Hey Ethangelist, why would you waste time & effort posting garbage like this that brings division amount Christians? You can do better !

@@hamidrabiipour9707 *I agree ... ROman religion teachse gb. God and His Words are antiRomanreligion and antiRCdoctrines. Wonder why?* 1. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But Bible says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to God only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet Bible says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. Bible says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet Bible says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same God. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.

@@jediv9910 please stop posting nonsense day in day out. Your understanding of the scripture is inadequate & I hope you watch a few videos by Dr John Bergsma, Dr Keith Nester or Dr Scott Hahn, as these educated men explain true Christianity & why they left their old denominations and became Catholic. Do it for your own scrutiny and spiritual growth & don't act like a fool displaying your memorized scripture. Peace

@@hamidrabiipour9707 *Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. Scriptures is the final authority. Not Roman religion. Not Scotty Hahn Roman pagan false teachers.* you said please stop posting nonsense day in day out. Your understanding of the scripture is inadequate & I hope you watch a few videos by Dr John Bergsma, Dr Keith Nester or Dr Scott Hahn, as these educated men explain true Christianity & why they left their old denominations and became Catholic. Do it for your own scrutiny and spiritual growth & don't act like a fool displaying your memorized scripture. Peace

@@hamidrabiipour9707 *John Bergsma that lack of knowledge cannot even go one round of debate with me. He dodged all questions. Lol*

Galatians 2:7-8 says nothing about "Jews" (a false translation of Ioudaioi anyway) it says to the circumcision and uncircumcision. The circumcision was the remnant of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who remained in Judaea and Galilee following the Law, the uncircumcision was the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who had been scattered among the nations in 742-721 BC who had ceased following the law. God's people are the children of Israel, never "the Jews". The word now rendered as "Jews", Ioudaioi, simply means inhabitants of Ioudaia (Judaea), and only a fraction of Israelites from only 2 of the 12 tribes ever inhabited Ioudaia, and only did so for a brief time, so it's completely ridiculous to think the Ioudaioi, regardless of how the word is translated, represent "God's chosen people". Moreover, many non Israelites including the accursed Canaanites and Edomites lived in Judaea, and were also called Ioudaioi. One group of Israelites still practiced circumcision at the time of the Apostles, and the other group didn't. The circumcision and the uncircumcision, it's that simple. Paul used the word ETHNOS for the uncircumcision, meaning nations, which is now rendered as "Gentiles". Not a single apostle used the word "Gentiles", that's a carryover from the Latin translation of scripture, and Gentilis has always meant "OF THE SAME FAMILY, TRIBE, OR NATION". It has never meant "non Jews" as so many of today's pulpit masters wrongly insist. Hence the prefix gen-, as in GENES, GENETICS, etc. These were KINSMAN NATIONS to the apostles, that's why the Latin translators chose a word denoting people with the same genes. Jesus is the KINSMAN REDEEMER. Sadly the true biblical narrative has little by little been altered and hidden over the centuries, to the point where we now have Christians adhering to what is essentially the Communist doctrine of "the brotherhood of all mankind", a Satanic doctrine that contradicts the scriptural teaching that rebellious angels sought to destroy God's creation Adam by adulterating his seed and corrupting his race, with the added benefit of preventing the Savior from being one of his direct descendants. Which is why the Hebrew speaking prophets has at least 4 different words for people, only one of which was Adam, but now all of those words are rendered as "man" in translations. Utter confusion. The fact that Christians refer to Jesus as "the son of man" is a perfect example of this confusion, as the phrase is a reference to the phrase used in Ezekiel, "SON OF ADAM", and also in Daniel "ONE LIKE A SON OF ADAM". Of course these phrases now appear as "son of man" and "one like a son of man", thus the word anthropos in the NT, which had a very specific meaning and scope to the ancients, only ever referring to the inhabitants of what we call the Graeco-Roman world, has been ignorantly rendered as "man" - causing most people to assume these passages of scripture refer to every homoid on earth, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible in no way teaches that everyone on 2 legs is a child of God, just the opposite, as Jesus perfectly clarifies in Matthew 13:24-30 & 36-40. "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." ... "Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." Clearly an explanation of the serpent in the garden planting his seed, resulting in the birth of Cain and his satanic descendants - however, since Christians on the whole have been poor stewards of rightly transmitting the apostolic teachings - allowing countless mistranslations and errors to creep into translations of scripture over the centuries, to the point where we have over 30,000 competing Christian denominations presenting contradictory teachings, most Christians have no idea that Cain was not Adam's son. And since so few Christians have undertaken to thoroughly study the Old Testament scriptures, or to understand the world of antiquity in which the events recorded in scripture took place, almost none are aware of the numerous places in scripture where this fact is attested to and affirmed. To top it off we find in 1Chr 2:55 that Cain's descendants were allowed to become the scribes, so it's no wonder that the portions of scripture that deal with Cain's origin have been tampered with and the truth obscured. Genesis 4:1, which so many use to reject Cain's satanic parentage, is actually not a translation from ancient manuscripts, but rather an interpolation due to what scholars refer to as a "gloss", a scribal notation that became part of the text due to inattention. Anyways this reply has grown long enough...

@@doxholiday1372 Israel divided into the Southern Kingdom and Northern Kingdom... Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did. “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. - 1 Kings 11:31-35 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes - the Jew FIRST and also the Gentile. - Romans 1:16 Then Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and declared, It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to the Gentiles. - Acts 13:46 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” - Acts 18:6

@@doxholiday1372could you suggest further reading in this vein

Whenever someone says they are not lying it means they are, Paul is self proclaimed, just read Acts 9 about his conversion afterwards no one believes him he has to be removed and sent to Tarsus and verse 31 takes the cake, the church began well before Paul, as a former Reformed Baptist, what we were taught about Paul doesn't line up with scripture

Why do you what he said?

Please do some research. Listen to some Catholic answers, Trent horn, Matt frad etc. As a general heuristic if a claim is “so impossibly outlandish and obviously false” it’s more likely you don’t know the issue well. I was prot and now am Catholic and even I see some evidence for the Protestant claim (not nearly enough to convince me but some for sure). If you think NO WAY BRO THIS IS CRAZY AND SO FALSE it’s more likely you don’t know the issue rather than the 1.3 billion Catholics have never heard of All this insurmountable evidence

both Peter and Mary would have nothing to do with the catholic church.

Catholic Church doesn’t execute people

Lol Mary who has used to saints to speak to catholic over the years n u guys say that she would want nothing to do with the church . You guys r just jealous u cannot Conner your faith to the apostles peace catholic forever 😂😂😂😂😅

@@katanaevelyn6813 You mean the imaginary stories that have all been debunked about Mary appearances?

Also, no mention of priests!

Do they not have faith? What happened to faith alone?

Hypocrites like MacArthur cherry pick for their own dishonest means. It's so obvious with anybody with half a brain. But unfortunately our Protestant friends are so easily deceived and consumed by satan's lies. Jesus was right in establishing authority and hierarchy. You see it in nature and in society because it works. The 2,000 year old Catholic Church and the 45,000 new and conflicting denominations of Protestantism are testament to that. Jesus is not the author of division - angry Protestants tampering with the truth are.

No thanks. I’ll read the Bible.

Pentecostalism is simply Catholic mysticism just as Lutheranism is Catholic-lite. Your still in Babylonian captivity. Revelation 18:4 - "...Come out of her..."

So you went from speaking in tongues and having the Holy Ghost to worshipping a Pope smh, calling a Pope Father, you will be beat with many stripes for abandoning the teachings of Jesus Christ, now the Catholic Church has opened the doors to LBGTQ, you will have to answer to Jesus Christ, YOU KNOW BETTER

The Protestant church has opened its doors to gays for a long time. And no the Pope didnt allow gay relationships or anything of the sort. Please read his quotes and letters rather than news headlines. He always states the Catholic position, that those who repent can become saved and that we should bless people not their sin; and we wish to support the well being of all even if we disagree with the actions of men

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@Napolean-tq3zs Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand did Jesus not open up to prostitutes, tax collectors, murders? Luke 5:31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Catholic Church has been pro life since day one, not even accepting contraception in married couples like Protestants did. Allowing a gay person in church is not against Jesus teachings. Rome has not accepted homosexuality, pride, we don’t celebrate that. But we are here for the church that is the people that make the church. Stop reading fake news. And headlines. Look for the full video.

Over-complication is a way to confuse people and keep them from the clear truth.

@@megrose711 It's not complicated. That's my point !

@@kevinwerner5500 yep, I was agreeing with you!

@@megrose711 O . Thanks for your support. Take care !

I don’t understand what you’re saying? Do you agree with the video or disagree?

Were you there and you saw Jesus giving the keys to peter? Besides peter rejected Jesus 3 times. Also Jesus did not say and on you Peter i will built my church. Jesus said and on this Petra i will built my church the Word Petra is Greek for rock it is not latin. Again we have the Roman Catholics who are trying to hide their heresies, inventions, and some time falsehoods to feel important. How can Rome be more important than Jerusalem? That is why Roman Catholics are in such a caos now🥲🥲

@danielswartz6818 The the keys to heaven were tangible you'd think that the idiots from Knight to Nazis would be looking for them rather than the so called Holy Grail. Jesus also told Peter that what he, Peter, allowed on earth he would allow in Heaven, and if you believe in the succession of Popes heaven is the place to be for debauchery and deceit.

Popes were never mentioned in the bible

You are morbid.

According to my research, the pagan Roman Empire with the Caesars as head essentially morphed into the Holy Roman Empire with the Pope as head.

@@benz8421: that's what I said!😜

Well I think you’re spot on with your assessment 😃

Would be interesting to research and study this claim and see if it's truly valid or not

@@benz8421 Your research? What about the research that refutes what you are saying?

Exactly. Unfortunately, the RCC has their private interpretations which the Bible commands us not to use to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible. Period.

@@jmo900 Funny that ... 3 Church of England Bishops in just the last 2 years have become Catholics cos the Catholic Church is at one with the bible even the KJV bible !!

@@1234poppycat Those C of E bishops went to the CC because the protection of homopedophiles is much better there.

​@@1234poppycatJohn Henry Newman scandalous KZfaq

​@@1234poppycat not all believe the Bible. There will be apostates. They love religion more.

Amen

Mt 16:23 "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:.." By your logic then Peter is also Satan. You won't be able to understand scripture without the Comforter. You must be born again. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ and His one time sacrifice for You. The GIFT of salvation is right there just accept it as a you would any Gift.

@@guenzel2 that verse is out of context. i suggest read it again why Jesus said that.

@@guenzel2 understand that Peter doesnt want Jesus to die, and is confused how He will fulfill the Messianic Prophecy through suffering and death. understand that without God's revelation to High Priest Caiaphas, Jesus will not be put to death and glorify the name of Father. understand that Judas is all part of God's plan to be a traitor, so Jesus will die and fulfill all the prophecies.

@@guenzel2 Matthew 16:16 In-Context 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. ------- John 21:15-25 Jesus Reinstates Peter 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

I'm Apostolic Pentecostal and Apostle Peter was not Catholic, he was no pope, Apostle Peter walked hand in hand with Jesus Christ, he never swayed away from Jesus Christ teachings, the Catholic Church is a demonic false Christian religion, they do not follow the laws of Jesus Christ, they committed murders in the name of Christ, they molested millions of kids and covered it up all the way up to the Pope, you are lost and will end up in Hell with the rest of the Popes

Peter preached what Jesus preached. Repent and speak in tongues as the gift of the HOLY GHOST, no other way around it, Peter taught what Jesus Christ taught, the Catholic Church dies not believe you have to speak in tongues and be filled with the Holy Ghost to get to Heaven, if they don't teach the teachings of speaking in tongues and being filled with the Holy Ghost to get to Heaven they are not of God

No he's not ,you are ,Roman' catholicism is not biblical Christianity, show me in scripture the justification for praying to Mary, the apostles who are dead praying the rosary, take the eucharist for example Jesus does not inhabit the eucharist read your Bible he's at the right hand of the Father intercesseding for his children Hebrews 7:25 says he ever lives to make intercession for them, Hebrews 12:2 he is seated at the right hand of God, Roman's 8:34 Says Jesus is at the right hand of God intercesseding for us ,that's where Jesus is as our high priest

​@@johnbostic4063 So then God has a right hand?

Lol, “Truly truly I say unto you this IS my body and this IS my blood. He whoever does not drink of my blood and eat of my flesh has NO LIFE WITHIN HIM”. Yeah bro just a symbol. A symbol that dictates whether or not you have life within you

Oh Harold, you've never read the whole Bible yourself. In your defense a guy named Harold probably has poor comprehension skills.

😂

Strange that - given the fact that they are encouraged to go to Mass daily if possible and have at least 3 readings (including the Psalm ) in the Mass which it self is based on the Word of God (recounted in 7 scripture John 6 etc)

show me a verse from bible that wrote that the catholic is the first church in the whole world

Why did orthodox separate from the catholic church. Why did Pope's kill people all through there history while orthodox didn't. You can say Catholic is the oldest church but Orthodox was there the whole time. Even before the Roman church. Roman's killed all the Christians before they made the Roman Catholic church. Roman's worship women why do you think Marry is worship. Why the separation in 1600's because Pope was losing money so he said you can buy your unsaved family members into heaven.( Not in the Bible). When you argue for the Catholic Church know the whole history. Now your Pope wants to bless same sex that will lead to more separations of the church. I will never worship or fall to my face to no man including the Pope. Only to Jesus.

the Focus of that passage isn't Peter, it's Jesus Christ -- back up to verse :13 and try to keep it into context.

@@tony1685 Luke 10:16 - Jesus told to His Apostles "he who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me". Mathew 12:30 - Jesus warned us "he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters". Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "false christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray if possible, the elect. But take heed, I have told you all things beforehand". Mark 13-31- Jesus say "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away". Mathew 18:3-4 - Jesus say "truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven".

@@marymargarette4289 i agree 100% with the Scriptures you've posted Ma'am, but you have not proven anyone is against Jesus. it's just not possible that the Scripture was referring to any other than Jesus Himself as Messiah and Son of Living God. it is called _'Peter's Confession'_ - what is the confession?

What do you mean?

@@ETHANGELIST Just being sarcastic. It's like "or else you are cursed" is their final jutification for every point of their doctrine.

@@mytwocents777 Ohhh okay. Yup it's just a threat and scare tactic by Rome. Yet again. No one wants to be cut off and condemned by the one true church and I'm sure plenty some who were tempted to become Protestants or had doubts about Rome, would've felt compelled to stay due to the threat of anathema.

What lies . There are dozens of Early Fathers who say Peter was in Rome and died there. Very Early sources like 1200 or 1300 years before the Protestants revolt. 2 or 3 reliable sources from history, makes it a fact. And the fact there were no schisms, why would these Fathers say it? The bible wasn't available to anyone until the council of Carthage 397 a.d. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aN1zi9SZmLzUh2w.html

​​@@ETHANGELIST This Catholic law ruling also goes against the Spirits advice... Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Romans 12:14

I'm not sure you know what strawman means.

@@johnmark6628a little concerned your questioning this comment based on this video. Filled with straw arguments lol. So let’s just begin with the first ten seconds, “there’s not one tiny shred of evidence in scripture for the papacy.” This is a straw man because it is arguing a position the Catholic Church doesn’t hold so in a way it could also be a red herring Let me show you what another straw argument is, “sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible”. Although this is a fact this a star man argument

@@MidSpectrumThoughts False. It is a position that the catholic church holds. They say that the first pope is Peter, and that this comes from the Bible. . This of course is just not knowing how to read on the part of the Catholic church. . . Sola scriptura is found in the Bible however. . . ***2:Tmothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

@@johnmark6628 oh no. Questions like that will get you in trouble. Atheists will corner you. The church doesn’t claim the word “pope” is in the Bible. Just like the church doesn’t claim the word “Trinity” is in the Bible. Do you believe in the Trinity? If you do show me in the Bible where it says Trinity. Oh you can’t? Of course you can’t but you can defend this argument by showing evidence of the Trinity in the Bible. The word Trinity derives from scripture. Just like the word Pope derives from scripture. So this is why I believe this is a straw man argument because realistically these weak arguments are meant to deceive. Finally, in regards to the verse you are referencing. What scripture was available to the people of that time? I’ll let you think about that… I’ll give you hints. The New Testament to that point was not put together yet into the tiny library called the Bible. So that leaves us the Old Testament. So using the verse you referenced and now knowing the Old Testament was the only scripture available… should we only be following Old Testament laws? Just something to think about brother. Search and you will find.

@@johnmark6628 and also you have yet to defend your stance on saying sola scriptura is in the Bible . That verse you showed me doesn’t state the words “Sola Scritpura” furthermore, the substance of that verse itself doesn’t say read scripture alone.

Very well said but then Roman Catholicism is heretical and apostate for myriad reasons. Denying the true Gospel in Ephesians 2:8-9 'For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH and that NOT of yourselves. It is the gift of God NOT works, lest any man should boast. " Pure, clean & simple to grasp. Praying to Mary? "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Calling priests & popes Father. Matthew 23:9 " And call no man your Father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven."

​@@Ken-dh2te so you call your father "hey dude i need some money" though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If faith alone saves read the sheeps and the goats. Yes our work is not enough to be saved to boast about in the first place and no matter how righteous you are you cant be saved if God is not willing. Thats the point you cant be saved. Nothing unclean shall enter the Kingdom of God. How God will be just if he save a rapist, murderer, molester, just because he believes. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

your claim falls apart when you understand 1/ Jesus spoke in Aramaic and there is no term in Aramaic which distinguishes small rock with large rock 2/ Christendom - Orthodox and Catholic have accepted the interpretation for 2000 years without controversy. It only became an issue when Protestantism was being created by men 500 years ago. So in addition to cutting books out from the Bible - from 73 to 66 and cutting passages from the bible they also needed a lot of reworking 3/ Next we have the absurdity of saying that because we use the term Rock (amongst dozens of other titles and descriptions) we can not use one of these titles to explain Peter ! If I was to call my brother a wonderful person it does not mean that I can not use the term for someone else !! 4/ Obviously being the Rock does not mean that Peter is the same as Jesus Nowhere do you find Catholics saying Peter is the Messiah 5/ About half of Christians in the World today are Catholic Christians and YAHWEH is a term commonly used by Catholics in Bible / Catholic Christian study courses

I saw it as well just more lies about Catholicism cos you can not fault the Church God created from any truth ... that is why 3 Church of England Bishops have come to Catholicism in just the last 2 years !!

That guy like MacArthur misrepresent the Catholic faith. Watch Trent Horns correction of this video for the truth.

@@mikegski7943 Yes I saw that Totally agree

The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.

@@user-mv7kd7og5w Show 1 historical record of Papacy in the 1st, 2nd AD. By That I mean a writings that points to existence of such offices before 3rd of 4th century. Not a Bishop, Not a Priest, But a Pope!!

The first pope was actually Bishop Vitalian of Rome, when he was put in charge of the churches in Rome by emperor Constans II. In the late 600s.

@@johnmark6628 so was Peter just make belief or something?

@@vman9347 Why are you leaping to such a strange conclusion? . Peter is real. Popes are not. . There's no such thing as popes. The Catholic church made it up.

​@@vman9347hey bro, are you really confused or just playing dumb, devil's advocate? 😅 Every important organization on earth has a leader & it's the same with the church. The Pope is a representative of Jesus, making sure the church is always going in the right direction, plain & simple. Idiots like MacArthur have polluted the issue & have their own demonic agendas. 🤔

@@johnmark6628there were 33 popes before Constantine

The man has written over 400 books and done many study bibles…. Yet still has less money in his bank than the pope 😂

Yeah he’s got issues I’ve met him. Not a huge fan but the Catholic Church isn’t biblical

​@@user-ud9og6qm9hyou have issues....great man

Get lost troll

If Catholicism “is a different gospel” then please explain why ALL Bible believing people receive their rule of faith, the Bible, from her… 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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. 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?

Jesus is the rock the church is built upon. The cornerstone the builders rejected. This miss interpretation is pretty obvious.

@@sad1th Yes many protestants reject the Words of Jesus to excuse their own man made churches

The people are the church. Not a building or organization, the church is in you, where 2 or more are gathered in the name of Jesus Christ you have a church

Peter (Rock) YOU are the rock and on THIS rock I build my church. He calls Peter the rock, after LITERALLY naming him rock; and then says on this rock after referring to Peter both in name and title as rock as the rock on which the church will be built. And we know Peter was the chief apostle even if you disagree with the papacy. Please do some research I pray for you

@@butter__boi703 The chief apostle? See that's your theological problem right there. You honor man and not God to who belongs all the glory, honor and praise. Stop your man worship i'm praying for you to see who Jesus really is and who we (mankind) really are.

Jewish

Hey Darryl, you write as if Peter is your cousin & you know exactly what he wants or doesn't want!🤔 FYI, we as Christians are called to be a representative of Jesus & carry on his ministry. Fake & misguided preachers like MacArthur have polluted the gospel of Christ & are an embarrassment to the Christian faith.

@@hamidrabiipour9707 Apostles like Peter walked with Jesus, No man on earth is worthy to put his self in the place of Jesus, as Christians, we are to teach and testify of Jesus. Not be his replacement, Jesus don’t need a replacement, Jesus is alive and well. Jesus is in the right hand if God, not in a wafer and not in wine. The bread and wine at the last super was a parable, it respresented the things that was to come. The wine was the blood that he would shed for our sins and the bread was his body that would be broken and would be raised from the dead. Catholics are Christians, some of what they go by is in the Bible and some of it is man made doctrines created by popes, bishops,priests and maybe a few monks of old time, so old of a doctrines, it is accepted as traditions.

The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.

@@user-mv7kd7og5w The problem is: It is Not just Catholics, but also other denominations also, They are Not going completely by the Bible. It is like they never even read a Bible, it is like they made it up as they went, so now it (the church) don’t resemble what is in the Bible. Until a church goes by the Bible (God’s Word) That Church Can Not be the true church of Christ. The traditions and doctrines of men Can Not take the place of God’s word.

You mean how many victims of the catholic church were molested by priests. It has been going on for years and years . Now you're pope is blessing lgbtq. And don't get me started on the 600 year catholic inquisition

Your problem is that, you put men's word above that of God. This video spoke from the position of Scriptures, which will forever reign supreme over any piece of cooked up history. Just support your comment with scriptures

@@fredowusu22 Gladly, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply... It's sort of a long reply for KZfaq standards, but I really hope you read the entire reply in good faith. It's a common misconception that the Catholic Church favors traditions of MEN over the word of God quoting some passages in the gospels that say not to replace God’s word with the traditions of MEN particularly in Matthew and Mark’s gospel. This is one of the big mistakes that some of our friends, particularly in the Protestant community, make in looking at these passages, they will see Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for holding two traditions of men, and then they skip over passages in the New Testament that talk about traditions in a positive way. So it’s not all tradition is a bad thing. The English word, tradition, comes from the Latin word trādere, which means something that is handed on. So tradition itself is a neutral concept and that’s why you find both passages in the New Testament that speak positively of tradition and passages that speak negatively of tradition, because some traditions are good and some traditions are bad. It’s when it conflicts with the word of God that a tradition of men becomes bad. But not all traditions are even traditions of men. There are also traditions that come to us from God and were passed down to us by Jesus to the apostles. All of that oral teaching Jesus did - it wasn’t written. Jesus didn’t write any kind of theological manual for the disciples, He trained them orally, and that means that what he gave them was a body of traditions. We called it APOSTOLIC traditions. And they were passed on through the apostles to the church. And so, consequently today, Catholics and other Christians will refer to them as an APOSTOLIC tradition because they were traditions that were endorsed and passed on by the apostles, and those traditions are the ones that the New Testament commends. The biggest problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura, from this perspective, is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible should be used by Christians as the sole authority, the sole rule of faith, in matters of belief and practice - NOWHERE! The Bible does, however, very clearly support the Catholic Church’s teaching that it is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that make up the deposit of faith; it is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that comprise the Christian rule of faith. Scripture says: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). Traditions! Oral traditions and written traditions. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, both of which the Thessalonians are being told to “stand firm and hold to.” And how does Paul refer to these oral traditions elsewhere? : “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the WORD OF GOD which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess 2:13). The Thessalonians received as the word of God that which they heard from Paul, not simply that which they read in his letters. Or...“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). Paul is commending the Corinthians because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul COMMANDING the passing on of Sacred Tradition. So, we see that the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Tradition is something we need to take very seriously, and in fact, everybody does. If you look in the Protestant world, do Protestants hand on ideas or things from one person to another? YES - such as phrases like Sola Scriptura. When you are a Protestant and you get your first Bible, just like being a Catholic when you get your first Bible, someone gives it to you. That’s literally handing on a tradition. And if it’s a Protestant Bible and you’re a Protestant and you open it and you see, “Oh, it has these 66 books in it.” You just accepted the canon of scripture based on something that was physically handed to you. So this isn’t just Catholics, it’s also Orthodox and Coptic and so forth, I would say, “Actually that’s an imperfect tradition because there should be more than 66 books there.” But how do you know WHICH TRADITION IS RIGHT? The Bible does not tell you which understanding of the canon is right, and there is no divinely inspired contents page. The publisher decided which books to put on the contents page and how to classify them. So, this itself points to the role of tradition even in Protestant life. And it’s fortunate that these days you have a growing number of Protestant scholars who are much more comfortable talking about tradition. They’ll talk about, “Our tradition as Lutherans,” or, “Our tradition as Calvinist,” or, “Our tradition as Baptist.” And even more than that, they recognize the role that tradition played in the early church. In fact, a Protestant friend of mine recommended me to read a set of book on the early Church Fathers. Another scriptural problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura is that it teaches that every individual has the right - the duty, in fact - to read the Bible and decide for him- or herself what is and what is not the truth in all things concerning the Christian Faith. Yet, that is decidedly unscriptural. The Bible quite plainly teaches us that individuals, reading the Bible on their own, do not have the authority to simply decide, on their own, what is true or false doctrine. 2 Peter 3:16, for example, tells us that there are some things in Scripture that are “hard to understand” and that, because of this, the “ignorant” twist these Scriptures to “their own destruction.” Which of us could say that we are not ignorant of Scripture in at least one way or another? This means that we are at risk of twisting the Scriptures to our own destruction. This is serious business! So, how do we get around the problem of our own ignorance? Does the Bible give us a clue? Indeed it does: Acts 8:31. Here the Ethiopian eunuch is reading Scripture and Philip comes up and asks him if he understands what he is reading. What does the eunuch say, “Of course I understand it. I don’t need any help from anyone to understand the Bible”? No, he doesn’t say that! He says, “How can I [understand the Scriptures], unless someone guides me?” So the pattern of looking both to apostolic scripture and apostolic tradition is meant to be used by us today. Because the apostles never put a sunset clause on this principle that they were using. Also, one principle that they also used was turning to authoritative teachers to settle questions, the apostles, for example, in the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. And so when difficult questions arose like, “Which tradition should we follow? Do people have to be circumcised to become a Christian or not?” So in settling that question, the Holy Spirit directed them to have a council, and that shows that God’s will is for sometimes questions to be settled by humans in discussions in AUTHORITATIVE teaching moments. And that’s what we Catholics refer to as the magisterium. And so we also see the word of God as expressed in scripture and tradition with hard questions being ruled on by the magisterium. And by using those three bodies, we can sort out, or those three elements, we can sort out the question of which particular traditions conflict with God’s word and which don’t. The Bible tells us that we need a guide - some authority other than ourselves - in order to be sure we don’t twist the Scriptures to our own destruction. Not that we can’t understand a lot of Scripture on our own, because we can. But, as the Bible itself tells us, there are things in the Bible that are indeed hard to understand, things that are important enough that one could lose their salvation over them. Which is why God gave us, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The twelve apostles became the first leaders of his Church, appointing in time one of the twelve apostles-St. Peter-as the leader of the Twelve, telling him, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19), and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples "into all the truth" (John 16:12) and that “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16). When Satan demanded to have the apostles sift them like wheat, Jesus prayed for Peter that his faith may not fail, and Jesus commanded Peter as leader of the Church to "strengthen [Peter's] brethren" (Luke 22:34). Finally, Jesus told the Apostles “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20). So, the Bible gives us a different rule of faith; it doesn’t give us the Bible Alone. Pray for me please as I pray for all of you.

@@fredowusu22 May I add this to my previous reply? I just received it from a Catholic publisher >>> The four Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-are our principal sources of information about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For two thousand years, they have nourished the faith of Christians across the world. In our own, skeptical age, the Gospels still have a unique place. Even those who don’t regard Jesus with the eyes of faith acknowledge that he is the most influential man ever to have lived, having left a major mark on history, culture, and language. There is tremendous confusion about the Gospels themselves. How are they different from one another? Do they contain contradictions or falsehoods? Who wrote them? When? Weren’t there other gospels in the early Church? How much authority should they be given? Let us start at the beginning. What is a Gospel? In the simplest terms, a Gospel is an ancient Christian book about Jesus. When people refer to “the Gospels,” they’re typically referring to the four canonical ones. However, there also are non-canonical gospels that are not included in the New Testament. The Greek term for gospel (euangelion) means “good news,” and it could be used in a variety of senses. Naturally, it could refer to hearing about any good thing that had happened. However, it often was used to refer to announcements by or about the Roman emperor. The emperor often was regarded as the son of a god, and his person represented the peace and security of the empire. Whatever he announced was at least supposed to be good news for the people, and so it would be declared to be “good news” (whether it really was or not). It thus was natural for Christians to announce the coming of the true Son of God and his kingdom as good news, and so St. Mark begins his book with these words: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” It is probably from this verse that the book of Mark came to be known as a “Gospel,” and from there the term spread to other canonical and non-canonical works. Because the canonical ones are known as Gospels (Greek, Euangelia), their authors are known as the four Evangelists-with a capital E, to distinguish them from ordinary evangelists, who share the message of Jesus generally. When it comes to the kind of books the canonical Gospels are, they are essentially biographies. That is, they tell us about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. There are differences between modern biographies and ancient lives. Today, authors may write biographies about people just because they’ve had interesting lives. However, ancient lives had an instructional purpose. Readers were meant to learn lessons from the lives of the people they read about. Thus, in his Parallel Lives, Plutarch wrote about similar noble figures-a Greek in parallel with a Roman-so that his readers could learn what made the men great and what they might want to imitate. Similarly, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius discusses both the good things and the bad things the first twelve Roman emperors did-partly so that people would know what good rulers should and should not do. The four Gospels share this instructional quality, and we are meant to take away important lessons for our lives. John states, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are NOT written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (20:30-31). Similarly, in Matthew, Jesus says, “Everyone then who HEARS these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock” (7:24). Sometimes people wonder whether the Gospels were meant for Christian audiences or whether they were evangelistic documents meant to convince people to become Christian. The answer is the former, and the reason is the cost involved in producing copies of the Gospels. Today, individual Gospels and even entire New Testaments can be mass-produced cheaply and given away for free, making them usable as evangelistic tools. But before the printing press, every word had to be handwritten by a scribe, and every sheet of papyrus or parchment had to be painstakingly manufactured by hand. As a result, a single copy of one of the Gospels was fantastically expensive, with Matthew costing the equivalent of around $2,200, Mark around $1,400, Luke around $2,400, and John around $1,900. Only rich people and congregations that pooled resources could afford them, making it clear that they could not be handed out as evangelistic tracts, so they were meant for people who were already committed Christians.

You tend to forget that it was the church & its authority that carefully put the scripture together for our benefit some 2K years ago. If you take away the authority then any idiot like MacArthur will interpret the scripture as they wish for their own demonic agendas.

Same arguments can be made for Orthodoxy. Womp womp.

_"The head of the Jerusalem Church was James"_ False. The head of the Jerusalem Church was James's brother, Jesus Christ. Oh, by the way, when and where did Roman Catholicism begin?

Sounds like you are the one that is prideful and willfully ignorant.

If John MacArthur had met Jesus he would have called him the Anti - Christ and His words anathema and anti biblical

Because he doesn’t understand orthodoxy and basic hermeneutics. You think the pope could exegete a passage? I don’t

@@user-ud9og6qm9h He’s the pope. He don’t need to

@@PInk77W1 lol it’s all made up Pope Cardinals Priests Nuns Purgatory Holy water Confession to a priest in a booth Rosary Mary sinless Etc etc etc None of it in the Bible

@@user-ud9og6qm9h do you know what else in NOT in the Bible, the list of books that belong in the Bible itself, and why does the pope OR Mac himself not talk about that… 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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. 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 is God sovereign??? This is not a trick question. The Psalms make it clear that He is. Can He preserve His Word? Psalm 12:7 says He can. Is His Word even more important than His name? Psalm 138:2 says so. Is His Word inspired? Timothy said so. Is Genesis 1:1 true? How about the resurrection? If they are then the idea that ALMIGHTY omnipotent Jehovah can easily preserve what He wanted preserved From the original autographs until today. 171 out of 176 verses of Psalm 119 refer to the Word of God. It is alive(Hebrews 4:12) and will never pass away. Like Mormons most Catholics believe their leaders over the Word of God. The Word of God has been preserved by a sovereign Almighty God. The only way groups who differ in doctrine from bible believing Orthodox churches make a case for their doctrines is to paint the Word of God in a bad light compared to their “prophet” or leaders. The new pope is down with Islam and says we are all children of God. Wrong….a person becomes a child of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Romans 6:23, 10:9-13) Ephesians 2:8-9 Only Jesus saves, not an organization. Popes Nuns Priests Holy water Purgatory Indulgences Sprinkling newborns at 7 days old and calling it baptism ( the Greek word for baptize mean to immerse. Baptism by sprinkling and baptizing newborns incapable of believing in Christ is unbiblical. The New Testament admonishes us to believe and be baptized. Sprinkling water on a baby’s head does nothing but get it wet. So many false doctrines, it is practically endless.

We Catholics agree. Thats why we eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ ONLY. 👍🏻 You should too.

the peculiar alexandrian philosopher folk don't like that version of history

Bro have you never read Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Jerome???? All these guys were calling the bishop of Rome or Rome (the Church their) where all the church is centered to visibly (in so to speak words)

I'm not defending Catholicism, but want to say Satan was not claiming to have created the world. He said it had been "given" to him, which is true. Jesus did not call him a liar because He knew what had happened.

You say it's laughable but you've failed to respond to his best arguments and your response to two lesser arguments is super speculative and excuse-oriented. Your translation of 1 Peter 5:13 is false. Where's the word "here" in the Greek? Or even "church"? Where does Peter actually say he was in this "Babylon" or with them? Does anyone know for sure that Babylon is Rome? Please don't exaggerate. And your other response is full of excuses and speculation. Why would the Bishop of Rome be away from Rome and at the exact moment Paul wrote to Rome? Is he neglecting his duties? Why would an apostle to the Jews be the bishop of a Gentile Roman church? What about Romans 15:20, Galatians 2:8 and 1 Peter 5:1? Again, you've ignored his best arguments.

@@ETHANGELIST Are you kidding me, does anyone know that Babylon is Rome? The vast majority of Biblical commentators all say Babylon was a code word for Rome. Even your own reformed camp says so. For example in Table Talk, a Bible study magazine from Ligonier ministries says: "Babylon almost certainly stands in for Rome and its empire. First-century Jews sometimes used Babylon as a code word for “Rome,” including Christian Jews such as Peter, who uses it that way in 1 Peter 5:13." Even more so I have a John Macarthur study Bible and in his commentary even he ironically wrote: "she who is at Babylon, refers to a church in Rome." If you go to other protestant biblical commentaries they will say this shows Peter was in Rome when he wrote this. For example in the Nelson Study Bible it's reads: "she indicates the people who comprised the local church in the city from which Peter was writing." So why are you exaggerating trying to call into question and give the impression 1 Peter 5:13 is not clear about Peter being in Rome, and what Babylon means? And I'm sure your aware that the Pope is not bound to stay in Rome. As the sheppard of the universal church, his job is to tend to the flock and feed them, just as Christ commanded Peter to do. It is completely reasonable to believe Peter traveled around, just as Paul did. What's unreasonable is to assume that, because Paul does not mention Peter in the book of Romans means Peter was never there. That is super speculative and excuse oriented.

@@ETHANGELIST You don't know ancient history, or maybe ignoring it. Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and there was a very large number of Jews in Rome at the time, so this is why he would have been there along with Paul.

Nice red herring you got there fred.

@@friendlyfire7509 nice rebuttal friendly fire you got me

that just means Mathias shouldnt be an Apostle. God never gave peter power to choose Apostles, yet he did because he thought he was able to (he wasnt)

No he's miles over your head, with 50 years of Bible study

​@@fzr1000981 I've actually studied this quite comprehensively. The following are my notes describing why Peter is in fact The Rock: In the New Testament, the renaming of Simon to Peter holds profound significance, as exemplified by Jesus' explicit declaration in Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church." This renaming underscores Peter's foundational role in establishing the Christian Church, a theme consistently reinforced in various biblical passages. During this renaming, Jesus delivers three statements to Peter building him up, each contributing to his affirmation and foundational role in the Church. The first statement blesses Peter, attributing his blessed state to a divine revelation. The second statement, declaring "You are Peter," renames him as the foundational "rock," emphasizing his crucial role. Contrary to potential belittlement, this renaming builds up Peter. The third statement, promising the keys to the kingdom, further solidifies his authority, with binding and loosing symbolizing governance. This structural analysis underscores a consistent pattern of building up Peter, affirming his blessed status, foundational role, and authoritative position in the Church. The Greek and Aramaic Wording: In Matthew 16:18, Jesus declares, "You are Peter (Petros (Πέτρος)), and on this rock (petra (πέτρα)) I will build my Church." Despite debates over the Greek terms petros and petra, both convey the concept of "rock," aligning with Old Testament precedent (Isaiah 22:22) and reinforcing Peter's role as a chief steward with keys (Matthew 16:15-19). It's essential to recognize that Jesus and Peter conversed in Aramaic, where both terms would translate to Kepha. Simplifying, when we consider the Aramaic words Jesus used, saying, "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha, I will build my Church," it strongly supports the idea that Peter is the foundation of the Church. There is also no distinction between large or small rocks in Aramaic. Although Jesus’ words could have been translated into Greek using Petros in both cases (“You are Petros and on this Petros”), Petra appears in the second instance simply to avoid using the same word too closely in quick succession. Avoiding repetition by using a synonym is often an important element of style (so much so that it is the reason pronouns exist). In John 1:42, Simon(Peter) is also referred to as Cephas(Kepha), emphasizing the symbolic nature of his role. The use of "Cephas" recurs in 1 Corinthians, where factions aligning with Paul, Apollos, or Cephas highlight Peter's prominence (1 Corinthians 1:12). His recognition as an apostle is further solidified in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when Jesus appeared specifically to Cephas. When reading this in Greek there is an extra "The". This inclusion of the extra "The" in the statement "You are Peter, and on this THE rock I will build my church" in Greek, emphasizes Peter as the foundational figure. This deliberate choice by the writer underscores Peter's specific and crucial role, a nuance often lost in English translations. Retaining "THE rock" in the Greek version reinforces the significance of Peter in the context of building the church, a detail omitted in many English renditions of the Bible. Therefore, we can conclude that the writer made a conscious decision to use the name Petros, and also the name Cephas. He could have used the same name, but instead made a deliberate choice to also keep the Aramaic name in there, as well as the Greek name to convey the point even stronger that Peter is the rock, so it wouldn't get lost in translation. These verses collectively portray Peter(Petros), also known as Cephas(Kepha), as the cornerstone upon which the Christian Church is built, aligning with Jesus' declaration in Matthew 16:18. Peter's foundational role in the Christian Church is consistently highlighted throughout the New Testament, from his symbolic renaming to his pivotal confession and Jesus' affirmations. In Matthew 16:13-20, Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ is met with Jesus affirming the divine nature of this revelation. Peter is the only one to have a revelation actually confirmed by Jesus. This pivotal moment lays the foundation for Jesus declaring Peter as the "rock" upon which He would build His church. In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus prays for Peter's faith, emphasizing his role in strengthening others after overcoming challenges. “31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Again tony, if so, then please explain why ALL Bible believing people receive their rule of faith, the Bible, from her… 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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. 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 paragraph 1 & 2 - it's always interesting when dealing with catholics - they have only 2 methods of defense - first they claim to be where Scripture is from -- then, when that's clearly proven incorrect -- they minimize and demean the Word of Truth -- both of which are without integrity. if your 'church' were in any responsible for It - you'd be capable of answering basic Bible questions. but we both know you're not - so there's that. and if It weren't as important as It is -- It wouldn't be so revered and proven throughout all history. but It is -- so there's that.

@@tony1685 🤣 and yet you still cannot/will not answer the hard question posed about your rule of faith. Hmmmmmm! Quite telling…

@@srich7503 i know the game. i answer -- you don't accept, because it's subjective and depends on what you've been told. i ask a Bible question - or 2 - or 3 - you fail to answer, but hang on tight to me not answering your subjective and non Biblical question. no thanks.

@@tony1685 Nothingsubject about history sir. And if you think you think you have answered my question then you wont mind letting the readers of this thread decide for themselves if that is the case or not as im am. Your next response will tell. 🤷🏽‍♂️ But for me, i have not seen anywhere where you have addressed the the fact that the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century AND that their would-be individual canons were GROWING during this era.

You can not honestly believe any word coming from the Vatican they will say anything true or false to bring Rome as superior to other 4 Patriarchates.

1/ Peter was in Rome. 2/ Nobody claimed he went anywhere different. 3/ St Augustine " What had the Chair of the Roman Church done to you in which Peter sat and in which And in which Anastasius sits today..... " Augustine (5th Century)...... 4/ Jerome (2nd Century) says "Simon Peter in the second year of Claudius pushed on to Rome. He held the sacerdotal chair there for 25 years until the 14th year of Nero when he was crucified upside down with his head near the floor..... " 5/ See the you tube video "Was Peter in Rome ? (Yes Peter was in Rome!) "

@joeblogs-vx4ep *You will have to cite examples to be more convincing.* 1 2 3 you said John McArthur twists scripture to mean whatever he wants it to mean he's doing the same manipulation techniques of the false prophets

He can't. He is blinded by his hatred.

​@@megrose711 to preach the Truth is not hateful at all but rather loving. The Truth is offensive to many and results in comments like yours about people who preach it. Remember what Jesus said? ‭‭John‬ ‭15:18‬ ‭ [18] “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.

@@megrose711 There are many true believers in all different sects of Christianity. Most Catholics do no not believe what the Catholic Church officially holds to be true. That’s the fault of the apostate Roman Catholic Church, not us. MacArthur is 100% right. He’s not hateful, he’s absolutely correct.

@@sly8926 People believe the lies he spreads and it is unfortunate. I've dealt with his followers on numerous occasions - hate is an understatement. Their attacks on me have been vile, and make me glad I'm not a Calvinist. The Catholic Church is the true church, and I hope you make your way to us along with the others who already have and still are, after realizing they've been lied to by people like MacArthur.

@@mack6429 The sad thing is you guys aren't preaching the truth, you preach heresy, novel ideas only 500 or less years old. None of it roots back to Christ or the Apostles unlike Catholicism. The Bible verse you quoted me is about members of Christ's Church: the Catholic Church. Repent and come home.

_"Likewise, why did Peter, in Acts, give a different description of Judas' death than what was in the Gospels. Did Judas hang himself, or did he burst open in a field? Which is it?"_ Where in the Bible is it stated that Judas *died by* bursting open in a field? Nowhere. Acts 1:18 says: *_"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."_* It says Judas fell headlong and burst asunder, etc. It doesn't say Judas *died by* falling headlong and bursting asunder. Were you reading some _special_ "Bible", that, instead of just saying Judas fell headlong and burst asunder, adds to that your claim that Judas died thereby?

@@25dollarbill24 You just typed it out. His bowels gushed out. I dont think someone can live if theyre internal organs are now on the outside of them

@@25dollarbill24 "let there be no one to dwell in it" and "Let another take his office" are two conflating statements that cannot both be true.

@@25dollarbill24 I just figured it out. His bowels did fall out of him, but that was after he already died by hanging. My bad

You wrote: _"Was Peter in Rome ?"_ No. You wrote: _"Yes Peter was in Rome!"_ When? What year? And, what year was the Roman Catholic Church founded?

@@25dollarbill24 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence of this reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers. It may be said that by the end of the 1st century there existed a tradition that Peter had lived in Rome. Further early evidence for the tradition is found in the Letter to the Romans by St. Ignatius, the early 2nd-century bishop of Antioch. It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. Words of John 21:18, 19 clearly refer to the death of Peter and are cast into the literary form of prophecy. The author of this chapter is aware of a tradition concerning the martyrdom of Peter when the apostle was an old man. And there is a possible reference here to crucifixion as the manner of his death. The strongest evidence to support the thesis that Peter was martyred in Rome is to be found in the Letter to the Corinthians (c. 96 CE; 5:1-6:4) of St. Clement of Rome: Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited (5:4).…To these men [Peter and Paul] who lived such holy lives there was joined a great multitude of the elect who by reason of rivalry were victims of many outrages and tortures and who became outstanding examples among us (6:1). These sources, plus the suggestions and implications of later works, combine to lead nearly all scholars to accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time. The earliest evidence (c. 200 CE) is found in a fragment of a work by St. Gaius (or Caius) witnessing to a tradition at least a generation earlier (c. 165 CE) that the “trophy” (i.e., tropaion, or monument) of Peter was located at the Vatican .The use of the word “trophy” indicates that in this period the Vatican area was associated with either the tomb of the apostle or simply a monument erected in the area of Peter’s victory (i.e., his martyrdom). Some scholars find support for a tradition that the apostle was buried ad catacumbas (“at the catacombs” of San Sebastiano) on the Via Appia in an inscription of St. Damasus I (pope, 366-384),

@@1234poppycat You wrote: _"1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in __5:13__ is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city."_ If you Romanists actually believe that, then why don't you call your institution "The Church of Babylon", instead of calling it "The Church of Rome"? You wrote: _"The strongest evidence to support the thesis that Peter was martyred in Rome is to be found in the Letter to the Corinthians (c. 96 CE; 5:1-6:4) of St. Clement of Rome:_ _Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited (5:4).…To these men [Peter and Paul] who lived such holy lives there was joined a great multitude of the elect who by reason of rivalry were victims of many outrages and tortures and who became outstanding examples among us (6:1)."_ Where, in the text you handed us (your "strongest evidence...that Peter was martyred in Rome"), is it stated that Peter was martyred IN ROME? It's not. Also, it's interesting to note that, whereas you call God's Word (in particular, 1 Peter 5:13) "fairly reliable evidence", you reserve it for an unauthoritative, not-God-breathed, extra-Biblical document (Clement's _Letter to the Corinthians_ ) to call it "the strongest evidence". Yet one more example of how Romanists can't help but exude with every breath their inveterate contempt for the authority of God's Word, The Holy Bible.

@@25dollarbill24 1 Babylon was the code name for the Roman Empire which was persecuting the Catholic Church 2 We dont call ourselves the Church of Rome We are the Holy Catholic Church 3 Peter living In Rome proved then confirms other writings on his death

@@1234poppycat You wrote: _"Yes Peter was in Rome!"_ So, I asked you: _"When? What year?"_ You: ** And, I asked you: _"And, what year was the Roman Catholic Church founded?"_ You: ** You wrote: _"Peter living In Rome proved "_ Not only have you never proved Peter lived in Rome, but you have not even proved Peter ever even so much as sat foot in Rome. All you've done is to repeatedly assert that he did. You wrote: _"We dont [sic] call ourselves the Church of Rome"_ To whom are you referring by your pronoun, "we"? The Pope, himself, calls his institution, "the Church of Rome". For example, Francis I said: _"Above all, I share with you the desire for communion, affective and effective, while I offer my daily prayer that this, our Mother _*_Church of Rome,_*_ called to preside in charity, may cultivate the precious gift of communion first and foremost in herself, making it germinate in the various realities and sensibilities of which she is composed. May _*_the Church of Rome_*_ be for everyone an example of compassion and hope, with her pastors always, truly always, ready and willing to extend God’s forgiveness, as channels of mercy that quench the thirst of today’s humanity."_ (LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO THE PRIESTS OF THE DIOCESE OF ROME) _"Babylon was the code name for the Roman Empire which was persecuting the Catholic Church"_ In Romanist website, newadvent•org's encyclopedia entry headed "Rome", we read: _"The persecution of Valerian, too, fell first upon _*_the Church of Rome._*_ "_ Well, isn't that interesting? Notice that the Romanists who published that article did not say, _"The persecution of Valerian, too, fell first upon _*_[the Holy Catholic Church]._*_ "_ So, by saying _your_ "church" is not the Church of Rome, you're saying that the persecution of Valerian did not first fall on your "church". Why are you so eager to disown the term, "the Church of Rome"? Especially since Romanist websites like vatican•va and newadvent•org, and the Pope, himself, obviously do not share your scruples against calling themselves "the Church of Rome"?

@jediv9910 It may start with the fact that Jesus was the Davidic King and the Messiah.

@@rappmasterdugg6825 *Yes so?* you said It may start with the fact that Jesus was the Davidic King and the Messiah

@@rappmasterdugg6825 *So where in the Bible ever said "Jesus established His Church in accordance with the Davidic kingdom"? WHere?* 1 2 3

@@MeowMeow-jt8mo This is an interesting question, thank you, and I would really like a meaningful and respectful counter-argument or questions from you. David was king of Israel and Judah, reigning for about 40 years. David is anointed as the future king of Israel, at God’s direction, in 1 Samuel 16:1-13. In 2 Samuel 2:4 David is anointed as king of Judah. In 2 Samuel 5:3, David is anointed king of Israel by the elders in a covenant made “in the presence of the Lord.” This evidence very clearly shows that David is the king of Israel and Judah, at God’s direction, and by definition David is a “Davidic” king. The successors to David as king, with the exception of Athaliah, were direct descendants of David, and are considered “Davidic” kings. In 2 Samuel 7:8-16: Yahweh promises David an eternal kingdom. In 2 Samuel 7:11b-16: Yahweh promises to build David a dynasty after his death. In 2 Samuel 7:13, 16: Yahweh promises that the royal son's throne will last forever. Despite these promises, the Davidic Kingdom fell to the neo-Babylonians in 587/586 BC, as described in 2 Kings 24:8-12 (end of the first Temple Period). The Jews returned to Israel in 538 BC, as described in the OT books Ezra-Nehemiah (hooray for Persian King Cyrus!). Although the Davidic bloodline continued the kings didn’t reign as kings-essentially the kingship and the throne were underground. The Jews began to anticipate the coming of the Messiah who would re-establish the Davidic kingdom. The Messiah would be from the line of David -Matthew 1:1-17 gives Jesus’ genealogy showing that he is a descendant of David through Joseph. In Luke we have another lineage tying Jesus to David’s line. In Luke 2:4, 10-11 we have the angel saying in reference to Jesus “Do not be afraid; for see - I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.” In Matthew 16:15 Peter says in response to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ and Messiah are synonyms, both meaning “anointed one”-Messiah is Hebrew and Christ is Greek. Jesus was anointed three times. In Luke 2:25-35 we have Simeon recognizing Jesus as the Christ in the temple. There’s really no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, and as such is the Davidic king the Jews have been waiting for. Further, Jesus is the last of the Davidic kings as he is eternal-there would be no successor kings and he reigns forever. In the Old Testament God makes several covenants with the Jewish people through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jeremiah (the New Covenant). Jesus is the fulfillment of the New Covenant. In Matthew 26:27-28 we have Jesus saying Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” The entire Old Testament points to Jesus, to this moment and the founding of his Church. God chose Israel. He chose David to lead Israel. He promised David that his line would be eternal. Jesus is of the line of David. Jesus is identified in numerous places as the Christ/Messiah, the anointed one and fulfillment of God’s promise to provide an eternal king. Jesus is the last and eternal Davidic king. Everything Jesus did, including founding and eternally shepherding his Church is Davidic. I have been respectful for you and only cited scripture. Please be respectful of me in the same manner.

​@@rappmasterdugg6825 *Yes again nice fairy tales. You are just using your man made narratives as Scriptures and doctrines. Still not a single verse ever said "Davidic Kingdom = the Church". SO where did RCs get all your ns? Lol* you said This is an interesting question, thank you, and I would really like a meaningful and respectful counter-argument or questions from you. David was king of Israel and Judah, reigning for about 40 years. David is anointed as the future king of Israel, at God’s direction, in 1 Samuel 16:1-13. In 2 Samuel 2:4 David is anointed as king of Judah. In 2 Samuel 5:3, David is anointed king of Israel by the elders in a covenant made “in the presence of the Lord.” This evidence very clearly shows that David is the king of Israel and Judah, at God’s direction, and by definition David is a “Davidic” king. The successors to David as king, with the exception of Athaliah, were direct descendants of David, and are considered “Davidic” kings. In 2 Samuel 7:8-16: Yahweh promises David an eternal kingdom. In 2 Samuel 7:11b-16: Yahweh promises to build David a dynasty after his death. In 2 Samuel 7:13, 16: Yahweh promises that the royal son's throne will last forever. Despite these promises, the Davidic Kingdom fell to the neo-Babylonians in 587/586 BC, as described in 2 Kings 24:8-12 (end of the first Temple Period). The Jews returned to Israel in 538 BC, as described in the OT books Ezra-Nehemiah (hooray for Persian King Cyrus!). Although the Davidic bloodline continued the kings didn’t reign as kings-essentially the kingship and the throne were underground. The Jews began to anticipate the coming of the Messiah who would re-establish the Davidic kingdom. The Messiah would be from the line of David -Matthew 1:1-17 gives Jesus’ genealogy showing that he is a descendant of David through Joseph. In Luke we have another lineage tying Jesus to David’s line. In Luke 2:4, 10-11 we have the angel saying in reference to Jesus “Do not be afraid; for see - I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.” In Matthew 16:15 Peter says in response to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ and Messiah are synonyms, both meaning “anointed one”-Messiah is Hebrew and Christ is Greek. Jesus was anointed three times. In Luke 2:25-35 we have Simeon recognizing Jesus as the Christ in the temple. There’s really no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, and as such is the Davidic king the Jews have been waiting for. Further, Jesus is the last of the Davidic kings as he is eternal-there would be no successor kings and he reigns forever. In the Old Testament God makes several covenants with the Jewish people through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jeremiah (the New Covenant). Jesus is the fulfillment of the New Covenant. In Matthew 26:27-28 we have Jesus saying Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” The entire Old Testament points to Jesus, to this moment and the founding of his Church. God chose Israel. He chose David to lead Israel. He promised David that his line would be eternal. Jesus is of the line of David. Jesus is identified in numerous places as the Christ/Messiah, the anointed one and fulfillment of God’s promise to provide an eternal king. Jesus is the last and eternal Davidic king. Everything Jesus did, including founding and eternally shepherding his Church is Davidic. I have been respectful for you and only cited scripture. Please be respectful of me in the same manner.

Ephesians 5 says even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Christ is the bridegroom and the church is his bride

Jesus is the Rock. Look at the context. The only one who has the keys to heaven and hell is God. 1°Co 3:10-11; 10:4 1°Pt 2:4-8. There's no other foundation besides God

@@murilolinsdacruz4110 Did Jesus love the rock or the church?😀

Try actually reading the Bible. Roman Catholicism is rife with pagan influence: Transubstantiation/Mass,Relics, Limbo, Purgatory, Worship of Mary & much more. Your popes, bishops, cardinals, priest are all sinners who can't save anyone. WAKE UP

Sulo...I know you and I are on the same page but to clarify for others, Jesus is the head of His body the church and the 'R' in RC was first coined by 16th C. Anglicans as a slander against the Catholic Church. The word Roman best describes the particular 'Rite' of The Catholic Church based in Rome. There are 23 other Catholic churches under various other Rites but all in union with their mother church in Rome.

@leobaltazar *Very interesting claims. Except there is no office of bishop of bishops - pope in the Bible. So you are just proving it's self recognition and self invention of Rome. Self invented traditions is not doctrines according to Scriptures. Col 2:8, Mark 7:8, Mat 15, Mat 23.* you said The recognition of the papacy, or the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), developed over time in the Catholic Church. Here's a brief overview: 1. *Early Christianity (1st-3rd centuries)*: The Bishop of Rome was respected as one of the prominent leaders in the early Christian Church, but not yet recognized as the supreme authority. 2. *Council of Nicaea (325 AD)*: The Bishop of Rome was recognized as having a special role in resolving disputes and maintaining unity among churches. 3. *Council of Constantinople (381 AD)*: The Bishop of Rome was acknowledged as having a primacy of honor among bishops, but not yet a formal authority over the entire Church. 4. *Pope Leo I (440-461 AD)*: Leo I, also known as Leo the Great, played a significant role in establishing the papacy's authority. He asserted the Bishop of Rome's supremacy and was recognized as the first Pope in the modern sense. 5. *Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)*: The Council recognized the Bishop of Rome's authority and primacy, stating that "the Bishop of Rome has the primacy of honor and authority." 6. *Middle Ages (5th-15th centuries)*: The papacy's authority grew, with Popes exercising significant influence over the Church and secular affairs. 7. *Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD)*: The Council reaffirmed the papacy's authority and defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was later formally defined at the First Vatican Council. 8. *First Vatican Council (1869-1870 AD)*: The Council formally defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, stating that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (in his official capacity as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church). Over time, the recognition of the papacy evolved, with the Bishop of Rome's authority growing from a respected leader to the supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

Sauce?

@@friendlyfire7509 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ob94Y72erJ3HoHk.html

Just another MacArthur type lie

Brother read it for yourself, this man clearly makes mistakes. He claims Peter was never called to preach to the gentiles, that is found twice in scripture. Acts. Don’t be deceived by someone that hates Catholics.

Mr MacArthur has got those blinkers on again. If you do little research and confine yourself to ten minutes of simplistic reasoning you will stand a good chance of getting it wrong!!!! The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles in later years. John is wrong to dismiss these early documents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes. What the Bible Says Mr MacArthur is also wrong when he claims, “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21). These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem. “But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists John MacArthur. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (see Rev. 11:8). But let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too. Early Christian Testimony William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal-and very early-position was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the empire. A Very Early Reference Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his. In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.” (THANKS TO CA)

Kindly review my comment above with the following heading = CHALLENGE = Can = any = Protestant, including John MacArthur, present an answer to this most = basic = and necessary Question = Why did Jesus incarnate as a Man and die on the Cross ?? (( Note = a review of the following points is helpful before answer )) Read the 26 points numbered from A to Z and give me your answer = if you are able =

So grandfather is dragging you to Hell with him. Satan gets a two-for.

No it’s not. You guys are deceived. You guys do faith + works= salvation rather than faith = salvation + works. Also you guys practically worship Mary which is unbiblical and idolatry. You guys also have broken the second commandment and made graven images of the host of heaven as idols. Also you guys believe that the pope is on the same authority as Christ, which is heresy. Also during the mass you guy’s literally take Christ from His throne and sacrifice Him continually cause ig to you His first and only sacrifice want enough. I could go on

Very Cult like and pagan like, to a degree, they still focus on the trinity but have extra biblical non sense attached to it

​@hotjoe817 JM's religion isn't about Jesus. His god is anti-Catholicism. His lies are intentional because if his folowers ever found out the truth, they'd stop giving him money. If Catholicism is so horrible, then why does he have to lie about it and twist what we ACTUALLY believe?

@@arlenebaratta what about the money the Vatican gets. Get real. You call the pope holy father, read a Bible lady, brainwashed

Praying to mary ? Purgatory ? Following crooked priests ?

​@arlenebaratta mcarther is telling the truth. If you knew christ ,you would know what you're talking about. You're so side tracked praying to mary witch is a sin.

@OfficiallyLost *You will have to list his Ls to be convincing. Where?* 1 2 3 you said I used to love John MacArthur, until I started reading church history. Not only does John skip over basic facts, he tells blatant lies.

Which has nothing to do with the idolatry of the papacy

There is nothing in the Bible indicating Peter went to Rome. If you are talking about the non scriptural “Acts of Peter” then yeah I suppose any fairy tale can be written to claim whatever they want.

@@scase1023 Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Both Polycarp and Irenaeus were martyred by the Roman authorities for refusing to renounce Jesus. Before his martyrdom, Irenaeus wrote 5 books titled 'Against Heresies'. In book 3, he wrote... "...in the various Churhes, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up...therefore... we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches...and reckon the succession to our own times....." "Since, however, it would be very tedious..to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority..." "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of bishop. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him...Clement [mentioned in Philippians 4:3]...This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes... this Clement (Bishop of) the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians [1 Clement], exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles... "To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus...(next) Alexander...(followed by) Sixtus...Telephorus (who was martyred) then Hyginus; after him, Pius; after him, Anicetus...(then) Soter...(next) Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate (bishop). " "In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." (Against Heresies, book 3, Chapters 1-3 [180 AD]) Such early church writings are evidence for me that not everything is contained in the Bible. In truth, the New Testament is a collection of the memoirs of the Apostles and letters sent to specific churches or individuals concerning particular issues needing resolution. The ancient church never viewed the Bible as a complete historical record of the early church. Such historical accounts become clearer with the reading of these extra-biblical writings by the early Christians and non-Christians such as the 1st C. Jewish historian Josephus. Other trustworthy documents the ancient church embraced includes The Didache (circa 70 AD), 1 CLement (circa 80 AD [this book was considered as Scripture by some and was considered for the canon]), Ignatius of Antioch's 7 letters (circa 107 AD [Ignatius was a disciple of John and ordained bishop by Peter]), Polycarp (circa 155 AD [a disciple of John]) and Irenaeus of Lyon mentioned above (circa 180 AD). This period, 70AD-180 AD is my favorite church period because of some of the reasons I mentioned. Hope this is helpful. God bless you.

​@@billlee2194 *Irenaeus Against Heresies was a spurious writing - an interpolation of multiple writers and writings. It claimed Jesus was crucified at 50 years old. Lol* you said Is John aware that there are early church documents stating that Peter and Paul established the church in Rome and Peter was there for 25 years?

​@@billlee2194 *Based on the Chronology of Book of Acts, there is no way Peter was in Rome for 25 years. It was based on false claims.* *Catholics' narrative of Peter’s timeline directly contradicts Jerome's claim that Peter was in Rome and was bishop of Rome for 25 years from AD 42 to 67.* From thebiblejourney: Acts 10:9-23 Peter - praying on the flat roof of Simon the Tanner’s house in Joppa- also has a vision in which he is told not to call anything ‘unclean’ that God has made ‘clean’ (see Leviticus 11:46-47). Shortly after this, Cornelius’s two Gentile servants and his attendant arrive at Joppa. Peter invites them into the house to be his guests although Jews would not normally eat with Gentiles because they were regarded as ritually ‘unclean’ (see Deuteronomy 14:1-3) and eating with them would make a Jew ‘unclean’. AD35: Peter in Caesarea and Jerusalem Acts 10:23-48 Peter travels to Caesarea towards the end of 35AD and shares the Good News of Jesus’s death and resurrection with Cornelius’s Gentile family and friends (see 2 on Map 19). The Holy Spirit falls on all present and the six Jewish believers from Joppa (see Acts 11:12) are amazed that God has poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles - as they “heard them speaking in different languages and praising God” (Acts 10:46). The new Gentile believers are baptised as “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we did!” (Acts 10:47). Peter stays in the Gentiles’ house at Caesarea for several days. Acts 11:1-18 Peter reports back to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem(see 3 on Map 19). The more conservative Hebraic Jewish believers criticize Peter for eating with uncircumcised Gentiles, but most of the disciples agree to accept the new Gentile converts into the fellowship of believers. AD44: Peter hands over the leadership to James Acts 12:1-19 The narrative now skips a few years to 44AD. Peter (who is regarded as a radical Jew for mixing with Gentiles) is arrested in Jerusalem during the Passover festival on the orders of King Herod Agrippa I, who has recently beheaded the apostle James, the brother of John. Peter is miraculously freed from prison during the night by an angel. He rejoins the believers - who are meeting at the home of John Mark in Jerusalem. He hands over the leadership of the Jerusalem church to the more traditional James (the brother of Jesus - see Galatians 1:19) and flees elsewhere for safety. St Mark’s Church, in the Armenian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, is believed to mark the site of John Mark’s home. AD49-50: Acts 15:1-21 Peter addresses the assembly of believers in Jerusalem in 49/50AD. James- as leader of the church - concludes that the Jewish believers shouldn’t insist that Gentiles who have become believers in Jesus must adopt all the Jewish religious traditions (see Acts 15:12-21). Gal. 2:11-14 Peter meets Paul in Antioch in 50AD, shortly after the Council of Jerusalem (see 4 on Map 19). Paul accuses Peter of changing his mind and drawing back from eating with Gentiles - under pressure from the more traditional Hebraic Jewish believers from Jerusalem. (Antioch was in Galatia, modern days Turkey)