Absence of Papal Office in Romans and 1 Corinthians

[Zechariah46]

Great video Keith! Thank you and God bless you for speaking the truth.

[Archangel777Catholic]

@KeithTruth Matthew 16 most certainly does prove it. "On this rock, I will build MY [Christ's one and only] Church." How much easier can it possibly get?

I see no refutation of the verse from John and so you have in effect done nothing.

But I will allow it AS LONG AS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR POSITION BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Can you? I seriously doubt it.

[KeithTruth]

@Archangel777Catholic "On this rock I will build my church" means Jesus will use Peter as a rock to build/expand/grow (oikodomeō) his early church by way of Peter's evangelism and gospel ministry. That does not prove papalism so take off your rome colored glasses. All apostles are rocks/foundations Christ uses for the growth of His church (Eph. 2:20). You go down and look at my answer to John 21 against that other papist and then try to refute it or you get the ban.

[danwazhere7]

the pope is nothing more then a catholic invention same as other catholic ideas.

[freepress666]

the popes claimed the treasury of heaven for themselves to run, as if god contracted with them, until you claim your inheritance your considered dead and have abandon it, nobody has challenged their claim ever, they control the planet through deception, and claim deed to all even you. there is only 3 sovereign states vatican city, the crown city, Washington dc city. no others at all. 1 region 2 money 3 police, more people have been killed in the name of religion than all the was put together

[TheSpiritofwolf]

jesus keep you safe keith ..i watch all your video on you tube ..chat to you soon

[mythmanjay]

Paul was just advising followers in the hierarchy of trust (i.e. if a tongue-speaker disagrees with an apostle, the apostle's probably right.) Merely organizing followers in their journey to the Truth and Light. I think of the mantra that "God is no respecter of person," that we're just as much his children whether we're rich or poor.

[OCCatholic]

Sorry but the office was known to St. Paul.

Paul singles out St. Peter many times calling him by the name Jesus gave to him "Cephas" (The Rock).

Jesus gave only Peter total authority of Jesus' followers (John 21:15-17)

Peter was the voice of both Jew and Gentile (Acts 2:14, Acts 15:7)

Only Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom (Mat 16:19)

Acts 2:14 it is Peter that addresses the crowd at Penecost.

Acts 1:15 it is Peter who addresses the 120 followers

Acts 5:3 Ananias reports to Peter.

[KeithTruth]

@OCCatholic Those show salvation historical primacy, not a papal primacy with successors. Says nothing of Rome or its Bishop's office. Says nothing of universal jurisdiction with respect to ex cathedra statements or ratifying councils. Yes Peter is the first rock Jesus used to build/expand/grow his church by way of Peter's evangelism, but showing Peter is called the rock doesn't show Paul believed he was supreme shepherd. Paul says all apostles are the rocks/foundations Eph 2:19-20

[OCCatholic]

@KeithTruth There is no doubt that there is Apostolic succession, Peter's office being succeeded.

You seem to believe nothing else happened in the Christian world unless the bible says it happened.

The Church carried on and does to this day. Every Pope is a successor to St. Peter and not the previous Pope.

Sorry but your fallible interpretation of Ephesians says nothing of the sort.

Jesus always singled out St. Peter as the leader.

[KeithTruth]

@OCCatholic You say Peter was given total authority in Jn 21:15-17? That is falsehood. Peter was being brought back up the the level of the apostles who didn't deny Jesus since he just denied Christ 3 times. The elders in Acts 20:28 are told to feed and shepherd the sheep - same Greek word Jesus used in his Jn 21:15-17 exhortation to Peter. So this was the common thing church leaders did.

[OCCatholic]

@KeithTruth Again, your fallible interpretation of Acts means nothing to anyone but you.

"same greek word" unless you are fluent in Ancient Greek, you really have nothing to say on the matter. I have friends in the Greek Orthodox Church who do read, write and speak Ancient and Modern Greek fluently,maybe you need to stick to English?

Back to Acts 20:28, there is a huge difference between "watching" the flockin Acts 20:28 & Feeding & tending the flock as Peter is commanded to do.

[KeithTruth]

@OCCatholic You can't say my interpretation of Acts is wrong because your alleged infallible authority isn't doing its job to tell you the right interpretation. Second, you don't need to be fluent in Koine Greek to know poimainō (feed) is used in Jn 21:15-17 as well as in Acts 20:28 of the Ephesians elders. You say there is a difference between watching and feeding? Maybe in some English translations. The same Greek word is used. Everyone knows that.

[Archangel777Catholic]

@KeithTruth Perhaps that is true, no Catholic would deny it. The papal position was not as obvious or pronounced to the commoner for some time. However, as St. Paul addresses St. Peter as a leader multiple times and later Bishops of Rome (Popes) understand St. Peter's position and theirs, it is obvious that such a position still existed and was well known to the other Catholic bishops and priests of the time.

[KeithTruth]

@Archangel777Catholic How does one go from Peter being a leader among a few men to being sovereign over the world? When did Paul say Peter had universal and unique jurisdiction over every believer? Later bishops of Rome sure did claim to possess Peter's power and station, but that developed. In the primitive church the Roman bishops did not believe Peter had a unique authoritative office which they held replete with infallibility and universal religious sovereignty.

[Archangel777Catholic]

@KeithTruth I said that that may be true in the early days of the Church if you read my comment a little closer. Not everybody knew about St. Peter's true position but in Scripture, we see Christ give him and no other authority:

Matthew 16: 17-19

John 21:15-18

Besides, even supposing that the papal office did not exist at all then (though we both know that it did), it still manages to lead the Church well and clearly has allowed the Church to continue teaching Christ's TRUE message.

[AchillesShield]

@Archangel777Catholic Even if Peter was the rock upon which Jesus built His church there is absolutely no mention of SUCCESSORS. And even if the text implied it, why was this not obvious to Augustine in the 4th century? 'Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? You are the Christ the Son of the living God’ (Sermon 229). If the bishops of Rome were the rulers of the universal church they sure kept it to themselves!

[jumbaljoe]

@KeithTruth No you were soundly refuted. There has been an unbroken like of Popes since the days of Peter.

Here is a Protestant scholar:

"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant" -- Cardinal John Newman Protestant convert to Catholicism

And FYI John Calvin venerated Mary, Prayed the Rosary and believed her to be ever virgin.....so Did Martin Luther.

Good luck with your picking and choosing.

[KeithTruth]

@jumbaljoe Here is your Catholic scholar addressing this alleged unbroken line of pope's proving there was no singular Roman Bishop before 150: "In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.” Joseph Kelly, TCDEC, p. 6

[KeithTruth]

@jumbaljoe Newman got refuted by many real Protestant scholars. He was a leaky anglican who was never truly saved. And if you want to quote coverts I can quote Webster, Bennett, Guette, Zins and many others saying romanism is neither Biblical nor historical. So that's a poor argument.

[msm1876]

@KeithTruth >>>If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians...he or she would certainly have said no.”

Don't you LOVE using these Catholic Scholars...many who have books with Impramaters on them...as hostile witnesses against self appointed epologists who try to actually pretend that the papacy is this ancient institution?

[KeithTruth]

@OCCatholicPeter addresses 120 followers? That shows he was prominent. But it doesn't begin to show papal primacy which means Peter had universal jurisdiction over every believer on issues of faith or morals. You say he was given the keys of the kingdom? Yes he was. He unlocked the door of faith for the gentiles for the first time through his ministry and preaching (Acts 15:7). But what has this to do with Rome, her bishops or primacy. You think things prove your view when they don't

[KeithTruth]

@OCCatholic Lastly, my question to you regarding John 21:15-17 is that if Peter were here, as you claim, being given "total authority of Jesus' followers" why was Peter grieved and still saddened? Obviously Peter saw no authority endowment happening and thus he remained saddened and grieved through out the conversation. He was not happy and feeling blessed as one would expect had he thought he was being granted authority as leading shepherd of the church. Your eisegesis is wrong.

[realdontknowfake]

@KeithTruth can u explain a lil more

[realdontknowfake]

@KeithTruth i saw a couple vids that state there where 2 churches in Rome the one church who where true to the doctrine and where the one that Paul wanted to see then the other Church who added the pope and merged the pagan doctrines to Christianity is that true??? and was peter affiliated to the one that was corrupted ??????

[KeithTruth]

@realdontknowfake Didn't exist.

[greghar2003]

I just heard a youtube video yesterday which declared something to this effect and further elaborated stating Peter working with the Jews which hunted Paul, combined their efforts to have Paul killed?! That's really shocking and don't know what to think about it, however your presentation seems to confirm that to some degree. None the less, I'm still somewhat confused and disappointed. Thanks for the upload.

[KeithTruth]

@greghar2003 No that is false. Peter never worked with any Jews who wanted to kill Paul. Peter and Paul worked together. I document this in the paper for my film "The Historical Case for Paul: A Critique of Muslim Arguments" I don't see how this presentation confirms that. In fact, whoever was saying that about Peter is a heretic.

[greghar2003]

@KeithTruth Ah, thanks for your response! That does help me feel better. I've heard of your film "The Historical Case for Paul: A Critique of Muslim Arguments". I look forward to watching it.

[KeithTruth]

@greghar2003 No problem glad to help.

[greghar2003]

@KeithTruth God Bless!

[fivepointbaptist]

Don't you know that Roman Catholics don't need scripture. LOL

[KeithTruth]

@fivepointbaptist true