Great argument. Thank you.

The issue with that argument is that the Catholic Church does not hold anyone to currently be the sole successor of James, John, Philip, etc. While apostolic authority can be shown to have continued throughout history, I don't think this verse would convince a Protestant that this structure wasn't just for the apostolic age.

@@johnketema8880 - I tend to agree with your point. The first verse was better.

@@johnketema8880 Well said.

@@johnketema8880 not really an answer but interesting, I heard fr ripperger say that he wasn’t sure if it’s still done but when someone would become I think a bishop, they were given a document that traced their lineage to one of the 12 apostles

Only after the women reported it, lmao.

@@sustainablelife1st non sequitur

​​@@sustainablelife1st The women reported it because they were the ones who first noticed it. The point of this commenter seems to be that John the Beloved shows reverence towards Peter by waiting for the old slowpoke to catch up and see instead of just barging into the tomb himself. I'm not sure exactly how strong of an argument that is on its own, but it works well in tandem with all of the other more explicit proofs (i.e. "you are the rock," "feed my sheep," or the one in this video).

I understand what you mean. It can feel discouraging when you know the text is there, but can’t find it easily. As these two said, though, the modern break down and set up of the text wasn’t its original form. And it is so easy to cheery pick verses out of a larger context.

That's right.

Alleluiah!

I wanted to say the same thing

I like how Suan Sonna explain about the Papacy 🤩🤩🤩

I would like to hear them debate on which argument is the best.😊

I LOLed

I usually get Seth Rogen...

No, Seth Rogan! He looks and especially *sounds* so much like him 😂

because historically, we do not see in in the early church. That and rank heresy such as veneration of saints and works needed for subsequent justification after initial justification

@@joseortegabeede8233Veneration of saints predates the New Testament.

@@joseortegabeede8233Once Saved Always Saved was invented by a 16th century lawyer.

Just discovered that, it’s great! Protestants worst mistake is in not asking or bothering to find out before disagreeing. Knee jerk anti - Catholiicsm does not come from God.

Perfect summary!

according to some Mary's prayer.

I agree👍

Thank you for sharing! Very interesting

problem with anything Essenes is that it is still way to much on the conjecture side of things and in reality unless we find another breakthrough of scrolls we just will never know. Ive sat through theology classes on this argument and that Jesus may have been an Essene... it falls into the category of Gnosticism. I argue it was merely a loosy goosy school of thought rather than an actual religion or sect ( Gnosticism today is no different). But there are very strong cases I will admit....but we will never know

@@MrMarcodarko I think you misunderstood what I was saying. No one said Jesus was an Essene. It was suggested that John the Baptist may have been an Essene and that two of John's disciples who followed Jesus might have been Essenes as well. In fact, in the Gospel where Jesus tells the apostles to find a man carrying water - doesn't that strike you odd? How many men would be carrying water around back then and how would they find the right one? Because men didn't carry the water, women did. The only men carrying water would have been the Essenes since they were a celibate monastic community that were just outside Jerusalem. I think the notion is entirely plausible. I would check out Bergsma work.

@@_thomase the Catholic brothers KZfaq channel has a short video series on prophecy in the early church, and they also touch up on this Essene theory with St. John the Baptist, St. John, and the believe St. Andrew? ( I might be mistaken on who the second essene disciple was so forgive me). Either way, their series is fascinating and I’d highly recommend you check it out!

"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958)

Exactly but how is that transferred to the papacy?????????/

​@@eve3363John 21:15-17

sounds like a fairly tale to me..surely you do not take this nonsense seriously ?

@@johnpro2847 leave your comfort zone. Live in the real world

And in Aramaic Kepha is Kepha!

Peter or Petra, petrified, petrification, etc,

Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer

Dr Ortlund is pretty cool for a protestant

Mike Winger is incredible until he starts talking about Catholics or Catholic doctrines

Lol

@@hugonegron3135 Mike Winger is great guy…..terrible theology

Vosostros - You others - is basically You Guys.

Might be helpful: kzfaq.info/love/AdaEkd41hGFhEVET5Quiuwvideos

@@HenryBonesJr Any suggestions for rebutting Lex Meyer?

Thank you so much for your kind words! - Vanessa

And as long as the EO renounce their doctrines on the three marriages and denial of the Marian dogmas which so much offend the Lord, not to mention schism. When Sr. Lucy of Fatima prayed for an answer as to why were there 5 Saturdays in the Five First Saturdays devotion, Jesus answered: "My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary: 1. Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception. (Not held by the EO) 2. Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity. 3. Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men. 4. The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother. 5. The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images. Here, My daughter, is the reason why the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little act of Reparation ..."

If Peter was infallible, why did Paul have to correct him of his hypocrisy at some point?

@@MathiasMNielsen Why wouldn't he? Infallibility doesn't cover the personal attitudes of any given pope but his ability to bind the Church.

@@MathiasMNielsen Precisely because Paul's correction was about Peter's behaviour (his self-discipline), not his teaching about Faith and moral (which is infallible). We are allowed to criticize the pope's actions if we think they are wrong, there have been multiple example in our church history like st Catherine of Siena. This is easy to understand, even Caiaphas, who was a wicked man, prophesized an infallible teaching about Christ (John 11:49-51), precisely says John, because he was the high priest that year, he made the last inspired prophecy of the Jewish people in the old covenant. The high priest in the old covenant held the chair of Moses (Mat 23:2-3), we believe that in the new covenant, this infallible function of teaching Faith and moral is replaced by the chair of Peter, this is why we say about infallible teachings that they are EX CATHEDRA (From the chair)

@@MathiasMNielsen Infallibility is only when the Pope speaks authoritatively (from the chair, "Ex Cathedra") on matters of faith and morals. Paul had to correct Peter for acting in a poor way. He was avoiding eating with Gentiles when the Jewish-Christians were around. So Peter was acting like a hypocrite. He was sinning and causing scandal, and thus needed to be corrected. Now, if Peter had tried to officially teach that Gentile Christians were unclean and the Jewish-Christians should not eat with them....that would present a problem for infallibility. But for 2,000 years, there is not a single example of a Pope trying to officially teach heresy. That can only be from divine intervention.

The biggest place where they err is in denying the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church

They don't err, thats the thing. Roman Catholics err in a lot of places, for ex: Divine Simplicity.

I'd chime in here and point out that not a single other patriarchate followed Rome into the Great Schism. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople all "held fast" to the Faith. Asking from a practical perspective - and with sincere humility - if the infallible primacy of Rome is indeed a doctrine found within the Church since its infancy, would it not stand to reason then that when the Great Schism occurred, AT LEAST one other patriarchate would side with Rome? For if one branch leaves the tree, is it the tree or the branch which has departed? Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Glory to God for all things!

@@permanenceaesthetic6545 This is exactly what Luke 22 talks about! Satan demands Peter specifically, and a break in Christian unity and the infiltration within the Catholic Church ensues. The Church must convert (in all her practice), then reach out to Peter's "brothers." Times look bleak in the Catholic Church right now, but just as in the divided kingdom, I have absolute faith that Christ's words will come to pass and we will one day have Christian unity.

I think Trent mentioned he would not take on Orthodox doctrines too much due to the Church’s stance on them being in communion with Rome. He mentions it a bit more in his videos “The One Thing I’m Not Talking About” if anyone wants clarification.

No, you have to do 20 hail Marys or the spell wont work. Then 15 hail Dianas.

Read Isaiah 22. And watch kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hr2boLB_29jDpKM.html

It does not work like that. Say a man has a kid and a wife. He loses that kid to cancer. "Oh", he says, "now I can finally love my wife more" Would that be right? It wouldn't. To assume that respecting someone diminishes your respect of another is a misunderstanding of how humans work. It's not pizza, giving a slice to someone doesn't leave someone else with less slices.

Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer

You're right! As I point out in my upcoming book "The Early Church Was the Catholic Church," even Bart Ehrman argues that the epistles and Revelation begin with their authors identifying themselves bc these are “genres in which this is typically done,” but “the Gospel writers saw themselves as writing in a genre that did not require a self-identification of an author.” So the point there is specific to the genre of Gospels, not to epistles and prophecies.

@@JosephHeschmeyer Got it, thank you very much brother!

When did Christ give him the keys and what were the keys?

Nobody denies that Peter was the leader of the apostles, but it falls on the Roman Catholic Church to prove that Rome has the claim to the "seat of Peter" simply because he apparently died there, despite never having founded that church body himself. He did found Antioch alongside Paul, therefore, if there are any true claims to apostolic succession, it would be the Eastern Orthodox who could lay claim to that idea.

INCORRECT!! The pope does create doctrines: Assumption of Mary Purgatory The sacraments Rosary etc. etc. etc.

@@brutus896 Assumption of Mary is not created doctrine. A belief that dates back to the Early Church. Purgatory is not created either. There's plenty of scriptural evidence for it but probably not in a Protestant Bible. The Sacraments are things instituted by Jesus throughout his ministry. There is no Doctrine concerning the Rosary.

@@brutus896 You’re mistaken. These teachings were always present within the church, but the Pope and the magisterium certifies them. For example, concepts like the Trinity was always believed, but it took the Council of Nicea to certify it as doctrine. They didn’t create it; rather they clarified it as a fundamental attribute of the Christian faith.

@@Cklert The assumption of Mary was created doctrine by the pope in 1950 speaking "ex cathedra" Purgatory is not in the bible, then what is your source? This is extra biblical stuff that is made up. Jesus never instituted sacraments. No mention of infant baptism, penance, etc. In the bible. So again I ask what is your source? If there is no doctrine concerning the Rosary, why then to catholics do it instead of praying to Jesus?

@@Serquss The doctrine of the trinity is in the bible but I didn't question that. I said purgatory, assumption of Mary, and the sacraments are not in the bible. It's all made up by the pope.

He had gone to Rome.

Welcome home!!!

I would answer that there aren't thousands of denominations. The study that this is usually taken from includes the Catholic Church and in it the Catholic Church has 195 denominations. There are positives and negatives to each governmental structure. You have pointed out a weakness. The weakness in the Catholic Church is that by making this one guy who is in charge infallible ex cathedra, you can't undo bad doctrine without undermining the entire authority of the church so you see that the RCC is more concerned about you being submitted under it then it is about a persons relationship with Christ.

Once Scripture is established, there is no need for any one person as leader. The Bible is the authority.

@@IESBiblia Galatians 2:11 says that Paul "RESISTED" or "OPPOSED" Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11 describes the action of Paul using the Greek word "anthistemi" which means "to resist" or "to oppose" ). This is the right word to use because it shows Peter's position of AUTHOURITY in the church. When a person disagrees with a person or persons in POSITION OF AUTHOURITY, what he is doing is described as OPPOSITION or RESISTANCE, for example, scripture says: "Consequently, Whoever RESISTS (or OPPOSES) those in AUTHOURITY is resisting what God has instituted " (Romans 13:2). Besides, who says that a leader CANNOT be corrected by those under his leadership? Why would Peter refuse to be corrected by Paul? Wouldn't that be a sign of PRIDE which goes against what Jesus taught about leadership ? No one is doubting how hard Paul worked in the early church. Nevertheless, Paul RECOGNIZED the position of authourity of Peter in the church. For instance, when Paul had that dispute with some Jewish believers over the issue of circumcision of the gentiles, why did he take the matter to the council at Jerusalem, a council where PETER stood up to officially declare that circumcision was not necessary for salvation of the Gentiles (Acts 15)? Why didn't Paul stand up to object to what Peter had said by saying something like: " Sorry Peter, but you have no authourity to make that kind of decision" ? Why didn't Paul just sit down and decide the matter all by himself? After Paul's conversion on his way to Damascus, the very FIRST person in the entire early church that he went to meet to share his experience was PETER (Galatians 1:18). Why didn't he just start working with the early christians without telling Peter that he was now a Christian as well? He didn't, because that would have been the improper thing to do. He had to first of all go and meet the LEADER of the church (i.e Peter) before integrating himself with the members of the church. You said that christians doesn't need human leadership because they have the scriptures? Really? That statement doesn't make sense. It is just like saying that Americans don't need a PRESIDENT simply because they have a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION to guide them on how to act as citizens of America. societies made up of HUMAN BEINGS will always need HUMAN BEINGS as leaders. A BOOK cannot replace a HUMAN BEING when it comes to leadership of human beings. It has been like that right from the very beginning. The Israelites had the ten commandments and the laws of Moses, YET they recognized Moses (a human being) as the one with the authourity to lead them, and because they recognized that it was God who gave him this responsibility, they regularly came to meet him to "determine God's will" (Exodus 18:15-16). Why didn't they just ignore him and READ the ten commandments and the other laws for themselves to know what the will of God is? Besides, the Bible shows that Jesus chose Peter to lead the church when He instructed Peter: "Take care of my sheep" (John 21:15-17>

@@IESBiblia Galatians 2:11 says that Paul "RESISTED" or "OPPOSED" Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11 describes the action of Paul using the Greek word "anthistemi" which means "to resist" or "to oppose" ). This is the right word to use because it shows Peter's position of AUTHOURITY in the church. When a person disagrees with a person or persons in POSITION OF AUTHOURITY, what he is doing is described as OPPOSITION or RESISTANCE, for example, scripture says: "Consequently, Whoever RESISTS (or OPPOSES) those in AUTHOURITY is resisting what God has instituted " (Romans 13:2). Besides, who says that a leader CANNOT be corrected by those under his leadership? Why would Peter refuse to be corrected by Paul? Wouldn't that be a sign of PRIDE which goes against what Jesus taught about leadership ? No one is doubting how hard Paul worked in the early church. Nevertheless, Paul RECOGNIZED the position of authourity of Peter in the church. For instance, when Paul had that dispute with some Jewish believers over the issue of circumcision of the gentiles, why did he take the matter to the council at Jerusalem, a council where PETER stood up to officially declare that circumcision was not necessary for salvation of the Gentiles (Acts 15)? Why didn't Paul stand up to object to what Peter had said by saying something like: " Sorry Peter, but you have no authourity to make that kind of decision" ? Why didn't Paul just sit down and decide the matter all by himself? After Paul's conversion on his way to Damascus, the very FIRST person in the entire early church that he went to meet to share his experience was PETER (Galatians 1:18). Why didn't he just start working with the early christians without telling Peter that he was now a Christian as well? He didn't, because that would have been the improper thing to do. He had to first of all go and meet the LEADER of the church (i.e Peter) before integrating himself with the members of the church. You said that christians doesn't need human leadership because they have the scriptures? Really? That statement doesn't make sense. It is just like saying that Americans don't need a PRESIDENT simply because they have a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION to guide them on how to act as citizens of America. societies made up of HUMAN BEINGS will always need HUMAN BEINGS as leaders. A BOOK cannot replace a HUMAN BEING when it comes to leadership of human beings. It has been like that right from the very beginning. The Israelites had the ten commandments and the laws of Moses, YET they recognized Moses (a human being) as the one with the authourity to lead them, and because they recognized that it was God who gave him this responsibility, they regularly came to meet him to "determine God's will" (Exodus 18:15-16). Why didn't they just ignore him and READ the ten commandments and the other laws for themselves to know what the will of God is? Besides, the Bible shows that Jesus chose Peter to lead the church when He instructed Peter: "Take care of my sheep" (John 21:15-17>

@@IESBiblia Who gave you the bible? Catholic church

Technically yes, but Peter as a name is something most if not any Pope would do just out of respect for Peter and the seat.

Well you couldn't use the Bible to make an argument, so that's probably your best hope. The Pope is just the head of the pagan mystery religion. Not a single pope in history was ever a true Christian, just like Catholics today are not Christians. Don't listen to these liars. They'll lead you straight to Hell with them!

@@parrisroy so peter is in hell according to your view? Interesting

Look up Papacy in Britannica

@@johnyang1420 I look up Roman catholic church

You don't end up with 30,000 protestant denominations. That is a myth. First all the number is 40,000 but it includes the Roman Catholic Church and all the other Apostolic Churches. It actually counts 195 Roman Catholic denominations, if not more. That is because each country is counted as a separate denomination even if its the same thing. So if we assume that all denominations are present in every country, that would make the number of denominations 205. Of course not every denomination is in every country, but you get the point. Its nowhere near 40,000. Not only that, but that it counts names not doctrine. So if you have the Midwest Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention, and they believe the same exact thing, then you have 2 different denominations. So the count doesn't tell us anything about the doctrines that are out there. The count is so far off that its worthless.

But Saul's name was changes to Paul, Sarah's from Sarai to Sarah , In the book of Daniel too there are four people whose names have been changed

@@annmary6974 This is just factually wrong. Jesus didn't change Saul's name to Paul! In fact, on the road to Damascus, He calls the apostle Saul: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me!" Paul was Saul's Greek name. As for Sarah and Sarai, there's the same issue as with Saul/Paul according to some commentaries. People may have had different names, like Daniel's co-prisoners. But only God gave Adam his name; changed the names of Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel; and Jesus changed only Simon Peter's name.

The pope cannot contradict scripture when speaking infallibly so the entire body of your comment is pretty much void. The specific word pope may not appear in the early centuries, but that doesn't mean the role isn't. There were very clearly bishops who held leadership over regions, and these bishops were under 5 main churches antioch, Rome, etc. However all 5 of these churches clearly were under the influence of Rome. All were subject to the chair of Peter even if the word 'pope' wasn't used.

@@noahhirons8223 The writings of St. Augustine are part of the Catholic Divine Tradition. The quote from St. Augustine's On Baptism 2.3.4 (Below) reads like a wilderness with no signposts pointing toward Papal Authority. “…but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride..”

@@american1911 Again we agree, The Pope's infallible claims only clarify scripture or morals, they cannot contradict them. That quotes does not disprove it. If the quote was to say that rules could not be clarified infallibly than it itself an attempt to clarify couldn't be infallible and would thus be false by contradiction.

@@noahhirons8223 If what you just wrote is true, then what scripture was the Pope clarifying in 1950 with Munificentissimus Deus?

@@american1911 The assumption clarifies the step between Mary's life and her coronation. It is apparent that something happened to Mary where she went from only her role as Theotokós to Queen of heaven. The scripture is not clear on what happened between the two.

I always saw the pope as anti Christ

I wholeheartedly agree. Weak Catholics can be swayed to leave Catholicism by music, preaching or invitation. But only STRONG protestants become Catholic. They switch because of open mindedness, self investigation, both of which are Holy Spirit led.

​@trudyfriedrich7416 And the ones who truly convert become the most orthodox, some even being elevated to the Altar.

No ties, only wins.

That's because Peter was never a pope. The word was not even used for another couple of hundred years.

@@sammygomes7381 are you Sam from Jurupa valley?

@@josecesena5630 I am not

The Catholic Church lists Linus as the second pope. Then Cletus (also know as Anacletus), then Clement .

@sammygomes7381 that's funny because in Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus lists the first 13 popes (Bishops of Rome) in order, from Peter through then pope Eleuthera. He said the reason he listed them was to establish Apostolic succession as the means by which authority was handed on to others.