Added: 3 years ago
From: SeptemberCatholic18
Views: 8,104
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (248)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • O please! Peter is not the rock nor Jesus Christ on these very particular biblical references MATT.16:13-19. The rock Jesus is referring to lies in VS:16 & VS:17 when Peter gave a remarkable response & in which Jesus replied "..for flesh & blood hath not REVEALED it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven...and upon this rock (referring to the REVELATION Peter has just recieved) I shall build my Church. REVELATION is the ROCK. No one tempers with direct revelations from God even the devil

  • Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. He who has ears, let him hear.

  • Excellent explanation biblically...thank you for making and uploading this video. GOD BLESS YOU brother...

  • Excellent! Protestantism is a MAN-MADE Religion without Divine Authority.

  • The word " church" was not even known during Jesus lifetime. Peter would have looked at Jesus as if he was speaking an alien language. It was obviously a passage that was added hundreds of years later..as was most of what Jesus supposedly said

  • @rbound827 Actually, the Greek word for church, ekklesia, was already being used as we use it today even before the close of the first century. Jesus' words could not have been retroactively written in because we have multiple, independent attestations.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18- King James made mandatory affected the translation of the Greek word "ekklesia. The original meaning of the word would be congregation, or assembly of people, which is waht I believe Jesus meant. The New Testament example of a church is always a local assembly There is not one reference in the New Testament of a church being established under the authority of a pope, prophet, cardinal or anyone else.

  • @rbound827 Matthew 16:18, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

  • @ChrisDaron That's Matthew 16:18 Where Jesus calls Peter the Petros (meaning small piece of rock), then He goes back to Himself and says, but on this Petra (meaning massive Rock) I will build my church on.

    The Real Church is built on Jesus the Rock. Not peter the small bebble.

    It is you catholics who do not understand, or do not want to understand the Truth of Matthew 16:18.

  • @Ammyai If Petros meant "Spaghetti", still Jesus is founding the Church on Peter. Don't get too confused.

    Well, Protestants have millions of denominations and Jesus wants ONE Church.

    We are ONE Church.... who doesn't understand who?

  • @ChrisDaron Ok the catholic church is founded by spaghetti. But Jesus know who His real church is.

  • @Ammyai Wrong again. Peter didn't found the Church. Jesus founded it ON HIM. Read the context. UNDERSTAND the context.

    His Church is the Catholic, the ONLY one that can be traced back there. The rest of the Protestant sects were born with Luther centuries later.... Seriously, how hard is it to comprehend that??? Protestants are quite stupid....

  • @ChrisDaron I'm not in disagreement there, I agree Peter didn't found the Church, it was Jesus Himself. And IMHO it is on Himself He also built it.

    There is NO apostolic succession that can be traced all the way back to Peter. There is a fabricated one, and if you need to believe in that lie, go ahead. You have the freedom to believe whatever you wish.

    I know the catholics murdered nearly all Real Christians, but I do not believe they completely managed to murder every single one.

  • @Ammyai The fact that Jesus built the Church on Peter doesn't mean that Peter or any of the successors are "the boss"... Jesus is. The Pope is who is in charge of the Church on Earth, but the Holy Spirit drives the Church. There is Apostolic succession. Look it up. History doesn't lie.

    And did you know that Catholics were killed during the Reformation? Yep. We were persecuted and killed just for not being Protestants...

  • @ChrisDaron Your statement that Jesus built the Church on Peter isn't a fact, it is a lie. the pope is only in charge of a false church here on earth.

    The apostolic succession was created by your clever Jesuit liars. It is not factual.

    Not very many catholics would have been killed during the reformation, but there's nothing in Christianity where it wouldn't allow us to defend ourselves. And no doubt some catholics were also killed by the greedy inquisitors to steal their possessions.

  • @Ammyai Funny thing is that it ISN'T MY fact.. it's Christ's.... go call HIM a liar, not me.

    Therefore, you're not Christian. Thanks for admitting that =)

    I assume that when Protestants killed Catholics during the reformation was OK, right? and Luther taking books away from the Bible was fine...

    Yeah... it's all good in the eyes of Satan for sure.

  • @ChrisDaron I'll never call Jesus a liar. Thank God you're not my judge ;-) I prefer someone with knowledge.

    Yes protestantants killing catholics in self defence has my approval. But not in any other circumstance. And Luther taking books away from the Bible was very very good, totally uninspired apocryphal books did NOT belong there at all. And they never will.

  • @Ammyai By saying that Jesus did not build His Church on Peter, you're calling Him a liar because it is in the Bible. I'm not judging you. I'm just saying what you're doing =)

  • @ChrisDaron Not at all. The case is that you have misunderstood the verse we have been discussing. the catoholics like to give their own spin so as to make out Peter was something special.... and he was, but he was never the pope.

    I do believe your first pope was Constantine in about 300 AD.

  • @Ammyai Constantine was never a pope, and he certainly wasn't the first pope. We have all sorts of historical evidence that shows that the papacy existed before 300 AD. For instance, Irenaeus listed all the popes from Peter to his time in the 3rd century.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18 That's funny, I personally never checked the whole list of popes, but another catholic claimed Constantine had been a very good pope. All I know that Peter was never a pope. He was the apostle to the Jews in Jerusalem. It was Paul who was the apostle to the gentiles and went to Rome.

    Could you please check your list of popes... I suspect youj will change your mind about Constantine?

  • @Ammyai You can find a thorough list of all the popes on New Advent (the website) or even wikipedia. You'll see that Constantine was never a pope yourself. Yes, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, but he was still the universal pastor to whom Jesus entrusted his flock (Jn 21:15-17). If you look at the early writings of Christians, you will find that Peter indeed went to Rome and joined Paul later on.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18 Wikipedia can be very good and useful, but don't trust your life to it ;-) You might well have written that page about the popes by yourself.

    Besides, if the Jesuits had now felt somehow ashamed of Constantine and if he doesn't suit their current plans and aspirations, they would have just scrathed his name out off the list and replaced it with more fiction.

  • @Ammyai Well that's why I provided a second source for you. New Advent has the exact same list as wikipedia. The New Advent list was given approval by the Vatican. If Constantine was ever a pope, they would have to do a lot more than just scratch a name off of a list. Thousands of historical documents will show that Constantine was never pope. Every historical account we have of the popes matches the list we have today.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18 Of course all the current catholic sources agree. You need to study more truthful documents.

    Before Constantine the position of the Bishop of Rome was a voluntary and honorary position. It carried no force of law, and there was no ecclesiastical law. It would take the backing of the Roman Emperor to turn the position of the Bishop of Rome into the Roman Catholic Papacy.

  • @Ammyai I didn't say all the current Catholic sources agree. I said all the ancient and medieval sources agree with what we know today. Constantine was never even a priest! Never a bishop! And never pope! Honestly, any history textbook will tell you this.

  • @Ammyai With all due respect, but who cares what you "do believe"? what you believe isn't what happened. History doesn't lie. Every Pope can be traced and it starts with Peter, whether you do believe it or not.

  • @ChrisDaron No problem, I'm just letting you people know that there is anothe view out there. You don't have to believe me, although it would behoove you to believe me. Perhaps one day you'll be able to do a little bit of unbiased research.

    History written by the Jesuits is untrue.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18

    Do you have a degree in philosophy? Your affinity for argument is excellent.

  • @dnaak Well, the script for this video is actually taken from a Catholic Answers article, which I credit in the beginning. But to answer your question, I am currently working towards a degree in philosophy.

  • Christ also refers to Himself and Peter as "we" in Matthew 17:26. Also, Christ goes on to say: "... take that and give it to them for me and thee." What a tremendous moment and it's an event that took place with no other person than Peter. This is why many papal encyclicals end disclosing the year of "Our Pontificate". Christ makes Himself one with the Church through Peter. Earth becomes the very echo of Heaven, and Heaven the echo of Earth.

  • Great presentation!

  • Peter had nothing whatsoever to do with the papacy, that antichrist system didn't even begin till 325.

    Jesus is the Rock the church is built on!

  • @Ammyai Wrong. We even know all of the popes' names and their yeas in office before 325, so that is a lie. Even the Eastern Orthodox (2nd largest Christian denomination) acknowledge that there has always been a successor to Peter since the beginning.

    Also, you didn't watch the video because I address your very argument about Jesus being the rock 6:28 into the video. Watch that and then respond to what I said.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18 Anyone can make a fake ancestry, or a fake line of popes.

    Peter was not a pope ever in his whole life. Neither was he rock the church is built on.

    That Rock is Jesus Himself.

    I did watch the entire video, I just didn't agree with what you were saying. You are wrong it's just that simple.

  • @Ammyai Fake? I'm talking about documents that no reputable scholar disputes are legitimate. Eusebius records in his Church History (before A.D. 325) information about popes in A.D. 175. Plus, many of the early Christian writers make it clear that they acknowledged Peter to be the first pope.

    The rock cannot be Jesus in Matthew 16:18 because "this rock" must refer to the nearest preceding antecedent, which is "Peter" in that verse. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus made a grammatical error.

  • the following scriptures refer to God as the rock: Deut.32:4, Deut.32:15, 1Samuel 2:2, 2Samuel 22:2 &3, 2samuel 22:32, Ps.18:2, Ps.18:31, Ps.28:1, Ps.31:2 & 3, Ps.42:9, Ps.62:7, Ps.78:35, Ps.92:15, Ps.94:22, Ps.71:3,The following scriptures refer to Jesus as the rock: *Num.20:10 &11, &1Cor.10:4,* Isaiah 8:14, Mat.16:18, Romans 9:33, 1Peter 2:8, happy to share. may our heavenly father reveal to us spiritual truth as he had done for Peter when no one else knew who Jesus was.Mat. 16:17

  • @kbelfort77 You obviously did not watch the video. Start watching from 6:28 onwards. I talk about other instances where Jesus or God are referred to as rock.

  • im a catholic christian, and i regularly attends bible teachings of christian protestant. for me, christian protestants are really good in the scriptures and bible interpretation. but i used them (protestant teachings) as supplements to my faith. but i already established my faith to Jesus Christ thru the Catholic Teachings and traditions.

  • i love how this video brakes it down so everyone can understand what is written and not what we feel it should mean, i love it when the truth is not only said but shown.

  • @ImagesByDavid

    Look, Catholic theology teaches that we are saved by the grace of God alone, and not by our works. I don't know why so many people miss that. Our works flow from His grace, not from our own merits.

    I never denied that other groups are being persecuted. I am just making it clear that we are right there with them.

    The Church is not wealthy at all, I'm sorry to tell you. The Vatican recently had to sell the rights to some of its art in order to maintain bills.

  • To the comment you just posted on my profile, I might add that you are employing some fallacious logic.

    Jesus, as you said, interacted with the sinners. Of course his Church is going to have problems, especially due to sin! The point is that the Church is supposed to heal these problems and sins. The Church gathers the people in and makes them better.

    Even the church leaders are not spared from the influence of Satan. No one is perfect. We must eject these wicked people from their places.

  • How prideful and foolish Catholics are to think this.

    You obviously do not know the nature of Jesus when He was on this Earth as a man.

  • @ImagesByDavid

    Please, help me understand what makes me so foolish? What is it that I do not understand, because from where I stand, this makes absolute sense.

  • SEARCH THE ROMAN EMPIRE RULES TODAY. warning if you are catholic, it could slightly change your perception on the organization.

  • Have YOU read the 95 Theses? (You spelled it wrong.) Luther does not talk about how the Church changed, he talks about how some corrupt priests were breaking the rules of the Church by selling indulgences among other violations of Catholic teaching. Luther was still very Catholic when he posted the theses on the door.

    I saw a little of The Roman Empire Rules Today and I have to say, much of it was simply erroneous and inaccurate. It has zero credibility.

  • way to point out my typo.... lol.. watcxh the entire 200 minutes of it. zero credibility, he gives so many mainstream and legit sources. your looking at christianity through the classes of catholicism. the 95 theses is all about church corruptions like preists authority to save your sins...(unbiblical) and the infalibility of the pope, (also unbiblical). that video series convinced me. but your blinded by tradition

  • I didn't mean to make fun of your typo, but I am concerned with the fact that you are calling me out for not reading the theses and yet you have obviously never read the title. I actually have read the theses.

    Actually, Martin Luther never criticized the teachings of the Church once in his theses. He was in fact criticizing some of the bad clergy for not following the teachings.

    I watched about five minutes of the video, and if the rest of the video has as many errors as that, then no thanks.

  • @SeptemberCatholic18

    When exactly did Jesus establish His church?

    What kind of man was Jesus? A man who took on the role that seemed he lived in poverty to a degree. He didnt have earthly riches or did He strive for it. Jesus was a man who would sit with tax collectors, the downtrodden like the beggars & the lepers.

    He would preach against the hypocrites in the Jewish church because it became a religion of traditions. He was not happy with those who would want to store their riches up.

  • @ImagesByDavid

    Jesus established his Church while he was still on earth. As he gathered disciples, he was formulating the early Church and planting seeds, much like his own parable.

    The Catholic Church goes to Africa and helps the poor and sick there. We are in China and North Korea being persecuted. We struggle in the Middle East where our churches are being burned and people shot.

    We are not wealthy. In fact, we are in a deficit. Rather, we are the largest charitable organization ever.

  • @gordonculp You have my typos and that "lol"... Type like an adult please. We're not in high school here.

  • @ChrisDaron @ChrisDaron primero que todo...no defiendo el protestantismo...personalmente no creo en ninguna iglesia basada en un CRISTO de dudosa existencia....semilla de division es ese Dios tuyo humano que te hace creer SUPEROIR a los demas...si yo soy ignorante...que te queda a ti, que aun cree en Santa Claus...

  • @leylaziza  Ah.. eres ateita?

  • @ChrisDaron

    No creer en TU Dios no me hace Atea.....y tu me llamas ignorante a mi??

  • @leylaziza Aunque TU no creas, Es TU DIOS. Y no te estoy llamando nada. No te me aceleres.

  • @ChrisDaron ....yo mas bien diria, el Dios en el cual creo es tambien el TUYO... y no esas imagenes de yeso que tu adoras ... Dios no tiene madre, ni discipulos , ni santos, ni caracteristicas ridiculamente humanizadas ...el politeismo, terrenalismo y sometimiento mental de tu religion, yo jamas compartire...tu Dios esta en TU CABEZA...cuando te desprendas de eso, vas a conocer al verdadero Dios.

  • @leylaziza Yo no adoro imágenes. No sabes NADA de religión y nomás criticas como animal. Tipico de la gente como tú.

    Y según tú, la "bella ateita", quién es el "verdadero dios"?

  • @ChrisDaron como animal??...el unico que actua como cordero,que sigue al rebaño sin cuestionar nada eres tu...y no hablo de ti "egocentrista", hablo de la mayoria de los catolicos adoradores de imagenes, adictos a la santeria...no se como sera tu fe catolica, pero lo que yo he vivido, es asi...yo tambien fui catolica...gracias a DIOS sus doctrinas no lograron dormirme todas las neuronas...y las tuyas...estan despiertas???..gracias por lo de bella...pero no soy ATEA

  • @leylaziza Por enésima vez: los católicos NO adoran imágenes. Si tú lo hacias, era TU problema.

    Si no eres ni Protestante ni atea.. entonces qué eres, amor?

  • @ChrisDaron la imagen a la que me refiero, es la imagen del Dios humano, Jesus...acaso no es a el a quien adoras?? tambien la imagen de una mujer, llamada virgen , como si la castidad fuera la virtud mas loable...es el rosario que usas, la cruz que llevas al pecho...rituales inanes que te pierden en la fe...yo no tengo religion,y no repito oraciones pre-establecidas como un LORO... ...yo solo creo en YHWH, por sobre todas las cosas...

  • @leylaziza Si niegas a Jesús, no puedes llegar a Yavé. Está en la misma Biblia, mi hermanita. María fue escogida entre las mujeres para traer consigo al Rey de reyes, al Hijo de Dios.

    Al menos rezas el Padre Nuestro? esa es la oración UNIVERSAL. El mismo Jesucristo la enseñó.

    De nuevo, si desprecias a Jesús, estás despreciando al Padre también. No se puede llegar al Padre si niegas al Hijo.

  • @ChrisDaron el catolicismo se ha encargado de ponerle esa burocracia politeista, a YHWH se llega sin secretarios (Jesus, Maria), ni santo y seña (Padre nuestro) Los romanos antes de ser catolicos adoraban a Jupiter, Mercurio, Venus,etc tu iglesia heredo el politeismo. El catolicismo es mucha faramalla y ritos, con ello trasciende en el tiempo,con su doctrina llena de santeria y paganismo. YHWH lo dijo debes amar a Dios por sobre todas las cosas...pero Uds. siempre anteponen a Jesus.

  • @leylaziza Jesús no tiene NADA qué ver con el paganismo. Tus creencias ya son algo bastante personales porque lo que dices no existe en la historia.

    No solamente los católicos, sino hasta los Protestantes "ponen" a Jesús, porque SIN EL NO LLEGAS AL PADRE. Está en la Biblia, como ya lo expliqué.

    No hay burocracias ni mucho menos. Si de verdad conocieras el catolicismo, te retractaras de cada palabra que haz puesto.

  • @ChrisDaron Mis creencias no son tan personales, mira el reportaje zeitgeist.

    La biblia es una gran contradiccion entre el antiguo y nuevo testamento, sin contar los apocrifos...no te parece que la religion Cristiana esta demasiado manipulada ? pone conceptos tan humanos en hechos tan divinos...PADRE, HIJO...? Dios es mucho mas que eso, pero mentes pequeñas no pueden entenderlo y lo terrenalizan ridiculamente yo no necesito llegar al "padre" a travez de un personaje...Dios esta dentro de mi.

  • @leylaziza Antiguo testamento= LA LEY DE MOISES.

    Nuevo testamento: La Ley de Jesús. Claro que no se parecen porque son diferentes, amiguita. Obvio.

  • @ChrisDaron me quiere decir que entonces que El padre y el hijo del que TU hablas....se contradicen y dictan leyes distintas? que no era que Dios y Jesus , segun tu politeista santa trinidad, era lo mismo?? mmm...interesante

  • @leylaziza No. No me estás entendiendo. La Ley de Moisés, era muy fuerte. Era la de "ojo por ojo, diente por diente". En el Nuevo Testamento, Jesús dice "Si te golpean una mejilla, ofrece la otra". Nada qué ver con "el Padre y el Hijo", porque Moisés no es el "Padre", me explico?

  • @ChrisDaron La ley de Moises fue transmitida a el, por el "PADRE" no? por lo tanto no es de la creacion de MOISES...me explico?

    por lo tanto, hay una contradiccion entre la palabra del Dios YHWH y la de Jesus, sigues creyendo que son el mismo ser? sigues creyendo al pie de la letra lo que dice la Biblia?

  • @leylaziza Dios, Jesús y el Espiritu Santo son la MISMA ENTIDAD. En la Biblia está, "Se oyó una voz de entre las nubes que decia 'este es mi Hijo. Escúchenlo;".

    La Biblia es el libro de la Vida. Cómo puedes seguir a Dios sin la Biblia o la Tradición? Nomás te dices "creer y tener a Yavé en tu corazón" y ya? No te parece un poco vacío?

  • @ChrisDaron Creer y tener fe en YHWH es un proceso, que nadie te dice ni enseña, pues cuando te DICEN y te ENSEÑAN te van llenando el cerebro de conceptos acomodativos para la Iglesia y asi te van alejando de la escencia de la verdadera fe, tu religion esta llena de protocolos la biblia, la virgen , jesus.. los santos...la biblia es un libro manipulado, mucha verdad y mucha mentira, no puedo basar mi fe en algo corrompido por el hombre...

  • @leylaziza La Biblia es el LIBRO inspirado en Dios. Jesús es el UNICO Hijo de Dios. Si no crees en ERl, no llegas al Padre. Asi de sencillo.

  • @ChrisDaron no llegare al padre...?? porque TU lo dices??, sabias que la soberbia es un pecado? los catolicos viven de ese antivalor, sentirse siempre superiores a otros les alimenta el ego, su iglesia Romana se lo heredo ...pero no te preocupes Dios entiende la egolatria del hombre...yo no se cuantos personajes y rituales necesitas TU para llegar a Dios...yo no necesito LLEGAR, porque es parte de mi...

  • @leylaziza  Lo dice la PALABRA DE DIOS, mi vida.

  • no jesus is not a liar.. catholism NOW is not the same christian church that jesus sttarted.. have u not read the 95 thesis..? the catholic church is a STAGE. for the public.. even if peter was chosen to be the leader of the apostles, the bible doesn't mention a continuous succesion of infallible popes, who think they are jesus on earth. i suggest you look up roman catholic church rules today. you are blinded.

  • Show me one point of doctrine that has been contradicted over time. Please, try me.

    And yes, Acts 1:20 says that when an office of the Church is vacated, another should take it. Matthew 16:18-19 assigns the office to Peter, alluding to Isaiah 22:22, suggesting that this is an office of a prime minister or steward.

    The prime minister or steward of Isaiah 22:22 represented the Davidic king in his absence. In the New Testament, the pope represents Christ in his absence until he returns in glory.

  • Thats your opinion

  • No, it is pretty clear. Are you saying that it is an amazing coincidence that both Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 have elements of keys, binding/closing, and loosing/opening?

    Any honest person would admit that these two passages are paralleled in order to convey the fact that Jesus was conferring an office upon Peter alone; a stewardship of the new House of David.

  • perhaps in the first and second century, but when Constantine (the first papal caesar) combined the state and religion for obvious political reasons the church was combined with pagan beleifs. the pope is a bishop, nothing more, where in the bible does it say that the Bishop of ROME is the head of the church.

  • @gordonculp: by reading the lives of the first generation martyrs it is so of easy to see that the catholic church is the church that Jesus started. Also peter was chosen to be the leader of the apostles since he was given the title of Rock. Thats why he is called Peter. Peter chose for his successor Clement or Linus. Both of which were consecrated by Peter.

  • Matthew 16: 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

    So, Peter is also satan? No.

    Is it Peter the rock? No, Jesus is the Rock.

  • I have never understood this argument. What is your point here? That because Peter sinned he cannot be pope? Plus, Peter was not even pope until after Jesus ascended into heaven.

    Of course Jesus is the Rock. However, no honest person can deny that Peter is identified as a rock in Matthew 16:18. This video makes that very clear, and only the stubborn would deny it.

  • Isaiah 21:9 (New International Version) 9 Look, here comes a man in a chariot with a team of horses. And he gives back the answer: 'Babylon has fallen, has fallen! All the images of its gods lie shattered on the ground!' "

  • I'm sorry but Christ built His church on Himself. He is the chief cornerstone. He built it on Petra not Petros.

  • I already addressed this poor argument in the video at 6:27 through to 9:48.

  • @johnthreesixteen,

    Will you ever learn the truth?

    Jesus did build His Church on the Petra (Jesus used Kepha) who is the person Petros (Jesus also used Kepha). Petros is the petra due to gender issues in Koine Greek. The original Aramaic Jesus spoke to His Apostles was more clear and easy to understand.

    The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles, Christ is the cornerstone from which all things are measured, and Jesus established Rock (Kepha) as the Rock (Kepha) of the Church.

  • @johnthreesixteen,

    While Rock (Peter) is the Rock of the Church, you're thinking is one of a simple-minded bonehead outside the Church.

    If you knew anything at all about (Koine) Greek in the time of the Apostles, you would know that petros and petras meant the same exact thing, but address masculine and feminine appropriateness. Pebble is lithos.

    You're a bonehead, and not in the true Church. God loves you anyway, but please stop being such a bonehead about God.

  • Christ is the Rock. All of us including Peter are pebbles.

  • I already addressed this poor argument in the video at 6:27 through to 9:48.

  • Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." There are many claimants to the honor of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther; another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc. But the Catholic Church alone can possibly claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome.

  • It is Jesus Christ Himself Who gave Simon Bar-Jonah, the fisherman, this unique place among His twelve Apostles. The most obvious place to begin is Simon's name, which Jesus changed. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, "And I say to you [Simon], you are Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

  • The unfailing Church of Jesus Christ, in other words, is built upon Simon the Rock - Peter. Like the Patriarchs Abram/Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 32:28), Simon/Peter received a new identity from the Lord.

  • @johnthreesixteen316,

    Perhaps if you got the pebbles out of your head, you could understand the true Rock of the Church Jesus established. Kepha is the Kepha of the Church because of Christ. Peter could never do this on his own, as we see how poorly he did on his own, even though Peter obviously had a great love for Jesus. When Peter received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he converted 3,000 to the Catholic faith that day. He was able to fulfill his mission for which Jesus named him ROCK.

  • Read Early Christian Writings. 1st century Christians and see what they believe john

  • lets just say that peter was the first pope, and the catholic church was the true church. It certainly isn't the same church as christs. its a developed church.

  • @gordonculp,

    Jesus intended His Church to grow and fulfill her worldwide mission to be a blessing to all people. The Catholic Church today has the exact same "DNA" as existed at Pentecost. It has grown so that today we have hundreds of Bishops and thousands of priests instead of 12 Bishops as it started. This was the design from the start. Jesus' one Bride is built on the same deposit of faith that Jesus left with His Apostles, and the Holy Spirit has guided Jesus' Church to all truth.

  • Excellent video! Thank you so much Sergio (great name in Spanish), for this great video!

    Que Dios te bendiga.

    Con mucho cariño

    Sandy

  • Thank you. Glad to hear people are benefiting from my videos. Thanks about my name. My family is Mexican and I received it from my father (he is also Sergio).

  • @SeptemberCatholic18, I too am Mexican! :-)

  • Asi que hablas Español...y debes rezarle a tu virgen de Guadalupe...tu religion politeista y criminal es tan falsa como Judas...y lo peor es su arrogancia al creerse los poseedores de la verdad...

  • @leylaziza La peor y más asquerosa arrogancia es el Protestantismo... semilla de la división, y semilla del anti-cristianismo.

    Eres IGNORANTE hasta en tu forma de escribir...

  • Comment removed

  • @SeptemberCatholic18, just as I cannot tell that you are Mexican just by your speech, you would not be able to tell that I am Mexican. I mainly speak Engish with NO accent at all. But I am proud to be of Mexican descent.

    La Paz de Cristo

    Sandy

  • What a wonderful video! Some Christians want to be their own pope and are envious of Peter because our Lord chose him and not them. So they take their ball and go home. "I'm not gonna play! Long live Rocky!...oh yeah...

  • @Ephesians61024 Yes, I agree with you. As an ex-catholic I understand both sides. Christ saved me out of the Roman Catholic lie years ago. As a Catholic, I was indoctrinated with the RCC gospel long before I looked into it myself. Then, whenever I would look into the Bible myself I could only see through the Roman Catholic 'glasses' if you know what I mean. The only way for Catholics to see the truth is if they sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to give them understanding.

  • My brother, the Catholic Church only speak the truth in every area. Not ONE doctrine cannot be backed up by Scripture. Also, history supports the Church. If your beliefs were really held by Christians since the time of Christ, shouldn't we see record of this?

    No, we see no record of your beliefs, but the beliefs of the Catholic Church are well documented all the way back until the time of Christ. Remember, "the pillar and ground of truth [is] the Church." -1 Tim 3:15

  • @johnthreesixteen316,

    You are a liar, because you don't understand Catholicism whatsoever. You understand what you think about Catholicism, but we've shown you time and again that you are off base. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and those who obediently follow Jesus by listening to His one Church.

    You reject Christ and the Holy Spirit by rejecting those Christ sent to continue His mission, who are today the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope.

  • @john,

    Christ didn't take you out of His Church.

    Satan took you out of God's one Church, where you have been spoon fed lies and you've swallowed the lies and digested them and they're part of you now.

    God can save you, of course, but not if you prefer Satan's lies to His Truth.

  • @johnthreesixteen316 So Protestantism saved you? 

  • The original Biblical text does not say "you are Peter," it says "you are PETROS and upon this PETRA I shall build my church." Petros is a grain of sand and Petra is a massive mountain. Christ built His church upon Himself.

  • @john,

    You're wrong again. The book of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. Even more, Jesus spoke in Aramaic to His Apostles, not Greek.

    So, if you really want to go to the original words, Jesus changes Simon's name to Kepha and tells His Apostles that He will build His Church on this Kepha who He has just named Kepha (ROCK). Jesus continues by giving authority in Jesus' Kingdom to Kepha alone, and no other Apostle. It's very clear to those who seek truth about the Truth.

  • Amen!!

  • oh wow.. more catholic rubbish. look up history, constantine started the catholic church, whith his infamous "vision"

  • If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then why do we have documents which refer to the very same Church prior to Constantine's reign?

    For instance, in 105 A.D. we have Ignatius of Antioch mention the Catholic Church. In 155 A.D. Polycarp mentions it In 180 A.D. Irenaeus mentions it. In 200 A.D. Tertullian mentions it. In 254 A.D. Cyprian mentions it.

    So it seems the only "rubbish" around here is coming from you. As an American, can I also call it putrid trash as well?

  • @SeptemberCatholic18 The Greek word katholikos means "general" or "universal". after John died. in 101 A.D. the paganism was combine with christianity. there absolutely no historical evidence of Peter being the first pope. the Official and historical catholic was started by constantine.

  • Haha, what a joke. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the Apostle John. He was by no means involved with paganism. He was definitely Catholic because he called anyone who doesn't believe in the Eucharist a heretic.

    Further, we do indeed have evidence that Peter was the first pope, both biblical and extra-biblical. I have made many videos proving this to be true.

    Wanna talk about a lack of evidence? There is NO evidence that the doctrines of Protestants existed prior to the 15th century.

  • @gordonculp, a better more accurate translation for "Catholic" is "on the whole." The Catholic Church is one WHOLE and not from any piece broken off the WHOLE as in Protestants are peices broken off the WHOLE of the Catholic Church. That is why Protestants have thousands of "denominations" where as the Catholic Church is NOT a denomination because it is the WHOLE.

  • @1Hope4All In addition, 1Hope4All, many people consider the Catholic Church as a "denomination" when it's actually THE CHURCH.

  • gordon,

    Then you're calling Jesus a liar. If the words of Christ are not enough for you, then where do you go? No one else has the words of eternal life. Since you reject those Jesus sent to teach, you then reject Christ.

    You can't have it your way, and the truthful way at the same time. You have to align yourself with the Truth, who you currently reject the teachings of.

    Repent and come to Christ, as taught faithfully and without error ONLY in Jesus' Catholic Church.

  • @gordonculp Constantine was not Jesus, dude.

  • You are petros ( a small pebble ) and upon this petra ( a huge boulder ) I shall build my church. Clearly Christ was refering to Himself as the Rock upon which the church would be built. Christ ( God ) was our source for salvation, not Peter or any other man.

  • Actually, that distinction is only made in Attic Greek. The New Testament is written in Koine Greek, where petros and petra both simply mean rock. Further, the Koine Greek word for little pebble is "lithos."

    Even further, the distinction in words is due solely to the fact that "rock" in Greek is a feminine word and Peter is a male person, so there must be a gender variance in the nounb ending.

    For example, in Spanish (I am Mexican), rock is "piedra" and the male name for rock is "Pedro."

  • @john,

    Christ is our source of salvation. The simple-minded think that having Peter as Pope changes that, when in reality it strengthens our ability to know the truth about our Savior.

    If Jesus is truly your Savior, then you need to let Him save you the way He established, and not any old way you want instead.

  • @johnthreesixteen316  Dude... read your own sentence again.. you make sound Jesus as if he would have been bipolar..

  • SeptemberCatholic18 - how do you put up with all this anti-Catholic bigotry? The overly simplistic (and therefore completely incorrect) replies from the likes of paulfbest, DerektheDuctTape, and barhebreus leads me to conclude that they have been completely brainwashed by anti-Catholic rhetoric. I mean, they don't even know how to understand basic Scriptural text. Is there any hope for them?

  • God extends hope to everyone. However, for some, I reach a point in which I realize that dialogue can no longer accomplish much, so I resort to merely praying for them. Ideally, we should always include praying in our dialogues.

    I think I go insane more and more each day as a result of having to respond to so much anti-Catholicism. But for the most part I'm pretty good at keeping my cool and responding in a scholarly fashion.

    Sadly, the users you mentioned are not as bad as many I've seen.

  • SeptemberCatholic18 - May our loving God Jesus Christ, with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, bless you in your minstries. I guess when we have to put up with a lot of anti-Catholic hostility, we just have to remember Jesus' words "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets."

  • Amen. And May the Lord be with you and with your spirit.

  • Petrus, kepha, kepha means rock in aramaic, rock means that petrus was obstinate. In aramaic we say his head is like a rock, wich means that the guy is obstinate.

  • That makes absolutely no sense. Why would Christ say:

    "You are obstinate, and upon this rock I will build my church..."

    It makes more sense that Jesus meant "kepha" or "petros" as in a literal rock. Thus:

    "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church..."

  • God is the Rock, Jesus is God, so Jesus is the Rock.

  • No arguments there. However, in the case of Matthew 16:18, it is very clear that Peter was being referred to as a rock. For goodness sakes, his name means rock in Greek (Petros).

  • @Derek,

    Jesus is the Light of the World. Yet, Scriptures say that we are the light of the world. How do you reconcile this, and yet stay with your faulty logic about the Rock of the Church.

    Peter is Rock of the Church because Jesus established this office. Peter is only able to be Rock of the Church because of Christ, who is the ultimate Rock. Just as we are fathers or healers sharing in God's Fatherhood and Healing, Rock of the Church shares in Jesus' being the ultimate Rock.

  • this video is all lies.

    Peter has nothing to do with the filhy evil catholic system

    God will destroy this roman institution.

    The catholic institution murdered thousands of good souls past 1600 yrs.

  • This video heavily uses Scripture to prove all claims. If you say that the video is wrong, then you must oppose Scripture as well.

  • the catholic institution is the old roman empire.

    she has no relation whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ

    Christ has no relationship at all with the Vatican.

    NONE

    ZERO

  • Strong words. Unfortunately they mean nothing unless backed by Holy Scripture. Once again, this video referenced the Bible several times to make its claims; if you disagree, you must argue why and use Scripture.

  • Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...' Tertullian

    And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail... Origen

    And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built... Eusebius

    ...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church. Aphraates

  • It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? Cyprian

  • petros mean small rock and petra mean large rock. Christ said he will build it on the petra (large mass of rock)! big difference can you buil, you hous a pebble or a large mass of rock.

  • You are talking about Attic Greek. The Gospel of Matthew was written in Koine Greek, where no such distinction exists between those two words.

    Further, the only reason "Petros" is used for Peter is because it is the masculine form of the word for rock ("petra"). It would have been inappropriate to call Peter "Petra" or for a rock to be called "petros." Your argument demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge in Greek and noun gender.

  • the church is pillar of truth because it is build on christ. Eph2:20 Christ the chief corner stone, the foundation on which the church is build.. No sinful man can take that place.. Is 22:21,22 refers to Jesus. If king Government given to you, that makes you king. Is9:6 the government is christ shoulders. Once again the church is buil on peter(petros); the very same passage the gates of prevail against him.Matt16:23 Jesus said to peter, Get thee behind me Satan....

  • 2tim3:16-17 The Church have no right to change the word of God, like what popery is doing. By the way the Catholic church says it is above the bible.

  • ........ Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. — James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 edition), p. 72-73 (16th Edition, p 111; 88th Edition, p. 89).

  • The Church is above the Bible; and this transference of Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday is proof positive of that fact. (The Catholic Record, Sept.1, 1923). According the RCC, the church is above the bible. That is Satanic, shame on RCC system. Come out of Her and be not partakers of her sin

  • You did not quote any official Church documents. Newspapers and publishers can fall into error. Therefore, unless you quote councils or papal decrees, your quotes are useless. The Church does not say that it is superior to the Word of God.

    The Sabbath was made not binding after Jesus died. The Church simply restored the Day of the Lord to Sunday in honor of the Resurrection.

    Of course the Church is built on Christ. The pope is not the primary foundation, but he is certainly the earthly head.

  • (...continued...)

    Even if Peter was a sinner, that does not mean he could not be pope. Even popes can sin, you know.

    Lastly, you must stop being so ridiculous. Isaiah 22:22 CANNOT be referring to Jesus because Jesus is the KING and not the steward. You continue to ignore this fact, and I cannot take you seriously as long as you keep doing this.

  • Years after Jesus death, his followers keep sabbath acts 13,acts 15:21 act18:4.. Hebrews4:4,8 if Jesus given them rest , then would he not afterward spoken of another day.

  • And sunday is not the Lords day see Is58:13, mark2:28. It is sabbath, the commandments express the character of God Ex34:5-7 and God does not change Mal3:6,He13:8. God righteouness is everlasting and his commandments is righteousness ps 119:172,142.. Jesus said, i come not to destroy the law or the prophets but fulfill.Mat 5:17

  • God does not change nothing that comes out of his lips ps89:34; The ten cammandments come from his lips Deu10:4.. That is trick of the devil thinking that God change his law and if was to change one, he would have to change all james 2:10.God bless

  • The Sabbath was only kept in the New Testament so that they would not upset the Jews. It was not actually part of the New Covenant, and Paul even suggests so in Colossians 2:1617.

    Jesus did not destroy the Sabbath; he satisfied its requirements; he IS the Sabbath. Besides, the Catholic Church worships every day of the year; not just one day out of the week. Sunday is merely required, but daily Mass is strongly urged.

  • The same Paul said in Hebrew4:8;Seven books later, If Jesus have given them rest,then would he not spoken of another day. Give me one text from the Bible where Jesus make mention that we should keep another? You will not find an ink.He also said, vers 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. And the only rest that was mentioned in the entire passage was the 7th day Sabbath, verse 4..God bless

  • You must make the bible define the bible Is28:10, And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.' (Luke 1:6) Here we can see that the commandments and the ordinances are 2 separate entities. In God's sanctuary we know that the tablets, on which God had written (with His finger) the 10 commandments, were kept inside the Ark of the Covenant and that the ordinances (laws written down by Moses from God) were placed to the side of the

  • ark (symbolically showing their subordinance to God's law). The text says 'Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.' (Col 2:14)

  • So clearly the ordinances (handwritten by Moses) have been done away with, but certainly not the 10 commandments (the laws). I can't see anyone accepting the idea that 'it's now ok to sleep around and it's ok to murder! The commandments have been done away with!' That would be ludicrous.

  • But the Sabbath is always casually disregarded, although it's God's central command, the longest command and the only command that tells us that the 10 Commandments are from the Creator God. This never ceases to amaze me. If we continue on from verse 14 and then head down to 16, we can see that the text 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days'

  • No, you are confused. Jesus fulfilled the LAW. This would include the Sabbath. He did not get rid of the moral laws however (which you mentioned are still here). However, the Sabbath is part of the Mosaic Law, not the moral law.

    Paul says in Colossians 2:16-17, "Let NO man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the SABBATH DAYS: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.."

  • Where in the ten commandments you see sabbath days or holy days or new moons,or meet or in drink? This is talking about the mosaic laws thank you, not the Sabbath of Lord see Lev23:33-39. Vers 38 clearly states, beside the Sabbaths of the Lord. The Sabbath of the moral law was written with the finger of God Ex31:18. The Sabbath days of col2:14-17, was written with hand of Moses which was against the ppl, compare deu31:24-26. Like we see God would not change his righteousness Ps119:142,172

  • You are making distinctions where they do not exist. The Sabbath day is the Sabbath day. It is also a holy day, which you are judging me on. Paul commanded against what you are doing, and I will not stand for it.

    Besides, Catholics worship on every day of the year. The only difference is that we at least insist that we come on Sunday, but worship on all days is strongly urged. I often go to Saturday Mass along with many others.