Look at what happens to the church of Christ when there is no pope people just go off and do what ever they feel like, that is why their are 33000 different Churches in the world. Look at history the big brother bishop was always in Rome. I Bet Muslims are rubbing their hands together divide and rule? I think we should all grow up.
@3Michael82 After the New Testament was written we find no word from Rome until Victor decides to excommunicate Christians who did not obsere Easter when he did. Irenaeus had to rebuke him. Read Robert Eno "Rise of the Papacy" who was a theologian church historian at Catholic University.
I wonder if a knowledge of the original languages would help you. I'm not saying you're wrong but that working from an English translation is probably not the best idea.
Learning Hebrew and Greek would not be easy but might be necessary for a true understanding.
im glad you waste your life picking apart garbage written thousands of years ago. im so impressed with gods ability to reach out to mankind and have us worship him and have us make sacrifices while we are alive so we will be happy when we die?the whole idea of heaven and hell seems like a threat, not a promise.
maybe you are a former catholic who is now atheist, and i can understand why, e.g. the house of Mary in Ephesus was miraculously transported to Loreto, Italy?
It seems like if there is no heaven nor hell, then Gandhi and Mother Teresa, or anyone who does great things, gets the same fate as Hitler or Stalin. Does this work for you?
Why are you so angry? calm down. If you don't believe in any of this old text then there would be no need for resentment. We analyze the heck out of Jane Austen knowing fully well her writings were fiction but we enjoy learning from her because she is reflecting the standards on women of that time. The bible even if it were all false is a reflection of history. It bares relevence and significance regardless of its plausibility.
why would cornelius fall at Peter's feet if he was not so important? why did Jesus give Peter the keys of the Kingdom? Why the power to bind and loose? why the injunction to strengthen his brethren? to feed the lambs and sheep? why Peter alone?Why did Paul feel the need to go to Jerusalem to see Peter on the admission of the gentiles? what is the testimony of the early Church fathers? the acceptance of the papal claims by all the Church until the reformation? You are being
2. Cf Isaiah 22 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts"
3. Binding and loosing are Rabbinical terms for authoritative teaching and imposing/lifting excommunication, in Mat 18:18 the context seems to be excommunication.
5. What's significant is that Peter was made responsible over Jesus' flock. The symbol of feeding sheep is significant.
If Peter was to be the head of the church, why is there no reference to this fundamental truth after Matthew 16??? Neither Paul, nor James in Jerusalem, nor Peter himself had any awareness of his being head.
8. Pope St Clement of Rome (96 Ad) and the controversy in Corinth, Pope Victor and the Easter Controversy, and Pope Stephen and Cyprian all reflect Rome's self consciousness of being responsible for the flock of Christ.
Perhaps this identity as the church of the capital of Rome gave this church a false sense of superiority that gave rise to the papacy; Diotrephes assumed false leadership.
Or perhaps these early successors of Peter, many of whom knew him personally, had the correct understanding of the Keys, binding and loosening, Simon as Kephas, and feeding the sheep of Christ. Not even the Eastern Fathers denied the primacy of Rome, and it was not because Rome was the ancient Capitol, but because the Prince of Apostles resided there.
Where in scripture is Peter referred to as Prince of apostles?? All the places in scripture where one would expect a reference to Peter or to an earthly office of head of the church, it is absent. Where do the Eastern Fathers see Peter or Rome as having primacy? Even if true, it would not be enough.
I don't understand why clear references to authority aren't enough. Cf Isaiah 22, the Keys are symbols of authority, only one person holds them. Binding and loosening are Rabbinical terms for authoritative doctrine and imposing or lifting excommunications. Aren't you amazed that Jesus said what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and not the other way around? How can all this be discarded for a vague statement like Peter is "important?" Did his importance bear no authority?
Jesus said whatever you bind on earth "shall have been bound" in heaven. Either the apostles (Peter) were guided into truth or they invented truth; you can't have it both ways. Peter had no unique authority as head of the church or this would have been played out in scripture as a fundamental court of appeal in matters of dispute, yet it is completely absent.
The KJV, ESV, NIV all say, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." It's an interesting variant of translation, I don't think these Protestant versions would use a translation that leans towards the interpretation used by Catholics. As for Peter, his unique authority is symbolized by the Keys, if he didn't have to exercise his primacy explicitly we should consider that a good thing, it means conflicts were resolved before having to appeal to a supreme authority.
Actually, there was a major dispute that was discussed at Jerusalem in Acts 15 regarding circumcision. The one presiding was not Peter but James: "When they finished, James spoke up: 'Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to....' "
The idea of circumsision is ridiculous anyway. If God wanted to identify them as his chosen people, he could have done it in a way that would have been obvious without a guy pulling down his pants and displaying his genitalia. Even so it shouldn't have been necessary for them to do it themselves. God didn't create them perfectly the first time, in his own image? Body modification shouldn't be necessary.
The future perfect is correct "shall have been bound," and this fits other scripture that says the Holy Spirit informs the apostles what truth to communicate, not the other way around.
The central issue is this: if Peter was the head of the church on earth, why does neither he nor any NT writer refer to him as such, although Christ is certainly referred to as the head of the church. Without Peter's headship stated in scripture, the concept of papacy is without divine authority and is based on a gradual development of human orign.
Isn't the earthly "headship" of Peter revealed in the changing of Simon's name (a significant event in itself,) building the Church on him, giving him the keys (symbols of authority cf isaiah 22), the power to bind and loosen (Rabbinical terms), and the transferring of Jesus' flock to Peter in the summation of John's gospel? Is there a better case for supreme authority than Peter?
Again, these factors show an important role indeed for Peter but not head of the church on earth. Such an important role as head would have been referred to at least once in scripture after Matt.16 if this was the intended meaning. A reality check must reject such a view.
Transferred flock to Peter? No. Again if so, where is there any recognition of such an important role by Peter, Paul, or James???
A doctrine doesn't have to be said numerous times to be true, consider the doctrine of the Trinity. How often does God reveal that He is one Being in Three Persons?
In most lists of Apostles Peter is mentioned first. He is the most vocal Apostle in the NT and Acts. He is the only Apostle who had his name changed, which would reflect a role given to him by God. He is the only one with the Keys, the only one to have Christ say, "Feed my Sheep." All this reflects authority, not merely honor.
The reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is repeated often in scripture. Nowhere refers to Peter as "head of the church" although Christ clearly is:
"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."
To say Peter is head of the Church does not exclude that Jesus is Head of the Church. Christ is present and His authority *continues* through the Church.
The authority of Christ is present through his word faithfully taught in the church. There is no biblical mechanism for appointing successors of any earthly head of the church. This is a human invention.
The Bible does record the Apostles electing someone to fill the office Judas held, and history testifies to the reality of Apostolic Succession. If Simon was given a supreme office to lead the Church then his successors would receive this role as well. It makes more sense to say Jesus gave Simon the role of leading the community to preserve the Gospel and unity, than to say He simply abandoned His followers without any guidance.
1. the replacement for Judas was prophesied in the OT
2. he had to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ
3. he had to have been with them since the baptism of John
On the above, there is no biblical basis for apostolic succession let alone for papal succession. Jesus left his Holy Spirit and scripture to guide his church.
So Jesus established an authority that died with the men He directly selected? Clearly Jesus established an authority that was meant to continue long after the Apostolic age, and history confirms this. St Clement in his letter to the Corinthians (96 AD) says the Apostles taught in various towns and before they moved on they elected someone to lead the community. He further mentions when the elected died a successor would be chosen to continue their duties.
Those appointed after the apostles were the local plurality of elder/bishops in every church, and we have the method of selection and the qualifications given in letters to Timothy and Titus. There was no hierarchy in the early church. Even Clement and Jerome who translated the NT into Latin, said the same: elders WERE the bishops; see also Acts 20 re the Ephesian elder bishops and Phillipians 1:1 that mentions only "bishops and deacons."
The NT books were already in circulation from the beginning long before Damasus as Justin Martyr testifies concerning the memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets. There is the Muratorian canon and also Tatian's Diatessaron, etc, etc. The early Christians were taught:
1 John 4:1
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
"Jesus didn't write a single thing contained in the NT. The NT is the product of an Ecumenical Council."
The early disciples used the scripture we use today,they were not ignorant of what was to be canonized.The council mainly dealt with issues like the Gnostics and other heretical issues.
The central issue is this: if Peter was the head of the church on earth, why does neither he nor any NT writer refer to him as such, although Christ is certainly referred to as the head of the church. Without Peter's headship stated in scripture, the concept of papacy is without divine authority and is based on a gradual development of human orign.
Why do Protestant give out about the Catholic Church, when it it is clear in two passages of the bible (Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17), that it is the church Christ founded and made St Peter first Pope of.
Also most Protestants accepted the early churches teachings, but all those teachings where made by the Pope.
The early teachings were in scripture not from the pope. The Matthew text is not about Peter being head of the church because: 1) it does not refer to him as head 2)Peter never refers to himself as head 3) no writer of the New Testament refers to Peter as head. The John passage is the confirming of Peter's love for Jesus following Peter's three denials.
Sorry but te catholic churches has always started with scripture but the early father did have to indep what christ meant by certain statements. All official teachings where approved by the pope, even the bible, which protestants use, the pope was the one who approved it! eh hello!
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
This is apparently a 3rd century document but still does not say what you want, that Peter is head of the church on earth. Read the Clementine literature articles on wikipedia and new advent catholic encyclopedia.
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?' [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
I think the Clementine Recognitions or Homilies shed important light on the development of the papacy as partly a contribution of Ebionite judaizers within early Christianity. I encourage all to read these dating from the early centuries after the New Testament.
The Roman Catholic religion is a conglomerate of manmade traditions, hoaxes, false religions, and even many Christian teachings all MINGLED into one...but it certainly is NOT Christian. The devil is a master counterfeiter (2nd Corinthians 11:13-14). Satan always disguises his deceits and lies with elements of truth to deceive the masses. I pray that you won't be one of Satan's victims by adhering to the unbiblical heresies of Roman Catholicism.
there is a well documented (perhaps two page document) on a website called Cor ad cor loquitur which can be quickly found on Google... obviously a website devoted to the Biblical evidence for Catholicism,
thers is a link on the right hand side labelled "the papacy" which lists "50 New Testament
Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy "
it can be read in a few minutes...what do you make of these "cumulative arguments" by this author ?
Thanks very much for this. I will take a look and respond. I encourage all viewers to do likewise and to read my responses. The cumulative argument would also be interesting as applied to Paul, yet no one would claim he is Pope of the Gentiles.
Number 32 at in the list on Cor ad cor loquitur claims Peter presided at the council of Jerusalem. Reading Acts 15, one can only conclude that James if anyone, not Peter, presided at the council. I encourage all to read this chapter. If Peter was pope or head of the church he would have to preside, yet this is not the case. At least there would have to be mention of Peter as the head or leader of the church.
i re-read all of Acts . Acts 1-14 with the exception of Acts 7 and 9 primarily focuses on Peter, Acts 15 features Peter and James predominantly. Peter makes the opening salvo against Circumcision causing the "assembly to fall silent." James does the closing teaching and makes the final compromise. Specifically in Acts 15 I see Peter and James as the main characters and both seem to be on equal footing. Acts 16-28 is the amazing story of Paul. Actually it is all amazing, all of it. !
Your conclusion also agrees with Galatians 2:9 that says: "James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
The only other significant scripture reference on Cor ad cor loquitur, is Matthew 16 where Peter is the rock and is given keys to the kingdom. The meaning of this can only be understood as it is played out in scripture. In no instance do we find Peter referred to as head of the church: see Peter's own letters, Pauls reference to "pillars" in Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem council.
wah? you are... Christian?? from your previous videos you seemed like a modern day Nietzsche lol, well glad to see you back and sharing your side of the story :)
Only the true church of christ is truly catholic, not the Roman Catholic Church. That which is "Roman" is "Roman" and therefore not "catholic." The name "Roman Catholic" is a self-contradictory oxymoron. I am a true catholic, a member of the one, true, holy, universal and catholic church of christ. The papacy developed gradually over centuries, a point agreed upon by "Roman Catholic" theologians such as Robert Eno (see books by him on amazon).
Look at what happens to the church of Christ when there is no pope people just go off and do what ever they feel like, that is why their are 33000 different Churches in the world. Look at history the big brother bishop was always in Rome. I Bet Muslims are rubbing their hands together divide and rule? I think we should all grow up.
3Michael82 1 year ago
@3Michael82 After the New Testament was written we find no word from Rome until Victor decides to excommunicate Christians who did not obsere Easter when he did. Irenaeus had to rebuke him. Read Robert Eno "Rise of the Papacy" who was a theologian church historian at Catholic University.
NadNareek 1 year ago
I wonder if a knowledge of the original languages would help you. I'm not saying you're wrong but that working from an English translation is probably not the best idea.
Learning Hebrew and Greek would not be easy but might be necessary for a true understanding.
x362436 3 years ago
I trust that others know greek and hebrew better since it is not my life's work, so I refer to all different translations
NadNareek 3 years ago
im glad you waste your life picking apart garbage written thousands of years ago. im so impressed with gods ability to reach out to mankind and have us worship him and have us make sacrifices while we are alive so we will be happy when we die?the whole idea of heaven and hell seems like a threat, not a promise.
eta0225 3 years ago
maybe you are a former catholic who is now atheist, and i can understand why, e.g. the house of Mary in Ephesus was miraculously transported to Loreto, Italy?
NadNareek 3 years ago
It seems like if there is no heaven nor hell, then Gandhi and Mother Teresa, or anyone who does great things, gets the same fate as Hitler or Stalin. Does this work for you?
grannyslapper75 3 years ago
Why are you so angry? calm down. If you don't believe in any of this old text then there would be no need for resentment. We analyze the heck out of Jane Austen knowing fully well her writings were fiction but we enjoy learning from her because she is reflecting the standards on women of that time. The bible even if it were all false is a reflection of history. It bares relevence and significance regardless of its plausibility.
2008ily 3 years ago
why would cornelius fall at Peter's feet if he was not so important? why did Jesus give Peter the keys of the Kingdom? Why the power to bind and loose? why the injunction to strengthen his brethren? to feed the lambs and sheep? why Peter alone?Why did Paul feel the need to go to Jerusalem to see Peter on the admission of the gentiles? what is the testimony of the early Church fathers? the acceptance of the papal claims by all the Church until the reformation? You are being
myopic!
dickglover 4 years ago
1. Peter was important
2. What are the keys?
3. Who else could bind and loose and what does it mean?
4. Why not strengthen his brethren?
5. As a pastor Peter should feed sheep;Peter denied Christ.
6. There were also James and John in Jerusalem, also pillars with Peter.
7. See Robert Eno on rise of papacy.
8. Why was Damasus (390 AD) the first to make papal claims?
NadNareek 4 years ago
2. Cf Isaiah 22 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts"
3. Binding and loosing are Rabbinical terms for authoritative teaching and imposing/lifting excommunication, in Mat 18:18 the context seems to be excommunication.
5. What's significant is that Peter was made responsible over Jesus' flock. The symbol of feeding sheep is significant.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
If Peter was to be the head of the church, why is there no reference to this fundamental truth after Matthew 16??? Neither Paul, nor James in Jerusalem, nor Peter himself had any awareness of his being head.
NadNareek 3 years ago
8. Pope St Clement of Rome (96 Ad) and the controversy in Corinth, Pope Victor and the Easter Controversy, and Pope Stephen and Cyprian all reflect Rome's self consciousness of being responsible for the flock of Christ.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Perhaps this identity as the church of the capital of Rome gave this church a false sense of superiority that gave rise to the papacy; Diotrephes assumed false leadership.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Or perhaps these early successors of Peter, many of whom knew him personally, had the correct understanding of the Keys, binding and loosening, Simon as Kephas, and feeding the sheep of Christ. Not even the Eastern Fathers denied the primacy of Rome, and it was not because Rome was the ancient Capitol, but because the Prince of Apostles resided there.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Where in scripture is Peter referred to as Prince of apostles?? All the places in scripture where one would expect a reference to Peter or to an earthly office of head of the church, it is absent. Where do the Eastern Fathers see Peter or Rome as having primacy? Even if true, it would not be enough.
NadNareek 3 years ago
I don't understand why clear references to authority aren't enough. Cf Isaiah 22, the Keys are symbols of authority, only one person holds them. Binding and loosening are Rabbinical terms for authoritative doctrine and imposing or lifting excommunications. Aren't you amazed that Jesus said what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and not the other way around? How can all this be discarded for a vague statement like Peter is "important?" Did his importance bear no authority?
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Jesus said whatever you bind on earth "shall have been bound" in heaven. Either the apostles (Peter) were guided into truth or they invented truth; you can't have it both ways. Peter had no unique authority as head of the church or this would have been played out in scripture as a fundamental court of appeal in matters of dispute, yet it is completely absent.
NadNareek 3 years ago
The KJV, ESV, NIV all say, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." It's an interesting variant of translation, I don't think these Protestant versions would use a translation that leans towards the interpretation used by Catholics. As for Peter, his unique authority is symbolized by the Keys, if he didn't have to exercise his primacy explicitly we should consider that a good thing, it means conflicts were resolved before having to appeal to a supreme authority.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Actually, there was a major dispute that was discussed at Jerusalem in Acts 15 regarding circumcision. The one presiding was not Peter but James: "When they finished, James spoke up: 'Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to....' "
NadNareek 3 years ago
The idea of circumsision is ridiculous anyway. If God wanted to identify them as his chosen people, he could have done it in a way that would have been obvious without a guy pulling down his pants and displaying his genitalia. Even so it shouldn't have been necessary for them to do it themselves. God didn't create them perfectly the first time, in his own image? Body modification shouldn't be necessary.
x362436 3 years ago
circumcision was done usually as an infant; who is created perfectly?
NadNareek 3 years ago
The future perfect is correct "shall have been bound," and this fits other scripture that says the Holy Spirit informs the apostles what truth to communicate, not the other way around.
NadNareek 3 years ago
The central issue is this: if Peter was the head of the church on earth, why does neither he nor any NT writer refer to him as such, although Christ is certainly referred to as the head of the church. Without Peter's headship stated in scripture, the concept of papacy is without divine authority and is based on a gradual development of human orign.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Isn't the earthly "headship" of Peter revealed in the changing of Simon's name (a significant event in itself,) building the Church on him, giving him the keys (symbols of authority cf isaiah 22), the power to bind and loosen (Rabbinical terms), and the transferring of Jesus' flock to Peter in the summation of John's gospel? Is there a better case for supreme authority than Peter?
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Again, these factors show an important role indeed for Peter but not head of the church on earth. Such an important role as head would have been referred to at least once in scripture after Matt.16 if this was the intended meaning. A reality check must reject such a view.
Transferred flock to Peter? No. Again if so, where is there any recognition of such an important role by Peter, Paul, or James???
Reinstatement of Peter following his denial? Yes.
NadNareek 3 years ago
A doctrine doesn't have to be said numerous times to be true, consider the doctrine of the Trinity. How often does God reveal that He is one Being in Three Persons?
In most lists of Apostles Peter is mentioned first. He is the most vocal Apostle in the NT and Acts. He is the only Apostle who had his name changed, which would reflect a role given to him by God. He is the only one with the Keys, the only one to have Christ say, "Feed my Sheep." All this reflects authority, not merely honor.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
The reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is repeated often in scripture. Nowhere refers to Peter as "head of the church" although Christ clearly is:
Ephesians 1:22
"God ...appointed him to be head over everything for the church."
Ephesians 5:23
"...Christ is the head of the church, his body, ..."
Col.1:18
"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."
NadNareek 3 years ago
To say Peter is head of the Church does not exclude that Jesus is Head of the Church. Christ is present and His authority *continues* through the Church.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
The authority of Christ is present through his word faithfully taught in the church. There is no biblical mechanism for appointing successors of any earthly head of the church. This is a human invention.
NadNareek 3 years ago
The Bible does record the Apostles electing someone to fill the office Judas held, and history testifies to the reality of Apostolic Succession. If Simon was given a supreme office to lead the Church then his successors would receive this role as well. It makes more sense to say Jesus gave Simon the role of leading the community to preserve the Gospel and unity, than to say He simply abandoned His followers without any guidance.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Re apostolic succession:
1. the replacement for Judas was prophesied in the OT
2. he had to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ
3. he had to have been with them since the baptism of John
On the above, there is no biblical basis for apostolic succession let alone for papal succession. Jesus left his Holy Spirit and scripture to guide his church.
NadNareek 3 years ago
So Jesus established an authority that died with the men He directly selected? Clearly Jesus established an authority that was meant to continue long after the Apostolic age, and history confirms this. St Clement in his letter to the Corinthians (96 AD) says the Apostles taught in various towns and before they moved on they elected someone to lead the community. He further mentions when the elected died a successor would be chosen to continue their duties.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
Those appointed after the apostles were the local plurality of elder/bishops in every church, and we have the method of selection and the qualifications given in letters to Timothy and Titus. There was no hierarchy in the early church. Even Clement and Jerome who translated the NT into Latin, said the same: elders WERE the bishops; see also Acts 20 re the Ephesian elder bishops and Phillipians 1:1 that mentions only "bishops and deacons."
NadNareek 3 years ago
Jesus didn't write a single thing contained in the NT. The NT is the product of an Ecumenical Council.
mmorrtt 3 years ago
The NT books were already in circulation from the beginning long before Damasus as Justin Martyr testifies concerning the memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets. There is the Muratorian canon and also Tatian's Diatessaron, etc, etc. The early Christians were taught:
1 John 4:1
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
NadNareek 3 years ago
"Jesus didn't write a single thing contained in the NT. The NT is the product of an Ecumenical Council."
The early disciples used the scripture we use today,they were not ignorant of what was to be canonized.The council mainly dealt with issues like the Gnostics and other heretical issues.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
The central issue is this: if Peter was the head of the church on earth, why does neither he nor any NT writer refer to him as such, although Christ is certainly referred to as the head of the church. Without Peter's headship stated in scripture, the concept of papacy is without divine authority and is based on a gradual development of human orign.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Excellent video.
TheBodyguard7777 4 years ago
zSay it, brother! Well done
pennylaneproductions 4 years ago
Because of porn spam, all comments must be approved before being allowed to appear on this Youtube video.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Why do Protestant give out about the Catholic Church, when it it is clear in two passages of the bible (Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17), that it is the church Christ founded and made St Peter first Pope of.
Also most Protestants accepted the early churches teachings, but all those teachings where made by the Pope.
mrscully 4 years ago
The early teachings were in scripture not from the pope. The Matthew text is not about Peter being head of the church because: 1) it does not refer to him as head 2)Peter never refers to himself as head 3) no writer of the New Testament refers to Peter as head. The John passage is the confirming of Peter's love for Jesus following Peter's three denials.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Sorry but te catholic churches has always started with scripture but the early father did have to indep what christ meant by certain statements. All official teachings where approved by the pope, even the bible, which protestants use, the pope was the one who approved it! eh hello!
mrscully 4 years ago
the scripture was used long before there was a pope
NadNareek 4 years ago
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
mrscully 4 years ago
This is apparently a 3rd century document but still does not say what you want, that Peter is head of the church on earth. Read the Clementine literature articles on wikipedia and new advent catholic encyclopedia.
NadNareek 4 years ago
I encourage all to read the articles on the Clementine literature on wikipedia and newadvent.
NadNareek 4 years ago
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?' [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
mrscully 4 years ago
No answer for this? you are the chief of my disciples'" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]) (Ephraim the Syrian).
mrscully 4 years ago
This is a 4th century quote but still does not say what you want, that Peter is head of the church on earth.
NadNareek 4 years ago
This is the kind of statement one would expect to find in scripture if true of Peter, but your quote comes more than 200 years too late.
NadNareek 4 years ago
I think the Clementine Recognitions or Homilies shed important light on the development of the papacy as partly a contribution of Ebionite judaizers within early Christianity. I encourage all to read these dating from the early centuries after the New Testament.
NadNareek 4 years ago
I suggest reading the article on the Clementine literature in Wikipedia.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Why would one use Wikipedia, any person can edit it.
PS. Viva el Papa Via!
mrscully 4 years ago
Then you can read the article on the Clementine literature on newadvent.
NadNareek 4 years ago
This is apparently a 3rd century document but still does not say what you want, that Peter is head of the church on earth.
NadNareek 4 years ago
I encourage all to read the articles on the Clementine literature on wikipedia and newadvent.
NadNareek 4 years ago
The Roman Catholic religion is a conglomerate of manmade traditions, hoaxes, false religions, and even many Christian teachings all MINGLED into one...but it certainly is NOT Christian. The devil is a master counterfeiter (2nd Corinthians 11:13-14). Satan always disguises his deceits and lies with elements of truth to deceive the masses. I pray that you won't be one of Satan's victims by adhering to the unbiblical heresies of Roman Catholicism.
bradidup 4 years ago
I think it's most helpful to make specific points that can be addressed rather than a general condemnation.
NadNareek 4 years ago
there is a well documented (perhaps two page document) on a website called Cor ad cor loquitur which can be quickly found on Google... obviously a website devoted to the Biblical evidence for Catholicism,
thers is a link on the right hand side labelled "the papacy" which lists "50 New Testament
Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy "
it can be read in a few minutes...what do you make of these "cumulative arguments" by this author ?
seekerj2 4 years ago
Thanks very much for this. I will take a look and respond. I encourage all viewers to do likewise and to read my responses. The cumulative argument would also be interesting as applied to Paul, yet no one would claim he is Pope of the Gentiles.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Thanks...I must mention that I just found your Youtube site and it is a breath of fresh air. Very compassionate and well thought out.
Thanks so much !!!
seekerj2 4 years ago
Number 32 at in the list on Cor ad cor loquitur claims Peter presided at the council of Jerusalem. Reading Acts 15, one can only conclude that James if anyone, not Peter, presided at the council. I encourage all to read this chapter. If Peter was pope or head of the church he would have to preside, yet this is not the case. At least there would have to be mention of Peter as the head or leader of the church.
NadNareek 4 years ago
i re-read all of Acts . Acts 1-14 with the exception of Acts 7 and 9 primarily focuses on Peter, Acts 15 features Peter and James predominantly. Peter makes the opening salvo against Circumcision causing the "assembly to fall silent." James does the closing teaching and makes the final compromise. Specifically in Acts 15 I see Peter and James as the main characters and both seem to be on equal footing. Acts 16-28 is the amazing story of Paul. Actually it is all amazing, all of it. !
seekerj2 4 years ago
Your conclusion also agrees with Galatians 2:9 that says: "James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
NadNareek 4 years ago
The only other significant scripture reference on Cor ad cor loquitur, is Matthew 16 where Peter is the rock and is given keys to the kingdom. The meaning of this can only be understood as it is played out in scripture. In no instance do we find Peter referred to as head of the church: see Peter's own letters, Pauls reference to "pillars" in Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem council.
NadNareek 4 years ago
wah? you are... Christian?? from your previous videos you seemed like a modern day Nietzsche lol, well glad to see you back and sharing your side of the story :)
oh btw 5 stars 4 u ^-^
ehehe213 4 years ago
Only the true church of christ is truly catholic, not the Roman Catholic Church. That which is "Roman" is "Roman" and therefore not "catholic." The name "Roman Catholic" is a self-contradictory oxymoron. I am a true catholic, a member of the one, true, holy, universal and catholic church of christ. The papacy developed gradually over centuries, a point agreed upon by "Roman Catholic" theologians such as Robert Eno (see books by him on amazon).
NadNareek 4 years ago
The ratings for this video will be predictably low which is measure of its impact on Roman Catholic viewers.
NadNareek 4 years ago
If you were Catholic, the Pope would have you excommunicated for a video like this.
dexarouskies 4 years ago