрын

Can you have a human institution for 2000 years without a human leader? Where’s that church that Jesus promised Peter would last to the end of times? Can it be 60,000+ denominations not agreeing with each other on fundamental dogmas?

@kellyblakeborough3371 6 ай бұрын

Check your history mate

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

Peter never claimed to be pope, no one in the new testament called Peter pope. There is absolutely nothing in the new testament that indicates that Peter was a pope. The title pope was a blasphemous title CORRUPT men decided to put on Peter centuries later. Jesus said in Matthew 23:9 “9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Why would Peter give himself the title and position of someone called father aka pope. Peter would never dare disobey the words of Jesus by calling himself or giving himself the title or position of father/pope. Peter means pebble or small stone, Peter was not the rock Jesus meant when He said “upon this rock”, Jesus was talking about Himself, Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said “upon this rock I will build my church”. Jesus is the foundation, Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built upon. Christianity cannot exist without Jesus but Christianity can exist without Peter. Jesus is the One who shed His blood to save mankind, we are not saved by the blood of Peter. Why would the church be built upon Peter, Peter is a man of many faults, let’s not forget that Peter betrayed Jesus three times. Why would Jesus build His church upon a faulty man like Peter. Peter is not the Lord and Saviour of mankind, Jesus is the only Lord and Saviour of mankind. Jesus Christ is the faultless rock upon which the church is built upon. Psalm 18:2 “2 The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.” Jesus Christ is the rock, Psalm 18:2 is very clear when it says the Lord is the rock of salvation. Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built upon.

@kellyblakeborough3371 3 ай бұрын

@@efef6853 can Christianity exist without the apostles

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@@kellyblakeborough3371 you do realise that the apostles are not Jesus? The only person Christianity cannot do without is Jesus. Jesus Christ is the only irreplaceable person in Christianity. Luke 19:49 "40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."

@kellyblakeborough3371 3 ай бұрын

@@efef6853 which Greek word was used for Peter. Lithos or Petros?

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@@kellyblakeborough3371 in Greek the word Petra means rock but PETER means stone. Peter's name DOES NOT mean rock.

@ismaelhernandez134 5 ай бұрын

This is not a moment in history. This is merely a commentary on a certain Protestant opinion concerning Peter and the papacy. This was an unsupported opinion expressed.

@hunteralford14 5 ай бұрын

Lies and deception. Unfortunately, it's the Protestant way. They have to lie to get around the many holes of their baseless theology.

@Castropher 4 ай бұрын

I noticed it too. His claim "There's no connection between Peter's leadership of the Church and the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy" is purely a theological opinion, even though he claimed this statement is a historical truth. To anyone who reads this. The truth is that there is historical evidence from early church Christians such as Irenaeus "against Heresies" and letters from Clement of Rome to support the papacy. May God bless all Christians and those in the pursuit of Truth.

@k27ism 4 ай бұрын

Yet, I refuse to pray to anyone apart from Jesus the Messiah only in order to get to God.

@ismaelhernandez134 4 ай бұрын

@@k27ism what does that has to do with the point at hand?

@keithgatto8461 4 ай бұрын

Exactly, an uneducated one at that

@tomascantu7981 5 ай бұрын

a few minutes after mat 16, Jesus called Peter, SATAN. catholics are not confused, they are cirnfused.

@GaraGambini 4 ай бұрын

Thank God for the Reformation! Delivered us from false doctrine and idolatry. Brought us to the truth of the Holy word and made us wise unto salvation ❤

@donttakeitpersonal8704 3 ай бұрын

Petros means Rock. Petros= Peter and with the word church, Jesus never meant a church building or hierarchy. He meant a community of followers. So Peter would be the leader of the Christian community. Eventually Peter dies in Rome and this make the place Rome more special, because Jesus appointed community leader(Peter) died here. That is the reason why the bisschop of Rome became more important than the other bischops and eventually becoming the only bisschop to call themselves the Pope.

@kyriakosaronis4872 2 ай бұрын

Petros is not Rock. The word Rock is Petra that is why the Roman Catholics falsely claim that peter is the Rock. The Petra is the Faith Jesus himself.

@bridgefin 4 күн бұрын

@@kyriakosaronis4872 Nor did Jesus speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic and named Simon "CEPHAS" which ONLY means ROCK.

@walterlahaye2128 7 ай бұрын

Popes didn’t originate until Bonaface ll as early as 530 A.D. Nice Try!

@bridgefin 6 ай бұрын

Irenaeus mentioned 15 popes up to his time in the second century when addressing the heretics. Nice Try!

@walterlahaye2128 6 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin , History does not support your claim! Out of Paganism Grew the Papacy The empire of pagan Rome, like unto a cruel beast, truly wore the name of blasphemy. It was called the Holy Roman Empire. Can an empire be holy which killed the saints and supported with all its strength a worship of idolatry? There is blasphemy! As long as pagan Rome was in the ascendancy, her crowned heads claimed divine powers. Sufficient proof of this is seen in the fact that every ecumenical council for the first six centuries was called by an emperor, “a Caesar.” The cruelty of pagan Rome shows that she derived her power from the dragon, the devil. When the barbarian hordes swept down from the north in A.D. 476, the empire was seemingly “wounded to death.” Babylon fell to rise no more. The kingdom of the Medes and the Persians fell to rise no more. Apparently, that would be the lot of Rome. But not so! The “deadly wound was healed” and “all the world wondered after the beast.” Paul declared that the “man of sin” would not be revealed until that which was restrained was taken away. History plainly shows that, as long as pagan Rome was in the ascendancy, papal Rome was held in check. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine recognized his version of “Christianity” as the true religion; and gave impetus to that movement, which resulted in the ascendancy of papal Rome. As pagan Rome declined, papel Rome ascended. Out of the casket of pagan Rome emerges papal Rome! Thus the second beast makes his presence felt for. “He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence” (REVELATION 13:12). And all the pageantry and display and pomp and ostentation of the Roman Catholic church, as is ornately decorated altars, the flowing robes and richly embellished garments of her priests and the tapers, and incense-all of this-constitutes but relics of pagan Rome, and speaks convincingly, itself, of the origin of papal Rome. And yet, the uninformed are taken in by such stuff, thinking that it is the mark of true religion. How unlike the Christ who, in the midst of Roman pageantry, was born in a stable and placed in a manger. And who, some two years before His death, said, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay His head” (LUKE 9:58). And how unlike Peter who said in (ACTS 3:6), silver and gold l do not have,” is that one who sits pompously in the midst of athe vast wealth of the Vatican, while without her walls, the impoverished Romans beg for bread; and yet, many of them continue to pay allegiance to that imposter who in no small degree is responsible for their sad plight. Thus the “strong delusion” works of which Paul spoke. Why cannot people see that? On the very face of it, such pageantry cannot be a part of the Lord Jesus Christ? We say with the apostle Paul, “But l fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus” (ll CORINTHIANS 11:3).

@bridgefin 6 ай бұрын

@@walterlahaye2128 Nice copy and paste job. Stop stealing someone else's lies and tell the truth. You failed to refute the fact that Irenaeus mentioned 15 popes up to his time in the second century when addressing the heretics.

@kyriakosaronis4872 5 ай бұрын

@@walterlahaye2128 In Rome yes but in Alexandria were the patriarch was called pope was in 232 AD So the 13th successor of St Mark became known as Pope Heracles (232-249). The Church of Rome did not call the patriarch "pope" till 530 AD. Again in Greek it means our Father. Not withstanding Rome also calls the pope holy father which is a big no no you can not call any man holy. The word Holy is only used for God.

@walterlahaye2128 5 ай бұрын

@@kyriakosaronis4872 , Out of Paganism Grew the Papacy The empire of pagan Rome, like unto a cruel beast, truly wore the name of blasphemy. It was called the Holy Roman Empire. Can an empire be holy which killed the saints and supported with all its strength a worship of idolatry? There is blasphemy! As long as pagan Rome was in the ascendancy, her crowned heads claimed divine powers. Sufficient proof of this is seen in the fact that every ecumenical council for the first six centuries was called by an emperor. The cruelty of pagan Rome shows that she derived her power from the dragon, the devil. When the barbarian hordes swept down from the north in A.D. 476, the empire was seemingly “wounded to death.” Babylon fell to rise no more. The kingdom of the Medes and the Persians fell to rise no more. Apparently that would be the lot of Rome. But not so! The “deadly wound was healed” and “all the world wondered after the beast.” Paul declared that the “man of sin” would not be revealed until that which was restrained was taken away. History plainly shows that, as long as pagan Rome was in the ascendancy, papal Rome was held on check. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine recognized his version of “Christianity” as the true religion; and, by his gifts to the church and at the point of the sword, he gave impetus to that movement which resulted in the ascendancy of papal Rome. As pagan Rome declined, papel Rome ascended. Out of the casket of pagan Rome! Thus the second beast makes his presence felt for. “He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence” (REVELATION 13:12). And let me just say just here that all the pageantry and display and pomp and ostentation of the Roman Catholic church, as is evidenced in her ornately decorated altars, the flowing robes and richly embellished garments of her priests and the tapers and incense-all of this-constitutes but relics of pagan Rome and speaks convincingly, itself, of the origin of papel Rome. And yet, the uninformed are taken in by such stuff, thinking that it is the mark of true religion. How unlike the Christ who, in the midst of Roman pageantry, was born in a stable and placed in a manger. And who, some two years before His death, said, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (LUKE 9:58). And how unlike Peter who said in (ACTS 3:6), “Silver and gold l do not have,” is that one who sits pompously in the midst of the vast wealth of the Vatican, while without her walls, the impoverished Romans beg for bread; and yet, many continue to pay allegiance to that imposter who in no small degree is responsible for their sad plight. Thus the “strong delusion” works of which Paul spoke. Why cannot people see that, on every face of it, such pageantry cannot be a part of the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ? We say with the apostle Paul, “But l fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (I l CORINTHIANS 11:3).

@Super-chad 4 ай бұрын

The premises underscored to prove church government outside Peter's authority are unfounded and are lacking in the historical interpretation of scripture. Let's use more definitive, respected Christian sources to back our videos.

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@Super-chad 3 ай бұрын

It is so confounding, Mr. @@efef6853, that within a more modern and comprehensive era of biblical interpretation, that loose doctrines to which you refer still exist. Question, what do you call the paternal human responsible for your birth? Isn't it 'father'? Therefore, like the more mature interpretations, Matthew 23:9 does not condemn the Church's designation of 'father' to priests as heretic. _Mark 11:10 (KJV) Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest._ Were the Jews blasphemous when they described David as 'father' here? Please, do the Protestant world a favor and ask a Jew for interpretation next time, as Protestants endeavor to hide from their members. You are right when Peter never offered to be 'Pope'; he was among the first bishops. Same with the Catholic Church, as the popes occupy the office of 'Bishop of Rome. The word 'pope' is just a title, not the position of 'bishop', to which Protestants have no authority to argue against. FYI, the consensus on Peter being the rock which the Church was built on is accepted by most Protestant scholars in today's world; only a few naysayers, without proper academic credentials, continue to teach their congregation otherwise. The word 'Petrus' means 'rock' in Koine Greek; its simply the masculine form for 'rock'; it does NOT mean 'pebble/stone'. This can be confirmed in John 1:42 where Simeon was called 'Cephas', which is Latin for 'rock', not 'pebble'. The untenable argument that Christ was 'pointing to Himself' when speaking about the rock, when, within the same discussion Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and loose, as well as the keys to the kingdom of heaven alone _proves_ that Protestantism is a fallacy which possesses no divine authority upon people

@Super-chad 3 ай бұрын

If this doctrine or explanation were true, sir, then all the apostles and prophets would have blaspheme when they continued calling Abraham 'father' throughout the New Testament, as well as the 'fathers' of the nation which were mostly said after Christ made that declaration in Matthew 23:9. It is time to ask a Jew how to interpret the Bible, and not the Protestant fallacies presiding for 500 years. The Church was built on Peter, in Matthew 16, and if Christ was 'pointing to himself' as Protestants would erroneously consider, then Christ would also have been 'pointing to himself' while, within the same sentence, He gave Peter the authority to bind and loose, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the changing of Simon to Peter, which is actually Petrus, meaning ROCK in Koine Greek, not stone/pebble. It's full time now Protestants wrap up on their 500 year old heresy and return to Christ's church

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@@Super-chad They called Abraham father because they were biological descendants of Abraham. You can call your biological dad father, you can call your ancestors father, that’s not a problem. Calling someone biologically related to you father, calling someone father in a biological sense is fine, it’s not a blasphemous thing to say but calling someone father in a spiritual sense like a pope or a priest or anyone that holds a religious position is blasphemous and should not be done. You are very much mistaken when you claim that Peter means rock. In the Greek language Petra means rock but Peter means stone. The Bible tells us the meaning of Peter’s name in John 1:42. John 1:42 “42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called CEPHAS, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” Jesus Christ is the only Rock upon which the church is built. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4. 1 Corinthians 10:4 “4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.” The fact that Jesus Christ is the rock, the foundation upon which the church is built is shown in 1 Corinthians 3:11. 1 Corinthians 3:11 “11 For other FOUNDATION can no man lay than that is laid, WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST.” The verses about keys to the kingdom of heaven, that was talking about the gospel, it is the gospel that has the power to open heaven for those who accept Jesus Christ and to shut the door of heaven to those who reject Jesus Christ. Peter personally has no power or authority to close or open heaven for anyone, the verses about the keys to the kingdom of heaven are highlighting the role Peter will play in the preaching of the gospel. Jesus is saying that Peter will play a role in preaching the gospel and the GOSPEL will open or close heaven’s door depending on people’s choice to accept or reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

@Super-chad 3 ай бұрын

Mr.@@efef6853 you've just proven my point. The writers were in fact biological descendants from Abraham however, Christ indeed said 'call no man father', which means 'Call No Man Father'. He didn't say 'call no man spiritual father', or 'except your real father, call no man father'. This then proves the incorrect and unhistoric interpretation of Protestantism, which, like Martin Luther did to change the Bible to please his doctrine, _reinterpret_ the verses _secularly_ to form his doctrine. Therefore, Call no man father upon this earth' does not and cannot mean 'call no priest your spiritual father', or the descendants of Abraham would be committing sin by calling him father. All Apostolic churches tracing their lineage to an apostle (which Protestantism endeavors to ignore by placing the spotlight on the Catholic Church alone) call their spiritual leaders father, as no Jewish scholar has ever interpreted this verse the way Protestantism does. Your response about Peter not being the Rock is indeed strange, and, like most Protestant scholars, attempt to veer away from traditional interpretation, just to justify a reason for their churches to exist. The word 'Petrus', which is translated as Peter in English, means Rock within the original Koine Greek. It is the errant KJV which introduced this interpretation as stone. Furthermore, Cephas is Latin for Rock. If Matthew wanted to use 'stone' to illustrate the relationship between Rock/Stone, Christ/Peter, he would have used 'Lithos' which meant small stone/pebble. Sir, there is no 'Peter' in the original Greek; it's 'Petra' which means 'Rock', 'Lithos' which means 'Stone' and the author's use of the word 'Petrus', which is a _masculinated_ interpretation for the feminine Greek word 'Petra', which meant 'rock'. If Matthew renamed Simeon as 'Petra', then he would have been designated as a female Rock. All this explanation has been there since the beginning, but, like Luther, Protestantism must reinterpret Scripture to justify their existence. Peter and Paul's designation of Christ being the rock upon which the Church has been built does not redefine the fact that Christ called Peter Rock in Matthew. Furthermore, the same New Testament which calls Christ the Rock also refers to him as the 'chief cornerSTONE' (Mark 10:12; Luke 20:17). No Protestant dares to call Christ 'stone' notwithstanding this designation. Your last explanation about 'gospel having the authority to open heaven for those accepting Jesus is the most absurd I've ever heard..... as the gospels tell you that Christ gave the authority to the 'Church' and not the book which wasn't invented as yet until the CATHOLIC CHURCH introduced it 300 years after Christ's death. The gospel tells you that Peter received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, not the book, not the preaching and CERTAINLY not the false doctrine that whoever believes in the book or can interpret the Scriptures best is indeed the right Church. The Bible tells you that the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) not the book which wasn't created as yet. Christ never gave any authority to schizmatics or book-only believers; He breathed the Holy Spirit on the Church (John 20:22-23) not the book. Therefore, Protestantism has no authority to pronounce any judgement on His church, as Protestantism was established outside Christ's church.

@sibusisotsela8285 3 ай бұрын

Do Popes have wives?

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

No.

@gmpgstudios4122 2 ай бұрын

Supposed to be none, but some popes hungry for power...did have wifes. I mean Pope Alexander VI was one of em.

@bridgefin 2 ай бұрын

@@gmpgstudios4122 No sane man gets married while looking for power! If your point is that some popes were sinners then we agree and you are correct. And so what?

@gmpgstudios4122 2 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin , this proves that even with sinners in her midst, the Catholic Church stood firm and outlived these individuals.

@bridgefin 2 ай бұрын

@@gmpgstudios4122 Led by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The church is a hospital for sinners and not a museum for saints.

@CeliaYates 2 ай бұрын

KJV , Matthew 10: 24 - The disciples is not above his master , nor a servant above his lord ................. satan has infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church, catholic's have been manipulated & deceived , making a graven image of the Blessed Mary , praying to her , is the same as idol worshipping ... Peter lived in Galilee , he traveled every where , preaching , the gospel, of Christ Jesus ... .. When Christ Jesus said to the disciples before he ascended into heaven , that if they forgot his teachings , He will ask his Father which is in heaven too send the Holy Spirit unto you , reminding you of the teachings of Christ Jesus . The Pope is not the one & only man that the Holy Spirit, recognizes ...

@SimonLeka-gk7xo 4 ай бұрын

Hey you need to understand the meaning of the word Pope

@johncarsone1579 7 ай бұрын

The history is interesting. It seems like this is more about power than faith. Today's RC church has lost the sense of the sacred. It is just one more organization. Very Sad.😢

@rokvelic2945 7 ай бұрын

Can you elaborate

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

@@rokvelic2945 quote---Can you elaborate --unquote Quote the Holy bible that says GOD RESTED on the FIrst day of the week to make that day special. Quote the Holy bible that says GOD BLESSED the FIrst day of the week to make that day special. Quote the Holy bible that says GOD SANCTIFIED the FIrst day of the week to make that day special. Quote the Holy bible that says GOD NAMED the FIrst day of the week to make that day special. Quote the Holy bible that says GOD DECLAES the FIrst day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special. Quote the Holy bible that says Jesus taught anyone to pray to Mary. Quote the Holy bible that says Jesus taught anyone that Mary is an intercessor. Quote the Holy bible that says Jesus taught anyone that Mary has gone/will go to heaven. Quote the Holy bible that says Jesus taught anyone to pray to/with beads. Quote the Holy bible that says Jesus taught that a mere man is Head of His church.

@rokvelic2945 7 ай бұрын

@@mitchellosmer1293 Quote the Bible where it says everything has to be in the Bible

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

@@rokvelic2945 quote--- Quote the Bible where it says everything has to be in the Bible. unquote OK-I will--but first you all like that excuse so the more that can be added to the Holy Word of God!! ---Hebrews 4:12 12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. ( Not according to Catholics. Indeed, the word of the Pope (priests) is living and effective...... ) -----Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”. (Not according to Catholics. They turn to whatever direction they can to satisfy their itching ears.) -----Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”. (Not according to catholics. They DWELL on every word spoken by a mere man, the Pope (priests).) ----Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”. (Not according to Catholics.“we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope (priests)”.) --- Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar (Not according to Catholics. 5 Every word of the Pope proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a heritic.) -I will ask you, which NO ONE has replied to: Who's other writings does GOD tell us to accept as the truth??? QUOTE FROM the BIBLE! Remember what Jesus said: John 14:6 NIV Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!

@st.michaelthearchangel7774 7 ай бұрын

No, the Catholic Church is far from just another organization, because it's the Body of Christ and the church Jesus Himself established upon St. Peter. The Church is perfect, with the sacraments and all Her teachings, but Her members are not, which is something a lot of people seem to not understand, unfortunately.

@AaronBrown-xt5rl 5 ай бұрын

Absolutely no connection between Peter and the Catholic church. The CC is bogus

@bluewaters1991 5 ай бұрын

Why should I believe you?

@spiritualhammer392 6 күн бұрын

Why don't you research instead of believing? This is important stuff, you should probably know.

@Miroslaw-rs8ip 5 күн бұрын

Isn’t it interesting that James was the chief of the first church in Jerusalem and not Peter? The early Christian church was decentralized and spread throughout the Roman Empire, there was no single leader of the Universal Church. The Roman Catholic Church’s position that the leader of the church in Rome was preeminent is nonsense!

@bridgefin 4 күн бұрын

Peter had primacy over James and all the others. The church is incredibly decentralized for its size and scope of its mission, yet it does have a head as established by Jesus.

@alanwood4968 4 ай бұрын

Or gentiles ? instead of jews.

@me-ds2il 5 ай бұрын

The Roman papacy really began after Pope Leo III coronated Charlemagne as emperor of the Romans in 800 AD. Before which time the Pope was simply Bishop of Rome, sharing authority with 4 other patriarchs in a Pentarchy formulated in the legislation of the emperor Justinian I (527-565), especially in his Novella 131, the theory received formal ecclesiastical sanction at the Council in Trullo (692), which ranked the five sees as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

haha. The papacy can be traced back to Peter.

@me-ds2il 5 ай бұрын

Q: Did the earliest Christians believe that the Roman bishop was above all other bishops and the ultimate deciding authority in matters of doctrine and practice? A: *No* . Recommended reading: Klaus Schatz SJ Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present

@me-ds2il 5 ай бұрын

@@raymondvasquez6967 That's meaningless

@me-ds2il 5 ай бұрын

Recommended reading: Klaus Schatz SJ Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present

@me-ds2il 5 ай бұрын

@@raymondvasquez6967 So then bc the papacy goes back to Peter now you can have your gay Union blessed? Is that why you're happy?

@RafaelCosta-fy7tb 2 ай бұрын

You have NO idea what the pope is....first, you "forgot" to mention the "keys" in Matthew...second, early christians ecognized the bishop of rome as the main bishop.

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

Nonsense, neither Peter or any other Christian makes the ridiculous claim that the bishop of Rome is the main bishop. Also the apostles appointed multiple bishops for each congregation.

@1234poppycat 4 ай бұрын

Matthew 16 :18 "You are Peter and on this Rock I build my Church "" Unlike the video this is Peter. ... When the term Pope was used in 107 which the video admits it was used in passing as already established ... Peter was the first pope which precees the agreed compilation of the bible by over 350 years the Bible with the new New Testament was compiled in Rome in 390's

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@kellyblakeborough3371 3 ай бұрын

@@efef6853 Jesus did not refer to Peter as his pebble if he did the Greek word would have been lithos and not Petros. The question becomes why did Jesus choose Peter as his ROCK

@kellyblakeborough3371 3 ай бұрын

Peter is this continuing of this salvation and as a witness to christ. A tradition that has been past down for two thousand years

@1234poppycat 3 ай бұрын

@@efef6853Peter was the appointed leader by Christ and later seen in the Bible by his actions. Yes it was only in year 103 we have evidence to the term “ Pope”

@kellyblakeborough3371 3 ай бұрын

@@1234poppycat Linus was the next in line after Peter. The popes only had a spiritual role and never did he pass on council of his own authority. This was done as a body of Bishops in all agreement. The orthodox are in agreement with this role of a spiritual father to all but played no role in jurisdiction matters

@whitebird357 6 ай бұрын

I see that you are an ardent Papal supporter. My historical sources tell me that the first reference to Papa(s) as the bishop of Rome was in 120AD. Nevertheless, that is Catholic tradition from the early "church fathers" of Rome. Your use of Bible texts referring to the Pope as the authority of the church involves imagination and creativity as those texts are referring to prophetic events surrounding the localized spiritual condition of ancient Israel. No doubt, Roman Catholic liturgy will use the Bible with a mixture of its own church traditions to say much in support of itself. The Bible, on the other hand, speaks explicitly about Christ and His followers (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6, 5:10; Hebrews 5:10; 6:20; 7:17) with no man lording it over another. That is not to say that there was no order of spiritual offices (1 Cor. 12; Ephesians 4), but those offices in old testaments times and a short period of time after new testament times, were often abused and desecrated with judgments from Christ Himself to follow. Our blessed Lord speaks of these judgments and HIs relationship with His churches over the last 2,000 years. He speaks of false leaders rising up in His church throughout prophetic history in which these leaders in Baal worship, idolatry, gnosticism, and fornication exalted themselves and eventually formed their own church and leader (Daniel 7:8, 20-27). It would counterfeit Christ as commander, leader, and head and His work through HIs peculiar and holy people as a nation of priests who would one day rule with Him as kings when all things are fulfilled in the plan of redemption.

@glennlanham6309 6 ай бұрын

answer me one question...Martin Luther THREW OUT 7 books of the Bible...there were all there in the Septuagint (LXX) which was the Greek version used by the apostles....BY WHAT AUTHORITY??

@whitebird357 6 ай бұрын

What seven books were they? We know that eventually he accepted the book of Revelation.@@glennlanham6309

@gabrieljoselebron6762 6 ай бұрын

⁠⁠⁠@@whitebird357let’s be honest the spirit of the antichrist has ran ardently throughout the Catholic Church since it’s inception, but after coming back to Catholicism since having a temporary agnostic borderline atheistic reproach from God I can confidently continue with this faith because of the way it’s Saints carried themselves. Through my spiritual journey and awakening I have found grace does not discriminate between its patrons and Catholicism has inspired the most souls to follow God in the most profound sense. Second is Orthodox Christianity(I really don’t mind them at all) but too many Protestants have left a poor taste from their interpretation of Christianity. They don’t recognize Saints and Gods Grace the same as the Catholic Church or else they wouldn’t have weaponized Christianity to spread hate via misinformation about salvation. Just saying, I ultimately left Christianity because living in America surrounded by so many Christians that were blatantly brain washed with shallow interpretations of the Bible sucked, just to be clear about that point…thank God for Catholic Saints for rescuing me!

@whitebird357 6 ай бұрын

Really appreciate your comment and testimony. I can only praise God in Christ Jesus for your return to Him and the grace and goodness you saw again within your spiritual roots. I totally understand your dissatisfaction with shallow Christianity which is so prevalent today, but thankfully, not in all Christian circles. According to Bible prophecy, we are going to see the weaponization of Christianity that the world has not seen in many centuries and will never see the likes of again. So, hold on to your faith in Jesus, the Word of God. @@gabrieljoselebron6762

@JosephSmith-ph4xr 4 ай бұрын

If you read early Church history you will find thay several of the great Christian centres were led by people called 'popes.' But from the NT itself, Acts describes events at the Jerusalem council where the person in charge was James, not Peter.

@eskimoman000 3 ай бұрын

Some detractors of Peter's primacy try to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem. Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it. Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem... And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy. Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living GOD." (16) Then Jesus answered and said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but My Father in Heaven." (17) This verse expresses a blessing for Peter from the Son. Did you notice that Peter was the only Apostle who knew who Jesus Christ was? All of the rest merely expressed an opinion. GOD the Father, Himself, told Peter alone, and not one of the other Apostles. It was a blessing for Peter from the Father. This is a clear sign of the Primacy of Peter from the Father. The Law of First Mention When something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Bible. When GOD gave authority to someone in Scripture, HE changed the name of that person. 1. GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations', in Gen 17:5. HE gave Abraham 'primacy' over all other men. 2. GOD renamed Sara to Sarah when HE made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16. HE gave Sarah 'primacy' over all other women. 3. GOD renamed Jacob to Israel, the name of the Jewish Nation, and Jacob became the first Israeli in Gen 32:29, 35:10. 4. GOD renamed Simon to Peter in Matt 16:18, thus giving him 'primacy' over all of the Apostles. Why else would GOD give a new name to Simon? John 21:15-17... Three times in these verses Jesus Christ tells Peter to "Feed My Sheep", or to "Feed My Lambs". For proper understanding of these verses it is necessary to refer to the underlying Greek text. In verse 16, the Greek word used for "feed" is "poimaino" (second person singular), which means, to act as a SHEPHERD, to rule, to govern, to pastor, or the presiding officer. It is the only time this Greek word is used in the Gospel of John. In verses 15 and 17, the Greek word used for "feed" is "bosko", which means to feed. So verses 15-17 say 'feed my lambs, shepherd my lambs, and feed my sheep'. Jesus told Peter alone to be the SHEPHERD of His flock. In John 10:16, Jesus said, "...and there shall be one fold and ONE SHEPHERD." The Greek word used here is "poimen (masculine, singular)". Clearly, Jesus said in these verses that there will be only ONE SHEPHERD, and that shepherd will be Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.

@adrianrehak8585 3 ай бұрын

Seth, you apparently believe the saying, "ignorance is bliss." @thomasfolio7931 gives you an extremely better history than you. Why do Protestants take Bible passages out of context or short clips to promote false agendas rather than following Christ's teachings, commands, and ultimatums in their entirety? Prayers for you!

@keithgatto8461 4 ай бұрын

In one breath he says Peter did not govern the Church and in the next he said he did. The truth is Peter is the first Pope. I think the point he trying to make, poorly, is the papacy, or leader of the Church, looked different in Peter's time than today. Remember, ALL scripture and knowledge came from the Catholic Church because until Martin Luther there was no other Christian Church.

@geordiewishart1683 3 ай бұрын

No other Christian church? No orthodoxy? No Celtic culdee church?

@keithgatto8461 3 ай бұрын

@geordiewishart1683 there is only one Christian Church who can trace its back to Christ, that would be the Catholic Church, thus the moment on the papacy

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

The papacy started about 6 centuries after Peter. Your claim is just plain ahistorical.

@keithgatto8461 20 күн бұрын

@@Anastasis1.4 I think you need to study history! Your post just screams uneducated!!!

@UCONN_HUSKIES 4 ай бұрын

It's definitely false. Even if it was true, Peter never had people kiss the rings on his hands. Imperfections at its best.

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

You know what Peter did every moment of his life????

@adriandalanon474 2 ай бұрын

Common sense please. Traditions evolved and if nowadays, the Pope's ring is being kissed by the faithful, it does not negate the practices at the time of Peter.

@dewilew2137 2 ай бұрын

@@adriandalanon474 some people are not capable of common sense.

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

Basically circular reasoning then. Because your pope looks nothing like Peter. The papacy started six centuries after Peter. Peter was an apostle and selected many elders/bishops in each city/congregation. They were not successors, but pastors even while the apostles were alive.

@bridgefin Ай бұрын

@@Anastasis1.4 No where does Jesus say that Peter's successors will "look like Peter" I don't even know what you mean by that. You don't even know what Peter looked like. So that is a false argument. You: The papacy started six centuries after Peter. Me: That is a lie. We know who replaced Peter and every pope well into the sixth century and ever since that as well. So that argument is also false but satan loves your lie.

@capevancouver1157 3 ай бұрын

The Catholic faith was Constantine's convenience. His army was Christian, his god was dagon , thats what the myter hats about.

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

No, it was the creation of Jesus.

@shahnbarse5818 Ай бұрын

Roman Catholicism is not Christianity. It’s paganism wrapped up in some Christian marketing.

@WilliamFlemming-gk3cn Ай бұрын

Western church was established in 1054, patriarch of Rome was one of three, eventually five patriarchs, all equal.peter was also Bishop of Jerusalem, should patriarch of Jerusalem be head of church? No man has a special "IN" with God. How to explain hundreds of years of corruption and false doctrine, including the current Bishop of Rome.

@kyriakosaronis4872 5 ай бұрын

Unfortunstely your lack of understanding Christianity and since you come from on of the 45,000 different protestant denominations and sola Scriptura tell me where you can find a word that Jesus wrote? The First council of Nicae in may of 325 AD the Church took its name as One Holy Catholic (not roman) and APOSTOLIC Church.

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

The Roman Catholic Church is literally one of the 45,000 denominations.

@Justin-kn6dp 2 ай бұрын

ChatGPT says Peter is the first Pope. Are the anti-Catholics smarter than AI? No.

@seanneal9406 5 ай бұрын

How ridiculous is it that he says that there is only one ruler of the Church, Jesus. Did he not read that the Church is ruled by bishops? (Acts 20:28). So, the bishops do not rule? It is not either Jesus OR the bishops, it is not Jesus OR the pope. It is both. And the idea that the early Christians were so stupid that the papacy is established among them which supposedly they knew was a lie and NO PROTESTS??? O sure.

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

The bishops/overseers, did oversee their local congregations. There were multiple bishops in each congregation. After the time of the apostles there was movement towards single bishop who acted as an overlord. This groundwork was laid over a long time until we arrive at the first pope of Roman Catholicism centuries later.

@seanneal9406 Ай бұрын

@@Anastasis1.4 You just glibly and casually throw out this idea of a first pope centuries later. It is a lie. The papacy was already there from the beginning or there would have been a world war of ideas. The early Christians did not tolerate the least deviation from what they always believed. The idea that now some man in Rome is going to dictate to the rest of them....contrary to what they always believed....is absolutely absurd. Never would have happened. Imagine some Baptist minister in San Francisco gradually getting more authority and then with total authority, contrary to what Baptists always believed. It would never happen. People are not stupid in any age. So, we are to believe that the papacy gradually occurred and not one single Church father ever screamed to the high heaven about it??? Were they all stupid?

@LorenzoLlamas 6 ай бұрын

It wasn't Peter that Jesus meant was the rock. Jesus was talking about himself. He would have mentioned Peter's name in taking over the congregation. God had chosen his Son as Leader of God's earthly Kingdom. A human could never fulfill and manage such an enormous worldwide responsibility for declaring the good news among all the nations. And told his apostles, ''Neither be called Leaders, for *Your Leader is one, the Christ.'' Matthew 23:10. NWT. The leader of the 144,000 anointed fellow brothers was Jesus Christ, and him only. The 12 apostles were the beginning of that number. Rev. 7:4; 14;1. He became the rock, the foundation, the cornerstone, the rock mass, of God's Kingdom. Peter answered correctly the question put to them. '' You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'' '' ... flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did,'' Matthew 16:13-20. To Peter, Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom. I leave this interpretation for your own research and study. There are three. * Not a succession of men who know nothing about the Kingdom and who even reject the holy name of God the Almighty, JEHOVAH. Psa.83:18. Catholicism and all other religions worship the cross and other idols that are an abomination to Jesus Christ and his heavenly Father, Jehovah. and those that worship idols will not inherit God's Kingdom. And the saying has gone to be upon them: '' Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in, to go in.'' See: ''The seven woes.'' Matthew 13:29. May Jehovah God draw you into his undeserved kindness. Amen.

@deneshbhaskar 5 ай бұрын

loreno u should change ur name to lazarus.

@campsamaisan 3 ай бұрын

So you are claiming that The Father and Jesus blundered in the deliverance of the message of salvation and that it took a mere man 1600 years later to fix it?! You are saying in effect that therefore ALL the Christians from Jesus until Luther went to hell because they had the wrong message. Why in heck would God allow that absurdity? No you are wrong as wrong can be and you cannot win this argument. You are blaspheming God with your absurd claim. The people of Jesus's time took what Jesus said as that He was going to build His church upon Peter. Luther cannot just come along and insist that his interpretation is the correct interpretation of what Jesus meant. It leaves too large a hole in that your interpretation holds forth that God was just a blunderer and failed His people big time. But your hero Luther came along to save the day he believed but in all reality Luther has led untold millions to hell as they have the wrong message of salvation dreamed up by a wanna be power hungry man who was not God.

@glendagaskin151 3 ай бұрын

The only Person who was The Rock was God. All through the Bible The Rock is Jesus. Moses was granted water through The Rock. In the desert water was given, food, miracles, by The Rock. No mention of Peter. Peter has been used by the Catholic Church.

@bridgefin 4 күн бұрын

Your rock named our Simon as Cephas, or ROCK.

@janewilmer9276 7 ай бұрын

The Holy Spirit was promised and sent to lead the Church(the one and only Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church) to the fullness of Truth. It’s right there in Scripture. “Call no man father” ? What did Jesus really mean because St. Paul calls himself father. And what do we call the man that planted his seed in our mother’s womb?

@st.michaelthearchangel7774 7 ай бұрын

Yeah, I mean when Jesus said, "Call no man father," he was speaking in hyperbole.

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

quote---The Holy Spirit was promised and sent to lead the Church(the one and only Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church) to the fullness of Truth. It’s right there in Scripture. unquote The why didn;t you quote it?? THe whole comment you said!!! -->>>quote--“Call no man father” ? What did Jesus really mean because St. Paul calls himself father. And what do we call the man that planted his seed in our mother’s womb? unquote Obviously you have NO idea of the differences between a imitation father and a spirtual father. --quote--- And what do we call the man that planted his seed in our mother’s womb? unquote That was the Holy Spirit--Not God!! and. Mary is NOT your mother!! She was given to John!! Not to the whole world!!!

@mitchellosmer1293 6 ай бұрын

@@st.michaelthearchangel7774 quote---Yeah, I mean when Jesus said, "Call no man father," he was speaking in hyperbole. unquote (hyperbole. extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones") Jesus NEVER exaggerated anything He said!!! Why do I say that?? Simple: John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. An exaggeration is NOT the truth!!! Quote other verses that you believe He did that!! By your comment, you imply Jesus is a LIAR!!!

@kyriakosaronis4872 5 ай бұрын

But the Roman Catholic Church left the original One Holy Catholic ( not Roman) and Apostolic church and went on their own and are calling them selves Roman Catholic. The one Holy Catholic and apostolic church is still alive and well they took the name Orthodox after Rome took the name Roman Catholic to distinguish between the 2 churches.

@janewilmer9276 5 ай бұрын

@@kyriakosaronis4872 Jul 16, 1054 CE Jul 16, 1054 CE: Great Schism. On July 16, 1054, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated, starting the “Great Schism” that created the two largest denominations in Christianity-the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths. The East(Orthodox) left the West(Roman Catholic). Peter, the first Pope, died in Rome and that is why the western church was called Roman Catholic. Look it up.

@Justice_Levens 5 ай бұрын

The official papacy did not start till the 2nd century, but because Peter was the first leader of the church, he is what we would call a pope nowadays.

@bridgefin 5 ай бұрын

Peter was the first pope and Irenaeus lists 15 popes in his talk to the heretics of his day. So the papacy began immediately at Pentecost as the church began.

@LucioBoccacci 6 ай бұрын

Historians that don't understand the Catholic Church make a distinction between early Christianity and Christianity as a formal religion of an Empire. There is a difference, naturally, but in circumstance and not in essence. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus upon Peter and his successors. Wherever Peter died, that place and its succeeding bishop was considered the successor of Peter, and so on til this day. The "Pope" is really just a bishop like all others in the world, except like Peter was, the Pope is the head of all the bishops, and hence the head of the universal church. That spiritual leadership took on different forms throughout history, but the essence is the same. Historians make the mistake of identifying the Catholic Church with a kind of early Medieval State Sanctioned Religion. But the one true church that Christ started was the same in its essence and lineage, whether poor and scattered in the late first century, or organized and sanctioned in the 5th, or as it is today. We look to later historical records to show the successors of Peter. There was never any real dispute about Peter's and his successor's role until well after the authority of the Pope was long established. Even the Orthodox will recognize him as "first among equals", but will feel uneasy about what that actually means in terms of authority. Protestants simply turn a blind eye to all this, or they try to make excuses, but it's obvious why: their whole system of theology is dependent on the idea that there is no authority besides Scripture.

@whitebird357 6 ай бұрын

There is no authority outside Jesus Christ. He is the Word of God and all that is found in Scripture. On the other hand, you have the traditions of men, philosophers, and "church fathers" of Rome who put their ideas above God's word and have exalted themselves in the process. There's no wonder, then, why the "church of Rome" marginalized so many Bible believing Christians and used the Roman state from Constantine onward to persecute and eventually put to death millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who disagreed with their teachings and assumed supremacy and religious authority.

@saintsone7877 5 ай бұрын

Jesus founded the Christian Church NOT the Catholic Church as that word was never used in scripture and did not even appear until well after the NEW Testament was completed near the end of the 1st century AD. How could he found the Catholic Church in approx 33AD yet there be NO mention of it by anyone who ever spoke with or saw Jesus or any of the Apostles. Besides that when Jesus stated on this rock I build my Church he was NOWHERE near ROME and the first Catholic Church was not built in Rome until around 400AD well after all the apostles were dead and buried.

@whitebird357 5 ай бұрын

Amen. This is true. There was, however, a Roman Bishop in Rome in the church at Rome in the second century. THis is where the corruption began and by taking liberties in scriptural interpretation. Then, in the 4th century, I think the first cathedral was built, but there were church edifices in the second century onward. But, none of these edifices or architecture had anything to do with the actual spiritual "ecclesia" or Christian body of believers. @@saintsone7877

@gmpgstudios4122 2 ай бұрын

@@saintsone7877 should we tell you again that all Christians back then were all Catholics?

@saintsone7877 2 ай бұрын

@@gmpgstudios4122 No matter how many times you tell your tall tales my friend it does not change the fact that Jesus did not tell his disciples to go forth and make Catholics of all the peoples on the Earth as the word was NOT used at that time by Christians. The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the ancient Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos) 'universal')[3][4] comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou) 'on the whole, according to the whole, in general', and is a combination of the Greek words κατά (kata) 'about' and ὅλος (holos) 'whole'.[5][6] The first known use of "Catholic" was by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD).[7] In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. So NO my friend Peter was NOT a Catholic and did not tell anyone he met/preached to he was a Catholic but that he was a follower of Christ. If you wish to call yourself a Catholic rather than a Christian that is your prerogative but do not label all believers in Christ as Catholics as you do not have the authority to do so.

@rokvelic2945 7 ай бұрын

So your saying St Peter wasnt the Pope because he was humble and according to you that would invalidate the papacy? Thats ludicrous

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

quote----So your saying St Peter wasnt the Pope because he was humble and according to you that would invalidate the papacy? unquoet What would the RCC do without Peter?? >>>>>>Although Peter recognized himself as an apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed, … when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4). >>>St. Peter address himself as elder in 1 Peter 5:1 and 2 Peter 3:2 as apostle. 1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Peter 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy >>>>prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. >>>> St Peter was not the first pope, he had the title of "Apostle" and nothing else. He was recognized as the First Bishop Of Rome by the Catholic Church. St Peter was supposed to make Linus the first bishop of Rome. The title Pope was introduced by the 38th Pope St Siricius in 384 AD it was Papa which is English for Pope. St Peter taught the Circumcised (Jews) , and St Paul taught the gentiles (Rome) , and St Peter never went to Rome at all, and if he did I am sure St Paul would have mentioned it he mentions Mark is with me.

@davidcaldarola5188 7 ай бұрын

You missed two important points. 1) Jesus also conferred upon Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This signifies full authority to bind or to loose - even to forgive sins in Jesus' name. 2) Jesus promised to send an "Advocate" (the Holy Spirit) to recall to mind all that I have taught you, lead you into all truth, and be with you forever. Naturally, the "papacy" does not look the same today as it did 2,000 years ago. Twenty-eight of the first thirty-one popes were martyred. There has been the great schism and the reformation. But the "Papacy" via the seat of St. Peter still survives, still preaches what it has for almost 2,000 years and does demonstrate that Christ's promise of the Advocate is still true. ALL other Christian denominations are manmade, and many have perished. When is the last time you shook hands with a Puritan, Shaker, Quaker, or French Huguenot?

@gicfa77 6 ай бұрын

@whitebird357 [há 5 dias] ""This is a good narrative historically and Biblically considering how short it was. The turning point was when the Bishop of Rome and his right hand man, Eusebius, negotiated a political strategy with Constantine in the early 4th century which gave the bishop of Rome an advantage over all the other bishops both in the church and in civil appeal for political leverage. When Justinian came along in the 6th century, the Bishop of Rome gained a lock on authority in civil and religious matters as decreed by Justinian who was essentially the emperor over what was left of the former Roman empire and who was also a respected and powerful ruler in the East."" (@whitebird357) + Link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGjOhpd-nq-kiLM [There's NO POPE In The Bible]

@davidcaldarola5188 6 ай бұрын

@@gicfa77 - Eusebius was never the "right-hand" man of the Pope. The Bishop of Rome had whatever powers his inheriting of the seat of St. Peter afforded him for 300 years. It is easy to mess up centuries of history with a slanted point-of-view. Also, you mentioned an old error regarding Justinian. The "Edict of Justinian" did not grant the pope major civil as well as religious powers. It emphatically separated powers - civil to Justinian, and religious to the pope.

@defacto4540 6 ай бұрын

Jesus also gives the the keys to the rest of the disciples

@davidcaldarola5188 6 ай бұрын

@@defacto4540 - No, he did not. Please recall the last supper when the apostles are arguing over who will be more loyal and faithful to Jesus. Jesus tells Peter - whom he initially calls Simon - that the devil wishes to sift "you" like wheat. (The Greek word here for "you" is plural, which should make sense since one cannot sift a single grain of wheat or pebble of sand.) Jesus tells Peter "I will pray for "you." This time, the Greek for "you" is singular... "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” (NKJV) Jesus indicates the way this happens - Jesus, and later the Advocate, supports the head of the church, and the head passes it down to the others. Jesus did NOT call the attention of all the apostles and tell them He will pray for all of them. The head of the church receives the blessings and strength, and then passes it down to the rest of the faithful.

@mitchellosmer1293 6 ай бұрын

quote---You missed two important points. 1) Jesus also conferred upon Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This signifies full authority to bind or to loose - even to forgive sins in Jesus' name. unquote ----Jesus gave Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” not the keys to heaven.1 A key was a badge of authority ( Luke 11:52 ), and then as now was used to open doors. Peter used the keys Christ gave him to open the door to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost ( Acts 2 ), to the Samaritans after the preaching of Philip ( Acts 8:14-17 ), and to the Gentiles after the Lord had sent him a vision and an appeal from Cornelius ( Acts 10 ). -Jesus Christ didn't found the Catholic Church. it was the 325AD Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine 1 which was attended by bishops/popes of West and East Roman Empire May/Aug. 325AD. 2023 minus 325---equals about 1700 years. NOT 2000!!!! >>>Roman Catholic Church does not predate any Scriptures. It came in ad300s. It was made the official religion of Rome in ad380 by Theodosius. Scriptures was written by Jewish Christian Apostles and Jewish Prophets. Not Roman Catholics. Acts 9:31 says nothing of Roman Catholic Church. Stop misquoting. Acts 9:31 clearly says the Christian Church spread to Judea Samaria and Galilee regions of Israel; not Rome. So all your claims fall to the ground. Bible only approves traditions of Jesus and Apostles. 2 Thes 2:15. But Bible rejects all man made unbiblical traditions of Pharisees and Roman Church alike. Mat 15, 23. Roman Church doctrines came from its own man made traditions. Not from Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures. 95% of them are so. --quote---When is the last time you shook hands with a Puritan, Shaker, Quaker, or French Huguenot? unquote There are Quakers living in PA. Today, there are approximately 400,000 Quakers around the world, by some estimates, with the highest percentage in Africa. ----Sabbathday Lake is home to the world's only three remaining Shakers - Brother Arnold Hadd, 57; Sister June Carpenter, 76; and Sister Frances Carr, 87 - and with such a small nucleus, the community relies on a large and loyal group of volunteers to keep pace with the monumental work of running a farm and historic site. ----Today, there are some Reformed communities around the world that still retain their Huguenot identity. In France, Calvinists in the United Protestant Church of France and also some in the Protestant Reformed Church of Alsace and Lorraine consider themselves Huguenots.

@wjm5972 7 ай бұрын

some time in 33 a.d

@snapduke 6 ай бұрын

Pagan Church with Jesus Badges. Traditions do not out rank the scriptures. Catholic church is written about in revelations and its not good.

@Lucas-jy7cv 4 ай бұрын

I think it's talking about All the denominations that came after the Catholic Church

@Krehfish534 11 ай бұрын

You didn't exactly refute the idea that Peter was the first pope, you just made a case that the pope had more power once the church became involved in secular decisions. Which is a duh moment. I love it when people make good arguments, regardless of their rhetorical skills. You have great rhetorical skills, but make detestable arguments.

@everydaychristianapologeti2614 11 ай бұрын

Yes he did. He said it specifically

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

quote----you didn't exactly refute the idea that Peter was the first pope, unquote When was the first Catholic church built in Rome? 4th century AD San Giovanni in Laterano St. John Lateran is actually the official cathedral of Rome (not St. Peter's!) and is the seat of the bishop of Rome - a.k.a. the Pope. One of the four major basilicas in Rome, the cathedral was built in the **4th century AD** and is believed to be one the first Catholic churches in Rome. LONG AFTER Peter and Paul!!!!> So how could Peter be a pope that didn't exist until after 300AD??? >>>>>Peter in Jerusalem--- Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas(Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Peter to Jerusalem-------Paul to Rome. >>>>WAS PETER EVER IN ROME? READ ROMANS 16, WRITTEN FROM ROME BY PAUL. PAUL LISTS 27 PEOPLE. PETER WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED. ABOUT 80-90 A.D. PETER WROTE TWO EPISTLES (NEAR THE END OF THE NEW TESTAMENT), A TOTAL OF 8 CHAPTERS AND NEVER MENTIONED ONE TIME THAT HE WAS A “POPE” OR THAT THERE WAS A “CATHOLIC CHURCH.” DID THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PETER FORGET TO TELL US SOMETHING IMPORTANT OR IS SUCH SIMPLY NOT TRUE??? >>Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion (Matthew 20:20-28; Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 3:11). >>>Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years. Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that “there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome.” >>> >>Apostle Peter was a Galileen Jew,so if he is the 1st Pope then he is going against jesus commandment " call no man on earth Father or teacher".- How does the "Lord's Prayer" start with? "OUR FATHER Who ART in HEAVEN". Not on Earth!!!! >>Although Peter recognized himself as an apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed, … when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4). >>>St. Peter address himself as elder in 1 Peter 5:1 and 2 Peter 3:2 as apostle. 1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Peter 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy >>>>prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. >>>> St Peter was not the first pope, he had the title of "Apostle" and nothing else. He was recognized as the First Bishop Of Rome by the Catholic Church. St Peter was supposed to make Linus the first bishop of Rome. >>>The title Pope was introduced by the 38th Pope St Siricius in 384 AD it was Papa which is English for Pope. >>>St Peter taught the Circumcised (Jews) , and St Paul taught the gentiles (Rome) , and St Peter never went to Rome at all, and if he did I am sure St Paul would have mentioned it he mentions Mark is with me. >>>>>>>Peter was Jewish. In Acts 15 this takes place in Jerusalem. In what we call The Knesset (Hebrew: הַכְּנֶסֶת [haˈkneset]; lit. the gathering or assembly. very Jewish not Roman, so no he was not a Pope at all. >>> The organisation of the church is such that Christ is the head, Col 1:18; each congregation is independent, 1 Pet 5:2; each area of work is done by leaders of that local congregation, Eph 4:11-12; elders (also known as pastor Eph 4:11, shepherds 1 Pet 5:2-4, rulers Heb 13:17, bishops or overseers Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:1f) and deacons Acts 6:1-6, should be appointed in each local church, Titus 1:5-9, Acts 4:11; also each church should have minister(s) 2 Tim 4:5 (also called preacher 1 Tim 2:7, Tim 1:11, Rom 10:14, evangelist 2 Tim 4:5, teacher 2Tim1:11). >> So our Lord Jesus Christ never left the power of the church to only one. Finally, the headquarters of the church is not in Rome but in heaven 1 Pet 3:22, here Christ is, waiting to hand over the church to the Father.

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

CLAIMS of the RCC 1. Catholics claim CHURCH refers to Roman Catholic Church. BIBLE says CHURCH refers to all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, Mat 16:18. HISTORY tells us Roman Church was just one local Church a member of the Pentarchy. 2. Catholics claim Roman Church was the CHURCH CHRIST founded (First Church) or one true church. BIBLE says First Local Church was Jerusalem Church. Acts 2. Not Roman Catholic Church. 3. Catholics claim there is only One Church. BIBLE mentions both CHURCH and Churches. “CHURCH” refers to the Body of Christ Eph 5:30, Col 1:18 consisting of all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1 Mat 16:18. “Churches” refers to local churches Acts 9:31, Acts 15:41 and believers Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, 4. Catholics claim to be the first believers. BIBLE says first believers were Jewish Christians. Acts 2, Acts 11:26, NOT roman catholics. 5. Catholics claim Pope is the head of the CHURCH. BIBLE says JESUS is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. 6. Catholics claim outside Roman Church there is NO SALVATION. BIBLE says : The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 7. Catholicss claim the first day of the week is a Holy day, made by God. . The Holy Bible says: Isaiah 58:13-14 13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; And I will cause you to tride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”part from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. ----Catholics claim devote to Mary to be saved. BIBLE says “apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. . BIBLE says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 10. Catholics claim Roman Church inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16 or John 20 or John 21. 11. Catholics claim Roman pontiff inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16. 12. Catholics claim bishop of ROME = the pope. BIBLE does not say that. 13. Catholics claim there is an office of bishop of bishops/universal bishop/pope. BIBLE does not speak of such an office. History tells us the first bishop of bishops came in AD590-600s. 14. Roman Church has all the false unbiblical clergies - Roman priests, roman cardinals, roman pontiff, monks, nuns, friars, … BIBLE mentions only pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, deacons, bishop, elders. Titus 1:5, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3. 15. Roman Church claim its doctrines come from traditions of Apostles. BUT 95% of roman doctrines are Not from traditions of Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures; neither practised by the Church of the Bible. --If you decide to reply, QUOTE the Bible to refute any of these!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter in Jerusalem--- Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas(Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Peter to Jerusalem-------Paul to Rome. >>> WAS PETER EVER IN ROME? READ ROMANS 16, WRITTEN FROM ROME BY PAUL. PAUL LISTS 27 PEOPLE. PETER WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED. ABOUT 80-90 A.D. PETER WROTE TWO EPISTLES (NEAR THE END OF THE NEW TESTAMENT), A TOTAL OF 8 CHAPTERS AND NEVER MENTIONED ONE TIME THAT HE WAS A “POPE” OR THAT THERE WAS A “CATHOLIC CHURCH.” DID THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PETER FORGET TO TELL US SOMETHING IMPORTANT OR IS SUCH SIMPLY NOT TRUE??? Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion (Matthew 20:20-28; Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 3:11). Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years. Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that “there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome.” >>> >Apostle Peter was a Galileen Jew,so if he is the 1st Pope then he is going against jesus commandment " call no man on earth Father or teacher".- How does the "Lord's Prayer" start with? "OUR FATHER Who ART in HEAVEN". Not on Earth!!!! >>>Although Peter recognized himself as an apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed, … when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4). >>>St. Peter address himself as elder in 1 Peter 5:1 and 2 Peter 3:2 as apostle. 1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Peter 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy >>>>prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. >>>> St Peter was not the first pope, he had the title of "Apostle" and nothing else. He was recognized as the First Bishop Of Rome by the Catholic Church. St Peter was supposed to make Linus the first bishop of Rome. The title Pope was introduced by the 38th Pope St Siricius in 384 AD it was Papa which is English for Pope. St Peter taught the Circumcised (Jews) , and St Paul taught the gentiles (Rome) , and St Peter never went to Rome at all, and if he did I am sure St Paul would have mentioned it he mentions Mark is with me. ----

@Anastasis1.4 Ай бұрын

You have to prove Peter was your first pope. Roman Catholics like to shift the burden of proof.

@ochem123 22 күн бұрын

@@mitchellosmer1293People remembered St. Peter 400 years after he died. They built the St. John Lateran Church during that time. People still remember him today. The St. John Lateran Church is about 1600 years old, but Jesus and St. Peter loved about 2000 years ago. St. Peter’s Basilica was built less than 500 years ago. It’s much bigger than the Lateran and also much newer. St. John Lateran is where the pope’s Bishop of Rome seat is. The Lateran Church was built in the 44th Century A.M. (We are now in 60th Century A.M.; God divided time into Seventy Centuries = “A Week of Centuries” multiplied by 10 = A Week of Millenia” = 7000 years of history). Christians were heavily persecuted and murdered in the First Century A.D. (41st Century A.M.), so they couldn’t build such a church before St. Constantine legalized Christianity in Rome until the 44th Century A.M. ❤️‍🔥

@walterlahaye2128 7 ай бұрын

God did not create denominations. And denominations are not going to heaven!! God created “Nominal Christianity” where A Cappella singing is commanded. (EPHESIANS 5:19; COLOSSIANS 3:16) THE CHURCH MUST WARE HIS NAME “CHURCH OF CHRIST”

@bridgefin 6 ай бұрын

God created ONE church. Denominations are the creation of the Reformers in the 16th century. They have no connection to Christ.

@Motomack1042 5 ай бұрын

You must understand Isiah 22 to see the full picture and to understand Matt 16 18-20. There you see how Peter is the prime minister of the Church and that the papacy or bishop of Rome is an office that is to continue until the end of time.

@saintsone7877 5 ай бұрын

Sorry but he was the rock upon which the church would be built not the boss of the Church, Pope or whatever other created title you or the church wish to bestow upon him. JESUS is the ONE and ONLY head of the church and via the Holy Spirit(whom he told the Disciples he would send to assist them FOREVER) he would be with them always. There is NO biblical authority for a Pope or the other positions the Church has created via their hierarchy. These are ALL man made decisions and scripturally bankrupt.

@Motomack1042 5 ай бұрын

@saintsone7877 unfortunately you do not understand. Clearly, without any ambiguity, Jesus was referring to Isiah 22 when he bestowed upon Peter "you are the rock, and kn this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never draw it in, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven ". Just as in Isiah, when the king was absent, away from the kingdom he left his prime minister to rule in his stead. Jesus is God and Lord, and head of the church, but he is no longer present in this world. Knowing this, he gave us a Prime Minister to lead us, until he returns. This person is the successor of Peter, in union with all the successors of the apostles. Pope of Rome and all the bishops. Read the church Father's, from the 1st century on this was unanimously understood. Luther just wanted to make himself Pope and create a new faith without any consultation with anyone else. Removing books from the Bible, and changing the faith from what was received from Christ to the apostles. Even after 700 years of separation, the Patriarch of Constantinople said that protestants have become innovative and to return to communion with Rome.

@saintsone7877 5 ай бұрын

@@Motomack1042 I find it extremely funny you said this "Luther just wanted to make himself Pope and create a new faith without any consultation with anyone else. Removing books from the Bible, and changing the faith from what was received from Christ to the apostles." You do realise the Catholic Church has done this ever since the Church Jesus created stopped being Christian and became Catholic. When Peter was the rock as you say it was CHRISTS CHURCH(Christian) yet when it later(after Peters death etc) became the Catholic Church IT(the catholic church) began moving away from the bible and Gods word causing the splits that occurred. Today there are so many things the Catholic Church does that are unbiblical it is beyond a joke my friend. Were Jesus to come tomorrow he would not recognise the Catholic Church nor would he say this is the faith he created.

@Motomack1042 5 ай бұрын

@saintsone7877 Hmmm, the Bible did not exist as a complete set of books until 396. You have the Bible because of the Catholic church. The Catholic church was the instrument through which we received the Bible. Their were over 200 additional books all claiming to be the Word of God, the Catholic church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the cannon of scripture. You accept the authority of the Catholic church. Only the Church has the authority to interpret scripture. No one changed anything. Read the apostolic Father’s, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Polycarp, St Justin Martyr, and St Irenaeus of Lyon. These men were ordained by the apostles and received the faith from the apostles. There you will see the faith as practiced within the Catholic and Orthodox church. Bible only is a false teaching, and proof is the massive amount of denominations within protestantism. If your understanding was correct, the church would be unified and not full of division for the Holy Spirit can only unit not divide.

@saintsone7877 5 ай бұрын

@@Motomack1042 100% correct regards when the Bible came into being but unfortunately little else. Have a look at the 10 Commandments that the Catholic Faith(Church) follows my friend. Are these 10 Commandments the same 10 Commandments we find in the Holy Bible? NO! Catholics delete Commandment 2 and then compound that error by making Commandment 9 of the Holy Bible Commandments 9 and 10 in their false Commandments. And just why have they deleted Commandment 2 my friend? Clearly, they deleted Commandment 2 and changed Commandment 9 into 9 and 10 in their version of the 10 Commandments. I learnt many years ago that the Bible is inspired by GOD and everything the writers wrote is Blessed by GOD and anyone who ADDS or SUBTRACTS anything contained in the BIBLE is a FALSE believer yet this is exactly what the CATHOLIC CHURCH has done to one of the most basic FACTS in the BIBLE. According to all Christians faiths the BIBLE is the word of GOD and the 10 Commandments were written by the HAND of GOD yet the CATHOLIC CHURCH has done what my friend? THEY have CHANGED COMMANDMENTS WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD. And yet YOU and others try to tell me and others they are the Guardians of GODS words and anyone who differs from what THEY say is EVIL and UNGODLY. Are you really saying GOD is EVIL and UNGODLY. That is the ultimate blasphemy. Put the Catholic Faith up against the mirror my friend as IT is the FALSE RELIGION and DOES NOT follow the WORD of GOD or preach what the Apostles preached to their flocks. Read the ORIGINAL manuscripts the BIBLE comes from my friend. NONE contain the 10 Commandments the Catholic Church states are the 10 Commandments. Only the Catholic Church follows Commandment 10 and deletes Commandment 2 entirely and this is different from ALL manuscripts the Bible was translated from. If the Catholics cannot get this basic tenet of faith correct why should I or anyone who believes in God follow ALL the other things the Catholics do the original Christians did not.

@efef6853 3 ай бұрын

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

Everything in history indicates that Peter was the first of 266 popes. Peter was the first as he was put in that position by Jesus. That you disagree with reality is your issue and not ours. You: “9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Me: Jesus called him FATHER Abraham. Commandment: Honor thy FATHER and mother. Is 22:21: I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. You have no idea what Jesus was talking about. You: Peter means pebble or small stone, Me: Peter is CEPHAS which is Aramaic for ROCK. Deal with it. He got that name from Jesus. Stop the rebellion and come, truly, to Jesus.

@srich7503 3 ай бұрын

Jesus never claimed to be the 2nd person of the Trinity, no one in the new testament called Jesus the 2nd person of the Trinity…🤷🏽‍♂

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

@@srich7503 So what? But he did claim to be God "Before Abraham was I AM". And he did promise to send us the spirit of truth. So you have a trinity and you can number them any way you like,

@srich7503 3 ай бұрын

@@bridgefin i was replying to the OP, not to your post.

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

@@srich7503 He never mentioned the trinity. My answer still stands. Feel free to address if you like.

@francissweeney7318 5 ай бұрын

Constantine " converted " on his deathbed. He continued his pagan worship his entire life. He was no christian. The church founded by Jesus Christ never was in Rome. The antichrist spirit has controlled the Roman church since it's inception.

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

How can that be when the antichirst was persecuting it? The church needed to go underground to worship Jesus and say mass. You can even go to someof these catacombs in Rome that were used by Christians then. Ther are relief images that venerated Our Lady too.

@francissweeney7318 5 ай бұрын

@@raymondvasquez6967 The catholic church departed from Jesus Christ as soon as it began ignoring the will of the Father. The early Christians, those who did the will of the Father, called themselves The Way. The early Christians obeyed Jesus and did not resist evil. They did not believe in a trinity. They did not make or worship graven images. They baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

@raymondvasquez6967 5 ай бұрын

@@francissweeney7318 It certainly did not. Notice The Church Still continues to do the will of the Father. It is still one as opposes to many different groups (40,00+ opinions) that the Protestants each call the 'Truth".

@Christophoros-it1qt 4 ай бұрын

Sorry, your historical assessment of the first three Centuries is only almost correct, and it seems to me (without wanting to accuse you of dishonesty) that you know it, because the office of Peter historically had been recognized from the beginning, but you did not say it, only you are guarding yourself in a"by the way fashion": 'as we know it today'! To your audience: look it up in a secular Encyclopedia the Pope Cornelius (251-253) and his leadership, e.g. in controversies in the (then only One Church)!

@kyriakosaronis4872 6 ай бұрын

The First Bishop called Pope was in Alexandria and is still been Called Pope and Patriarch till today. The word papa came from the Greek just like the word Catholic meaning Universal. The year 232 the people of Alexandria adorned their Archbishop and gave him a new title of "Pope" meaning in Greek "our Father" So the 13th successor of St Mark became known as Pope Herecles (232-249 AD). The church of Rome did not call its Patriarch "Pope" till much later some time in the 4th century Pope siricious was the first Pope to take the name . His papacy began December 384 AD and ended November 26, 399 AD. Pope Gregory VII (1073-85 However restricted its use to the Bishop of Rome As all Bishops of the 5 Patriarchate were called Patriarchs Greek word meaning Chief or Father of a Family. If all Roman Catholics Study the History of the Church unbiased by Rome they all will become Orthodox.

@mitchellosmer1293 5 ай бұрын

quote---The year 232 the people of Alexandria adorned their Archbishop and gave him a new title of "Pope" meaning in Greek "our Father".. unquote The title Pope was introduced by the 38th Pope St Siricius in 384 AD. It was Papa (Father) which is English for Pope. How could Peter be the Pope in 60AD or so, when that title was not even used until 384AD???? Just another Catholic tradition ,(lie). -Jesus Christ didn't found the Catholic Church. it was the 325AD Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine 1 which was attended by bishops/popes of West and East Roman Empire May/Aug. 325AD NO ONE after John was qualified to be an apostle!!! Absolutely NO scripture claiming , Linus, xii; Anencletus [Cletus], xii; ) Clement, ix; . . were not Popes. Also, there are NO POPES in God's kingdom!!! ***Is there a Linus in the Bible? Linus is only mentioned once in the Bible in 2 Timothy 4:21. He's mentioned in a string of names, not even as a standout name. Some of the names that accompany his include Pudens and Claudia. Since he barely gets a shoutout, it may seem weird that we'd even focus on him today. ---2 Timothy 4:21 King James Version (KJV) Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. NOT A POPE!!! ****Anencletus [Cletus]----Born c. AD 25. THat would have made him age 9 when Jesus died!!!! NOT A POPE!!! ----Saint (Pope) Clement: The name is mentioned in Philippians 4:3 but there is no way to connect this Clement with the Church Father known as “Saint Clement of Rome,” ... ----Is Pope Clement mentioned in the Bible? Clement of Rome - Wikipedia A tradition that began in the 3rd and 4th century, has identified him as the Clement in 4 bce. THe Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3, a fellow laborer in Christ. NOT A POPE!!! Born c. 35 AD. Definitely to young yet to see Jesus at any time!!!

@emmanuelroosevelt6840 5 ай бұрын

False and misleading...

@josephodoherty7864 3 ай бұрын

This horrendously sectarian video is in no way the historical or biblical or reasonable overview or analysis it pretends to be . Bigoted , hate-filled and distorted it is a shameful misrepresentation of Christianity that leads many people away from Christ

@bridgefin 3 ай бұрын

Those who want to be deceived will be deceived. From the Garden of Eden we can see what willfully being deceived leads to. Pray for them.

@DonnaStevens-hs4uv 4 ай бұрын

why was Paul permitted to rebuke Peter at one point? if He was a pope isnt he infallable? so no matter how you preffer to slice it... if he was a pope he was not supposed to be fallable to the point that Paul rebuked him...but i say he was not even a pope and all ministers are fallible...if you hold to the reasoning the he was a pope but fallable then the current popes are fallable as well... and they do make erros all the time judging and condemming bible verses for there own religions sakes. they obscure it from the common people..its no secrets there that theyre protectioning there hierarchy ..they cant have wifes no wonder they struggle with sexuall sins against children ...well they strayed way early from building on that rock they never were building on the rock as they claim... . way before there was protestantism ..

@gmpgstudios4122 2 ай бұрын

DId Jesus promised that his CHurch be immune or free of sinners?

@petewiggins3562 6 ай бұрын

I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house (Is 22:20-23). The OT precursor to the papacy and Peter as the Chief Stewart of Jesus' Kingdom. In 95 AD, Clement of Rome (the Pope), wrote letter to the Corinthians to settle a dispute that needed to be resolved. Of course Jesus is the head of the Church - that has never disputed by Catholics. The Pope is his duly appointed visible head on earth (AKA, the Vicar of Christ). Jesus provides all the grace he needs to carry out his office.

@whitebird357 6 ай бұрын

There is nothing from the mouth of Jesus or NT authors giving sanction to a "duly appointed visible head of the church". In Matt. 16 Jesus made the distinction between Him and Peter. In the Greek Jesus refers to himself as the Rock and Peter as a rock as in "a rolling stone". Also, Jesus tells us in His Revelation 1:18 that only He has the keys of death and of the grave as He is the only ONe who has prevailed over evil, sin, and Satan. There is a tradition conjured up in Rome beginning in the late first to early second century that came from those who Jesus warned the church of Ephesus about. This is the exaltation of men in the church through the concept of "apostolic succession". "I know thy works and thy labour and thy patience and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou has tried them which say they are apostles and are not and hast found them liars." Rev. 2:2 The church continued to have imposters rise up within. Jesus identifies them as the "synagogue of Satan", Baal worshippers, idolaters, fornicators, Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess, etc.throughout the church ages. Over the centuries, the Papacy has indulged itself in all of these abominations and nowhere is it more evident today than in the imagery, statuary, etc. found within the walls of the Vatican and in its basilica.

@petewiggins3562 6 ай бұрын

Greek is a gendered language meaning that most objects are either masculine or feminine. The word in Greek for a foundation rock is "petras" a feminine word that does not work well for Peter. The masculine for "petras" is "petros" which is much smaller rock. A "rolling stone" suffices as a description. Jesus and the apostles spoken Aramaic. Jesus called Peter "Kephas" (Cephas in some translations), a foundation rock. The accusation from the late first and early second needs documentation. Paul and John both warn of groups that tried to infiltrate the early Christian Church. One group was the Pharisees that claimed one had to be a Jew before he can be a Christian. Acts 15 recounts how the apostles and elders (priests) through prayer and discussion resolved the issue. Peter ended the debate when he spoke of how the Holy Spirit had led him to the house of Cornelius where he baptized the entire household. James seconded what Peter said. Is there biblical evidence that Peter was the first pope or visible head of the Church? The appointment of Eliakim as the head of the house of David (Is 22). He is given the keys to the house of David. When he locks the gate it stays locked when he opens the gate in stays open. Jesus uses similar verbiage when He gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 16). Peter's appointment as head of Jesus' "house." Lk 22:31-2 Jesus tells Peter of his upcoming betrayal and afterward He would give Peter the grace to strengthen the bretheren. Jn 21:15-19 Peter's three fold restoration for his Good Friday betrayal of Jesus. Acts 1:15-26 Peter calls for the need to fill Judas' empty bishoprick (KJV). The office is filled by Matthias, who was then considered an apostle. AKA apostolic succession. Acts 2:14f Peter stands up to deliver the first proclamation of the Good News. Acts 3:2f Peter calls upon the name of Jesus to cure the man lame from birth@@whitebird357 Acts 10 Peter is called to deliver the Good News to the gentiles through Cornelius and his family. Gal 2:18 Paul goes to visit Peter for affirmation of his ministry. Scripture and history both witness that there is apostolic succession and that St. Peter is the first Pope.

@whitebird357 6 ай бұрын

Your beginning narrative was good based on some facts, but ended on supposition of the meaning of some Bible verses which the Bible context and narrative does not concur. We can't let our religious background or upbringing subjectively persuade our judgments. Throw away all that you have learned from men in the church or otherwise and ask the Lord, is this what YOU taught me? If the Lord concurs with what you have heard from others from the words of His own mouth, then you know you can hold on to it. @@petewiggins3562

@KnightOfFaith 6 ай бұрын

That dollar store Eliakim argument

@petewiggins3562 6 ай бұрын

How much more of the Bible do you discount?@@KnightOfFaith

@danielswartz6818 7 ай бұрын

You are wrong about the first 400 years oh Christiantity. There is documentation of popes from Peter till today. You just have a check that out. Research is flawed. There are letters from popes, instructing other bishops during that time. And in that time. There were church councils where all the bishops got together to form doctrines of Christianity. These councils started in the book of acts. There’s two or three of them in the book of acts. You only percent what you wish to present as an anti-Catholic. You lack truth.

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

The title Pope was introduced by the 38th Pope St Siricius in 384 AD. It was Papa (Father) which is English for Pope. How could Peter be the Pope in 60AD or so, when that title was not even used until 384AD???? Just another Catholic tradition ,(lie). >>>Roman Catholic Church does not predate any Scriptures. It came in ad300s. It was made the official religion of Rome in ad380 by Theodosius. Scriptures was written by Jewish Christian Apostles and Jewish Prophets. Not Roman Catholics. Acts 9:31 says nothing of Roman Catholic Church. Stop misquoting. Acts 9:31 clearly says the Christian Church spread to Judea Samaria and Galilee regions of Israel; not Rome. So all your claims fall to the ground. Bible only approves traditions of Jesus and Apostles. 2 Thes 2:15. But Bible rejects all man made unbiblical traditions of Pharisees and Roman Church alike. Mat 15, 23. Roman Church doctrines came from its own man made traditions. Not from Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures. 95% of them are so. >>>NO ONE after John was qualified to be an apostle!!! Absolutely NO scripture claiming , Linus, xii; Anencletus [Cletus], xii; ) Clement, ix; . They were the only ones alive at the time of Jesus to be qualified to be an apostle. ***Is there a Linus in the Bible? Linus is only mentioned once in the Bible in 2 Timothy 4:21. He's mentioned in a string of names, not even as a standout name. Some of the names that accompany his include Pudens and Claudia. Since he barely gets a shoutout, it may seem weird that we'd even focus on him today. ---2 Timothy 4:21 King James Version (KJV) Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. NOT A POPE!!! ****Anencletus [Cletus]----Born c. AD 25. THat would have made him age 9 when Jesus died!!!! NOT A POPE!!! ----Saint (Pope) Clement: The name is mentioned in Philippians 4:3 but there is no way to connect this Clement with the Church Father known as “Saint Clement of Rome,” ... ----Is Pope Clement mentioned in the Bible? Clement of Rome - Wikipedia A tradition that began in the 3rd and 4th century, has identified him as the Clement in 4 bce. >>>>

@glennlanham6309 6 ай бұрын

well, when Jesus gave Peter the Keys...the rest is conjecture

@kyriakosaronis4872 6 ай бұрын

JESUS NEVER GAVE PETER THE KEYS . ROME MANIPULATES THE SAING SO IT CAN FEEL IMPORTANT AND SUPERIOR FALSEHOODS AND HERESIES TO COVER THEIR INVENTIONS.

@romaman737 7 ай бұрын

This man is definitely mad I’m sure we must all agree that Christ did establish a church, secondly he did say the gates of hades will not prevail against. The Catholic Church is the only church that uses the priesthood and can trace it back to Christ, is there any other church? The Catholic Church is the oldest in the world is there any other church? Come on people use your sense.

@mitchellosmer1293 6 ай бұрын

quote----his man is definitely mad I’m sure we must all agree that Christ did establish a church,.. unquote NO ONE after John was qualified to be an apostle!!! Absolutely NO scripture claiming , Linus, xii; Anencletus [Cletus], xii; ) Clement, ix; . They were the only ones alive at the time of Jesus to be qualified to be an apostle. ***Is there a Linus in the Bible? Linus is only mentioned once in the Bible in 2 Timothy 4:21. He's mentioned in a string of names, not even as a standout name. Some of the names that accompany his include Pudens and Claudia. Since he barely gets a shoutout, it may seem weird that we'd even focus on him today. ---2 Timothy 4:21 King James Version (KJV) Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. NOT A POPE!!! ****Anencletus [Cletus]----Born c. AD 25. THat would have made him age 9 when Jesus died!!!! NOT A POPE!!! ----Saint (Pope) Clement: The name is mentioned in Philippians 4:3 but there is no way to connect this Clement with the Church Father known as “Saint Clement of Rome,” ... ----Is Pope Clement mentioned in the Bible? Clement of Rome - Wikipedia A tradition that began in the 3rd and 4th century, has identified him as the Clement in 4 bce. Herod (born 73 bce-died March/April, 4 bce, Jericho, Judaea) Roman-appointed king of Judaea (37-4 bce), who built many fortresses, aqueducts, theatres, and other public buildings and generally raised the prosperity of his land but who was the centre of political and family intrigues in his later years. THe Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3, a fellow laborer in Christ. NOT A POPE!!! Born c. 35 AD. Definitely to young yet to see Jesus at any time!!! >>>--Churches named in the Bible from 33AD--100AD (possibly church homes) ----Church of God. Acts 20:28 , Body of Christ.--Ephesians 1:22-23, -----Bride of Christ Revelation 21:9 , -------Church of the Living God.-1 Timothy 3:15 , -----City of the Living God. Hebrews 12:22, ----Flock of God.Ezekiel 34:15 , ----Fold of Christ.John 10:16, ----Habitation of God. Ephesians 2:22 -----Heavenly of Jerusalem.Galatians 4:26, ----House of God. 1 Timothy 3:15 , ----House of the God of Jacob. Isaiah 2:3 , ----House of Christ. Hebrews 3:6 , ----Household of God. Ephesians 2:19 , ----Israel of God. Galatians 6:16,----Mount Zion.Psalm 2:6 , Hebrews 12:22, -----New Jerusalem.Revelation 21:2, ----Sanctuary of God.Psalm 114:2, ----Spouse of Christ.,Song of Solomon 4:12 ,----Temple of God.1 Corinthians 3:16-17 ----Temple of the Living God. 2 Corinthians 6:16 ----****What is absent is the name Catholic!!! NOT ONE church ever named "Catholic from 30AD--to--100D!!!!!! THese are the ONLY churches named in scripture!!!

@romaman737 6 ай бұрын

@@mitchellosmer1293 the Catholic the oldest facts will never be erased

@mitchellosmer1293 6 ай бұрын

@@romaman737 quote---the Catholic the oldest facts will never be erased. unquote Who do you think the anti-christ is?? ROME!!! THIS IS The Apostle Paul's Admonition to the MEMBERS OF Church of Rome! Romans 16:17 Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve NOT our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by GOOD WORDS and FAIR SPEECHES deceive the hearts of the simple. -----The oldest TRADITIONS you mean. And the writings of mere men? John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. NOT according to the CC!!! The catholic church is the way, the truth and the life. ---Again--the way to God is throught the CC!!!

@kyriakosaronis4872 6 ай бұрын

I am terribly sorry but you do not have the slightest idea what is THE CHURCH THAT JESUS BUILT ONE HOLY CATHOLIC (not Roman) APOSTOLIC CHURCH THIS WAS THE CHURCH THAT JESUS BUILT how ever Pope Leo decided to succeed from that church and sent his German Bishop Hubert in 1054 to Constantinople and placed the ANATHEMA (excommunication) on the Altar Table of Hagia Sophia on July 16, 1054 In return Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated the pope Rome. Rome then took the Name Roman Catholic and started many Changes from the Filioque to the Heresies inventions and falsehood. The other 4 Patriarchate stayed and are together until today. When Rome took the name Roman Catholic the other 4 patriarchates had to also take a name and chose the name Orthodox because now with the split we have 2 churches. There was only one church its name was given at the first Ecumenical Council of Nicae in 325 AD. That church is still here today with us as the Orthodox Church continued without changes since the day of Pentecost. On the other hand we have the Roman Catholic church but they stop been Apostolic since they left the orinal church that Jesus built and became Papists. Again until 1054 yes rome was Apostolic because it was only one Church. The word Catholic is a Greek word that means Universal but you can call your self universal that does not mean the Original church of Christ.

@kyriakosaronis4872 5 ай бұрын

We with knowledge and you without knowledge let me Teach you the knowledge that you're missing: Jesus built one church his church took a name as: One Holy Catholic(not Roman) and Apostolic in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This one church consisted of 5 Patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antiochia, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople there was One Church One Faith although the Roman patriarchate had some problems within. In the 400 AD you have Augustine and in the 800 we have Charlemagne forcing the pope to Crown him as an emperor of the holy roman empire if not he was going to bring charges against the pope. In 1054 we have the schism The pope sent his German bishop Humbert and placed the anathema on the Holy Altar of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. In Rome the took the name Roman Catholic the rest of the 4 patriarchates they took the name Orthodox now we 2 churches we have the Roman Catholic adding the Filioque and the heresies roman inventions and falsehoods. The orthodox Church did not make any changes it is still the original church that Jesus Built One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They took the name Orthodox A Greek word meaning the correct doctrine. In the 1500's we have the protestants who were protesting against the changes in Rome but instead of returning back to the original church they started building new churches and mow we have more Than 45,000 different protestant denominations and growing weekly. The 4 original patriarchates still together till today as Orthodox One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The problem for the Roman Catholics is the they using only the word catholic and not roman so this brings a confusion. Rome was Apostolic until 1054 and part of the one church after 1054 they became papists.

@rogerjohnson833 5 ай бұрын

SATAN'S PAPACY 👹👿

@derbywinner6316 7 ай бұрын

The Papacy comes from Judeo tradition

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

quote---The Papacy comes from Judeo tradition--unquote Prove it! quote your sources!!!

@maciamay1393 3 ай бұрын

There were roman popes pre Christ, some even called Pius, it was a Roman thing.

@heydeereman1040 7 ай бұрын

St. Peter is literally the Rock of the Church. His remains are directly under the main alter at St. Peter's Basilica. It was not the first Catholic church in Rome, but 4th century Catholics would go into the swamps where he was buried to pray and not the huge church that Constantine built

@defacto4540 6 ай бұрын

What makes Jesus the Rock? and that is where the context of Matthew 16:18 really comes into play. Matthew 16:16 says: “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’” Peter exclaims to Jesus that he knows for certain that Jesus is the Messiah without a doubt in his mind. Jesus replies “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17) still talking of the confession of Jesus being the Messiah, from here Jesus says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16:18). The important part about this verse is the use of non-personal pronoun form of THIS. THIS, as used in the verse is not referring to a person as it would if you were to say, “This person is the Messiah”, but rather to refer to something that is not a person. We must look into the context to find what THIS is referring to. In the same instance that Jesus says “And I tell you that you are Peter” Matthew 16:18, he says right before it “for THIS was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” Matthew 16:17 again not referring to Peter but the confession of Jesus being the Messiah.

@heydeereman1040 6 ай бұрын

@defacto4540 I guess you missed the part where Jesus literally changes Simon's name to Rock. Jesus is not "Rock" Simon is now THE ROCK!

@defacto4540 6 ай бұрын

@@heydeereman1040 I guess you didn’t read Acts chapter 4

@heydeereman1040 6 ай бұрын

@@defacto4540 I have read them all. You can't even get the basics right

@heydeereman1040 6 ай бұрын

@defacto4540 not only are you not versed in scripture, you don't understand construction

@rhettmartin1198 Жыл бұрын

Interesting. So Peter is not really the first Pope. It is just the Catholic Church saying so. Interesting how they embellish just a tad. lol

@Krehfish534 11 ай бұрын

This guy ignores a great deal of historical evidence to make his case. I'd recommend researching this issue for yourself, because the real answer is much more complex and nuanced than the false arguments offered in this short video.

@healhands5760 9 ай бұрын

it all traces back in Matthew 16:18. documents, whatever you find it, even early christian records, that the FIRST POPE was St. Peter. other religions are founded by Men. try to ask yourself WHEN was your religion founded? Try to beat Catholic Church way back 2,000+ years ago down to the Apostles.

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

@@healhands5760 quote---it all traces back in Matthew 16:18. documents, whatever you find it, even early christian records, that the FIRST POPE was St. Peter. unquote Sorry Sheeple--you are wrong!! Matt 16:13 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? verse 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. verse 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. verse 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Christ's church will built upon the revelation made by Peter from God that Jesus is the Messiah!! >>>>>quote---Try to beat Catholic Church way back 2,000+ years ago down to the Apostles unquote Sorry Sheeple--wrong!! .>>>>NOT ONCE is that name EVER in the Bible. From 30AD--100AD-- NEVER mentioned!!! >>>>>> The organisation of the church is such that Christ is the head, Col 1:18; each congregation is independent, 1 Pet 5:2; each area of work is done by leaders of that local congregation, Eph 4:11-12; elders (also known as pastor Eph 4:11, shepherds 1 Pet 5:2-4, rulers Heb 13:17, bishops or overseers Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:1f) and deacons Acts 6:1-6, should be appointed in each local church, Titus 1:5-9, Acts 4:11; also each church should have minister(s) 2 Tim 4:5 (also called preacher 1 Tim 2:7, Tim 1:11, Rom 10:14, evangelist 2 Tim 4:5, teacher 2Tim1:11). So our Lord Jesus Christ never left the power of the church to only one. Finally, the headquarters of the church is not in Rome but in heaven 1 Pet 3:22, here Christ is, waiting to hand over the church to the Father. >>>>NO ONE after John was qualified to be an apostle!!! Absolutely NO scripture claiming , Linus, xii; Anencletus [Cletus], xii; ) Clement, ix; . They were the only ones alive at the time of Jesus to be qualified to be an apostle. >>>***Is there a Linus in the Bible? Linus is only mentioned once in the Bible in 2 Timothy 4:21. He's mentioned in a string of names, not even as a standout name. Some of the names that accompany his include Pudens and Claudia. Since he barely gets a shoutout, it may seem weird that we'd even focus on him today. ---2 Timothy 4:21 King James Version (KJV) Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. NOT A POPE!!! ---****Anencletus [Cletus]----Born c. AD 25. THat would have made him age 9 when Jesus died!!!! NOT A POPE!!! ----Saint (Pope) Clement: The name is mentioned in Philippians 4:3 but there is no way to connect this Clement with the Church Father known as “Saint Clement of Rome,” ... ----Is Pope Clement mentioned in the Bible? ---Paul mentioned Clemnent in Philippians 4:3, a fellow laborer in Christ. NOT A POPE!!! Born c. 35 AD. Definitely NOT born yet to see Jesus at any time!!! >>>>-Jesus Christ didn't found the Catholic Church. it was the 325AD Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine 1 which was attended by bishops/popes of West and East Roman Empire May/Aug. 325AD. >>>>The title Pope was introduced by the 38th Pope St Siricius in 384 AD. It was Papa (Father) which is English for Pope. How could Peter be the Pope in 60AD or so, when that title was not even used until 384AD???? Just another Catholic tradition ,(lie).

@user-th6yf5uo6h 5 ай бұрын

Friend, have you never read the list of bishops provided by Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who, in turn, was a disciple of the Apostle John or Chruch History by Eusebius in the list of Popes? Have you not read Clement of Rome who responded as “Pope” to the Corinthians while the Apostle John was still around and lived much closer? Your fiction of the 4th and 5th century only exposes your ignorance of the Church Fathers. “He who goes deep into history, ceases to be protestant” St. J.H. Newman. Beware of lies my friend, a Catholic friend (convert) 🥰🙏📿

@IronMoonBookReading Жыл бұрын

Hail Mary Full Of Grace The Lord Is With Thee Blessed Art Thou Amongst Women And Blessed Is The Fruit Of Thy Womb Jesus Holy Mary Mother Of God Pray For Us Sinners Now And At The Hour Of Our Death AMEN❤❤❤❤❤

@firekoovin3347 Жыл бұрын

Much to Denmark folk

@mitchellosmer1293 7 ай бұрын

quote---Holy Mary Mother Of God Pray For Us Sinners --unquote NOPE--NOPE and NOPE!!! If Mary is the mother of the creator, who created her??? God has NO Beginning, NO end!!! Mary was NEVER declared to be Holy by anyone!!! And, Mary is DEAD and in the grave waiting for Jesus to return!!! Hell, heaven or purgatory? --Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: --Psalm 115:17 The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. --Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. ---Job 14:10-12 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? 11 As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: 12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. ---Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. ---Genesis 3:19---In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. --Psalm 146:4----His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. --Ecclesiastes 12:7--Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. ---James 2:26--For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. ---Ecclesiastes 9:6--Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. --John 3:13--And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. ---Psalm 6:5--For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? ---Ecclesiastes 9:5-For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. >>>>By praying to Mary and expecting any reply, places her equal to God!!! There are ONLY THREE in the Godhead!!!

@thedon978 6 ай бұрын

We, Catholics, are the Christian Church, not a “denomination.”

@kyriakosaronis4872 5 ай бұрын

You can call your self what ever you please but you left the church that Jesus Built in 1054 and called yourselves Roman Catholic. You were Apostolic until then but after the schism you became papist and you took the name Roman Catholic Until 1054 there was one church and you were part of that church: The one Holy Catholic ( not Roman) and Apostolic Church. In 1054 Roma split from the church that Jesus built and went on their own with heresies Roman inventions and falsehoods.🥲

@deusimperator 5 ай бұрын

just so dumb

@rokvelic2945 7 ай бұрын

Most utter nonsense. You havent proven anything.

@firekoovin3347 Жыл бұрын

May God have mercy on the heretical heart

@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419 10 ай бұрын

Lol, how is he a heretic?

@kyriakosaronis4872 5 ай бұрын

It is an unfortunate situation when Rome with its superiority complex heresies and inventions that is at fault no the poor people who believe their heresies and........

@arulkumaran1178 7 ай бұрын

Fool... All are nonsense..

@jammuncada1433 3 ай бұрын

Our Lord Jesus Christ sent Saint Peter to Rome. For me through my research, prayed wisdom and understanding from God and studied based on Christian history the true church of Jesus Christ is “The Catholic Church” that He himself established! The church that propagates Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ around the world and compiled the Holy Bible the church keeps growing for thousands of years and the biggest Church and religion in the world. If they don’t believe or agree it’s up to them but for me I’m very blessed that I will die a Catholic that I’m in true Church of Jesus Christ and nobody can take me away me from His Holy Church. God bless y’all!!!🙏✝️❤️🕊📿😇