So you get knowldege about papacy from people who don’t believe in the papacy.

No, you get another perspective which you can accept or reject. @@emmanuellorenzodiaz55

Could you provide a trustworthy reference/source for the Eastern perspective?

@@WM-ln4dz: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons is a great source of history of the Papacy. The word Pontiff comes from the term Pontifex Maximus which was the title of the head priest of of pagan Rome. The narrative of Peter being the first pope in not consistent with the fact that Peter was Jewish, not christian or catholic.

@@emmanuellorenzodiaz55 What's wrong with that?

so with you had already bookmarked it for my bed time story - starting now :) know its going to be good

😆

Too bad he lies about 2 Peter being a copy of Jude as they were preaching the same gospel so of course they would have similar letters. It is an ASSUMPTION to claim 2 Peter wasn't written before his death. Then from this lie he builds other lies to try to discredit the writings. He also uses an unrecognized book to claim the others weren't writing truthfully. This another assumption and relying on the unreliable book. Then Paul studied for three years before he went to Jerusalem to meet those who works he had bee studying. This is the typical twisting of the scriptures atheists do because they have no power under Christianity.

@@notstayinsdowns I as young person who read the Bible with 66volumes authority of William Seymour. I separated volumes, doubted Jude's authority to be scrip because of his testimony that Enoch was the seventh from Adam making me insane because I counted Cain the elder and Abel the younger as TWO seeds from ADAM. Took twenty years for me to receive revelation of ONE seed CAME from ADAM making JUDE so precious to ME, and opened up what happened after the BETTER RESURRECTed went into the "holy city that can not be hid"

@@LumBo7166 I am not doubting Jude but the assumption that 2 Peter is a copy of Jude is a bogus assumption because they are similar. Well, duh. They are from the same knowledge but not the same authors.

P6⁶⁶pp 9th 00p

Buuuyah

Mines too!

Timestamp of "go"?

MortalClown you are so right... imagination is all that's required to be a mortal clown

If he doesn't have favorites then there would be predestined elect. And if he loved everyone then no one would go to hell. God love bed Jacob and Esau he HATED. I think you might want to re read the bible.

This is correct.

Probably destroyed in the demolition like the rest of them. Or the dig in 1951 is the one or, they'll never actually find them considering how many Christians were killed on the site.

Did you get to see the throne of Satan too?

@@sallymcmurray949 wow you're so cool

It's truly rewarding to receive such positive feedback!

@CipiRipi00 That was paid by the Jews for 30 pieces of silver.

St Silvester of Rome didn't even go to that council(?

You should send your bill to the Roman Emperor at Constantinople. He organized the event. The Papacy only sent a token representation.

@@old_45 Are you expecting Erdogan to pay?

​@@Aaqe No, but in all honesty he should. His government is the direct successor of Constantine.

It's nice to see that the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism is finally in the conversation. Christianity owes so much to this ancient religion.

Well the bible was first in greek and when Jerome made his translation into the Latin, he made (Petros) into latin being Petri, then finally in english this would be Peter. Just like how Yeshua is Jesus' name in hebrew and then in greek it is Iēsous but in the early latin translation it turned into Iesus and then Jesus

Ok, and so how many of the OT got their name changed ? What is the significance of that? I know, the Catholic response is it means nothing. How many disciples is there prophecy about in the OT? So you're saying that Saul of Tarsus didn't get his name changed to Paul? Finally who is the ONLY disciple that Jesus called the greatest? You should know if you read scripture. If you don't know, you are listening to rome.

@@rbnmnt3341 You're attacking straw man my friend. And please don't say I don't know the bible & insult me. Bc I don't read on my own, & just come up with my own personal interpretation. I read the Bible with history 2gether, & from men who knew the apostles themselves, & what was taught in Christianity throughout antiquity, & through ancient Scholars who are a lot smarter than both of us. Bc u must remember Jesus spoke Aramaic, & John 1:42 happened b4 Matthew 16:28. Jesus names Simon Cephas from the very beginning. Matthew 16:18 was not the 1st time. 1.) Yes' Simon who is now Peter/Cephas was the only one in the NT that had their name changed. Soul's middle name was Paul from birth, that's not a brand new name my friend. And Everybody else in the NT just had nicknames. So calling someone by their middle name that they were born with, doesn't mean their name was completely changed to something diff. So it wasn't a significance in the NT for St. Paul, that's apples & oranges in comparison to St. Peter who completely got a huge role. St. Peter Always who was always named 1st throughout the NT, while Judas was always named last. Can't be a coincidence. 2.) Everyone in the OT who had their name changed meant a huge significance in each Covenant. So thank u for seeing that whole point. But now u have to see that u just can't ignore the only man in the NT, who got his name changed in the New Covenant, & not mean something huge behind it for the future of the church of Christ. 3.) So It's prots who have to ask themselves why? Since everyone's named changed in the OT meant something huge, something Monumental in the OT. Then the NT comes along & it just doesn't mean nothing anymore to Prots. To see that Simon is the only one who got their name changed in the NT, when it was such a huge deal in the OT. But now the only one man who gets his named changed in the NT, & now it's no big deal to prots. When it was huge per each Covenant throughout the OT for every man that did. Prots need to see this is the very last Covenant of Jesus himself, & Simon was the only man who gets his name changed to "ROCK". So U guys just cant keep ignoring it like it's no big deal anymore. So why?

@@onlylove556 you Catholics make such a big deal about Peter being named first. The bible never days anything about Peter having supremacy about anything. The bible Cleary says that Christ is the rock. The church didn't give itself sole authority to interpret scripture for nothing. Matthew being one of the good examples why. You apparently Haven't read the bible as you say. Or you avoid Those that refute you church's false teachings. Have you ever read 2 Corinthians 10:4? Tell me what this means. It says in part, "for they all drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST." Did I miss where that says Peter? Only two more, I could give you many more. Tell from the OT. And using your argument that Matthew was before John. These two are in the OT. That is before Matthew right? So, the first is 1 Samuel 2:2, "there is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there ANY ROCK like our God." Again, did I miss Peter's name? One more. Isaiah 44:8, that reads in part, "do not tremble; do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago? You are my witnesses--is there any other God? No! There is NO OTHER ROCK-- NOT ONE!" So did I miss where it says Peter or did the church change Peter's name again? Now about Peter's supremacy. First, is there any prophecy about Peter in the OT? that would be pretty significant don't you think? Well there is about John the Baptist. About his birth, the one who would prepare the way of the LORD. If that had been about Peter, we'd never hear the end of it. But it wasn't so it doesn't draw any attention from Rome. Now has Jesus ever openly said that Peter was the greatest? The only one that he did say that about was not Peter but John. In Matthew 11, and that was before Matthew 16 right? JESUS, yes JESUS said this. "Verily, I say unto you, of them that are born of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Next point. Why would Peter involve himself in a strife as described in Luke 22? I'm sure you know every scripture and every account I mention. Right. I mean you not only have read about it but you have connection with the scholars who personally knew the apostles. Truly impressive. Never heard that from ANY Catholic. I'll repeat it for you. The strife was about who should be the greatest among them. Matthew 11 was before 16 too. Right? Anyway, I thought Peter was the pope? If he was, why did he settle the strife? Or didn't The other apostles know he was the pope? Better yet. Did Jesus stand up and defend "his" pope? Jesus did no such thing. So apparently he was the pope Jesus appointed. Not that he ever did, but that's your argument for Peter. Besides Jesus himself had already declared who the greatest was, and it wasn't Peter. How much more supreme can you get than that? Being the greatest in the eyes of Jesus. Of course Catholics will find a way to downplay it and elevate Peter. Lastly, was Peter's birth miraculous like that of Jesus? You know the angel also visited John's mother? Did some angel visit Peter's mom? I don't think so. So this is only to prove that there was no supremacy with Peter. If any it should be with John. Afterall, it was John who Jesus openly said he loved. So your dilemma is to believe the bible and God, Or... Believe man and Rome. Or believe hell or heaven.

@@rbnmnt3341You could not have made a better argument to dismiss the sad, harmful effects of quasi Christian Protestant positions.

Great history. Too bad it was all church history. Probably because there is no biblical history about the papacy. Good job of inventing and deceiving. God will surely reward you. Gotta keep doing those works so you can work your way to heaven. Oh wait, you gotta make a stop in Disneyland, Otherwise known as purgatory to Catholics

The more the merrier

More interesting information ~ I think the popes anhd Jesuits hid this ~ it seems Christians are afraid of the Gospel ~the Love of God ~the Faith OF Jesus 1Tim4:10 ~...Savior of ALL men ,SPECIALLY those that believe. [*SPECIALLY*] Better if one believes~trust our FATHER, SAVIOR ~as Jesus did "faith of Jesus" 1Cor.15:22 ~ As in Adam "ALL" die even so in Christ shall "ALL" be made alive. 1Tim.2:3-4 ~ God our Savior, who will have "ALL" men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. John 17:2 ~ As thou hast given him power over "ALL" flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. (Jesus is given ALL) Luke 23:34 ~ Then said Jesus, Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Col.1:20 ~...by him [Jesus] to reconcile "ALL" things unto himself... Rom.5:18 ~ Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon "ALL" men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon "ALL" men unto justification of life. 1Tim.4:10 ~...Trust in the living God, Who is the Savior of "ALL" men specially those that believe. [*Specially*] 2Cor.5:18-21,Eph.1:9-10, Col. 1:18-20, Isa.19, 1John2:1-2, and others~ Eternal and everlasting appear 65ish times in the NT ~Only twice does it exclusively mean eternal Rom.1:20 "eternal power and Godhead", and Jude 6 "everlasting chains". The rest of the times it goes to eon and age, ages and ages in Strongs Concordance. Many of God's punishments are remedial(to remedy) ~given over to Satan so the flesh may be destroyed that the spirit saved. Smite them to heal them. The fire of God is also often referred to as purifying. Why is this so rarely mentioned or pointed out? "ALL" is easily defined ~It has to be more then a mis-translation, or misunderstanding. Are we supposed to ignore these clear statements of hope & encouragement. regardless of your belief ~few are absolutely positive ~so this is at the least ~a tiny bit of condemnation and negativity removed. The love of God constrainteth us ~ Possibly a lie we are being told so "They"[maybe Satan],can retain power, and to keep us unsure, divided, fearful, and thus obediently following. Kept Ultimately Lost. Honestly think about it... Something is off with much of what many teach ... Also consider this~ 1Cor 4:7...what do you have that you did not receive...[God made us]~ Phil.2:13 For it is God that works in you both to will(want) and to do(preform)of his good pleasure. Heb.10:36 ...need patience....after you have done the will of God, [

Rows of large tall columns in Roman Catholic Churches evolved from literally copying the artwork of Roman pagan temples. But the first churches of these kind, before the later copied versions were built, had been those Roman temples already standing being converted to Christian worship centers.

The vestments are basically what any average person of the time would wear not necessarily anything related to religious practices. Furthermore, they are a unique combination of Jewish and Roman clothing each having a theological meaning behind it. I think Catholic Talk Show did a breakdown of it.

@namekal are you saying Jesus wasn't crucified?

@@scott6828 No, I'm saying that he was crucified. In those days crucifixion was considered a shameful way to die, so it's not something his disciples would have been likely to invent. The earliest depiction of the crucifixion, the Alexamenos Graffito, was intended as an insult-it showed a donkey being crucified with an inscription reading, "Alexamanos worships his god." Early Christians had to suffer a lot of ridicule for worshipping a crucified savior. They wouldn't have talked about the crucifixion if it wasn't true.

That still doesn't prove that someone has a magical invisible friend, or that the specific version that they _think_ exists, actually exists, or that the specific version, unstanding or interpretations are correct, in a divided religion that can't even agree with itself...

​@@evangelicalsnever-lie9792 It doesn't prove that Jesus was magic, but that wasn't my point (for the record, I'm an atheist and don't believe that Jesus was magic). It simply reduces the likelihood that Jesus's followers were lying about the Crucifixion, since admitting to this would-and did-open them to ridicule.

@@host_theghost507 not when jesus suffering is the core of the theology if he died for all sins it stands to reason that they would claim he died in the most painful way they knew of.

You are correct and the Pope is the king’s “Al Habayit”. It’s hebrew. Look it up. The Pope is not a king.

😅😅😅😅😅

Hardly. England did not exist in Augustine’s time. His mission was to the kingdom of Kent, which, like all Saxon and Anglian staes was pagan, despite the king’s wife being a Christian from the Frankish state in modern day France. You are probably thinking of the Celtic Church which survived in the British Isles in the West and had a continuous history from late Ronan times and sent missions to Ireland which in turn sent missionaries to the Pictish kingdom in modern day Scotland. Their practices diverged from Rome, especially over the calculation of he date of Easter. See the Synod of Whitby. To the present day the Welsh and the Scots do not identify as English.

@@rocktapperrobin9372yeah, it’s almost like there was an independent church body in England before the Romans decided to take it over

Exactly

Good question

Because Peter's successors were in Rome. Therefore the seat of Peter came to be in Rome.

Reading early Church fathers answers these questions quite well. Peter was always regarded as head of the Church due to Matthew 16:18. As such, his see or place of ministry, was seen as where the authority ultimately resided. The faith was taught in both writing and tradition, as stated biblically. Lack of a written, explicit mention doesn't invalidate. The dual conveyances of the faith, along with John 21:25 answer the "Where is that in the bible?" question. The place of Peter's martyrdom isn't a modern, or ancient, invention. Simply, it is what happened. Paul definitely mentions Peter in Galatians. As Peter mentions Paul and his teachings in 2 Peter.

Linus was the first Pope, but we don't even know if he even existed and if he did there is precious little information about him, or how he was chosen, if he was chosen at all.

@Jet Tison read the Acts of the Apostles- the writer confirms James led the church in Jerusalem

@Jet Tison backtracking? Both Paul and Peter acknowledged the authority of James….again read Acts

you haven't got any proof that one man was ever in charge of the Church in Jerusalem in 1st century.

And your evidence that Peter and Paul died in Rome? Only tradition suggests that is true.

Correct. Peter was deigned the first pope post hoc. A great deal of christianity from a catholic point of view Was invented after power was concentrated.

There were 30 popes prior to Constantine was even born. Idk what people are talking about

Exactly, and even if he did visit Rome the congregation there was still founded by st Paul, perhaps even by someone before him.

There is no monarchal (one man over a city) bishop in the Bible,though Diotrephes may have tried (3 John).

the church is referred to as a bride, but not used for women in general. Likewise the church is referred to as Christ's body, and compared to the human body - but not all human bodies are the church. Revelation is a coded response to the Roman empire of the Biblical times, not written for end times predictions

@@helenr4300 I disagree. Judging by your response, you must be a Roman Catholic.

@@nicoladibara1936 nope. Not catholic, just interested in the history and writings of the Bible I noticed the anti Catholic sentiment of your post and your response shows a narrow view that any who disagree with you must be Catholic. Life isn't binary like that. Lots of people have a whole range of views. Surprise, lots of Christians have different views. And before you dismiss them as 'not really Christian' look at see how many 'Bible believing' evangelicals hold different views, especially on Revelation. Pre or post trib? How many different antichrists have been identified over centuries? How much time wasted on trying to use a past story to worry about some precise details of the end times, building fear and prejudice when Jesus taught that noone knows the time and rather taught to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, care for the sick matt 25 among many others. Meanwhile you make a sweeping statement that in symbology woman always means church with zero evidence. All you have is someone's preaching, show me where a woman = church except for the single case of the bride, which as I pointed out does not include or refer to all women. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I encourage you to think it through not just repeat a story you are told. The Bible urges us to test everything.

@@helenr4300 I see. So my assumption was wrong.

17 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. 2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.” 3 Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery: babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. 6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. 7 Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come. 9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. 12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings-and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” 15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

The history of the Jesuits is even darker and more disturbing.

​@@johnbrowne2170 Tell us about it!

@@sallymcmurray949 Tell you why they were kicked out of Portugal, Malta, Austria, Hungry etc.? You figure it out.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

He wasnt chosen to be by the others. There could be many reasons.

Technically speaking the Pope was a position which took the name from the Ceasar's, Pontifus Maximus. Having it beginnings in Rome. Papal Rome rose from the ashes of pagan Rome. The pope has title vicar of Christ. Vicarious Filei Dei. Claiming erroneously that he is God on earth. Furthermore, the Catholic church boast that Peter was the first so- called Pope based on the verse mentioned by Yahshua ' on this rock l will build my church' however, the truth of the matter is that Yahshua ( Jesus) is the head of the church. Not to mention that the doctrine of the Catholic church opposes the word of God and is not Biblical. And you would find that its authority is not of God. The woman that rides the beast comes to mind. Read Revelation 17. MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT. In regard to James, he was in Jerusalem, the title of Pope wasn't used until the 3rd century in Rome. The term is political office also. Catholicism is the instigator of the dark ages and led to the movement of the reformation. HalleluYah.

@@alexanderrigby6917 If the Catholic church “opposes the word of God and is not Biblical” then you have much explaining to do… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?

@@srich7503 Firstly, let us remember the words of Jesus Christ..Yahshua Messiah who states; John 6:63 lt is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that l speak to you are spirit, and they are life. In John 5:37 Yahshua says; And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. You boast and gloat in regard to the Scriptures and make claims that it was the work of man, namely the catholic church. You are mistaken. Please remember that God rose up Babylon to achieve His purpose and surely God's permissive will is at work. Matthew 24:13-14 But he who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matt 7:21 the words of Jesus Christ; Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then l will declare to them, l never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! ( What is lawlessness? ) Peter writes in his first letter Chapter 1:9-12 Receiving the end of your faith--The salvation of your souls. Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you. Searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--- things which angels desire to look at...(meaning this is the hand of God working!) 11Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ..Yahshua Messiah.. What commandments?? Come, l will show you the judgement of the great harlot who sits on many waters. With whom the kings 9f the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication. Revelation 17:3-6 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And l saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of the names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornications. And onnher forehead a name was written: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when l saw her l marveled with great amazement. Who is the woman sitting on the beast? Let us humbly request a spirit of descernment and ask for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, for the LORD Himself, gives wisdom, and from His mouth comes knowledge, and understanding. HalleluYah.

@@alexanderrigby6917 Very well put. Just another way the church has twisted everything to control. Thank you

mat 16 does not have any word pope, nor does it say that the Church was built on some office called Peter. Peter there is one man. The Church is built on the Lord Jesus. Peter is petros, the rock is petra, not the same word, but even if it were, there is no Church office of Peter there; just Peter. There is no hint of any successors to Peter in some special office.

The origin of the Papacy in Scripture Matt.16:15-20

I think it's because so many ideas were mediated through The Greeks (and later The Arabs). Greek or Arabic tends to provide the basis for our technical/scientific language.

@@alanpennie8013 Also until the late 19th and 20th centuries very little was known about the Egyptian and Babylonian contribution. This came with the decipherment of the texts

I have heard about the theory, do you have some source to inquire more in depth?

Simon attempted to buy the power Peter portrayed and I , too was taught that Simon was the originator of catholicism.

No.....the devil is creator of the Catholic church..... Constantine started to replace christianity with false religion and keep Rome in power

Simon Magus got killed.. and his name was different than the other Simon

I was looking up something about Emperor Nero when I read that, Simon Magus also had influence over him, they were both slaughtering the Church, and the Catholic Church nearly succeded in wiping them all out, but they could no do it, not then, and not now, thank God.@@mirando100