25 Reasons Peter Was NOT The First Pope! 

RIP Ethan

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9“for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:13

I hope you please speak against Calvinism. It's a cult, and people need to get out of this. And please stop referring to followers of Jesus Christ as "protestant."

I am considering about converting to Catholism.

@@sweetlikechocolate437 very foolish in light of this video

Amen, Sally! - Ethan from Wretched

“I dare not trust the sweetest frame”

Amen sister in Christ! 💯

FATHER JESUS CHRIST IS TRULY GOD ALL BY HIMSELF AND ALWAYS WILL BE AMEN!!!!! GENESIS 1 26 GOD HIMSELF SAID LET US CREATE MAN?!? ALL PRESENT....NO! THE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURE PROVE FATHER JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF CREATED US AND ALL THINGS BY HIMSELF!.... Genesis 1:27 King James Version 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them FATHER JESUS CHRIST ALONE IS GOD! THE BELIEF OF trinity is humanistically IDOLATRY and rooted satanically to mock AND FAIL ADHERENCE TO OBEYING ACTUAL HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAME ONLY PLANNED SALVATION OF ACTS 2 38 OF THE APOSTLES REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST! DAY OF PENTECOST AS APOSTLE PETER OBEDIENTLY PREACHED AS LORD JESUS CHRIST HOLY INSTRUCTED SO.... UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATE OF hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT!! EVEN NOT HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAMED RELIANCE IN CLOSING OR OPENING PRAYER BUT INSTEAD QUOTING TITLES OF FATHER AND SON AND HOLY GHOST HINDERS HOLY SPIRITUAL TRUE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF WHOM IS THE ONLY ONE LORD GOD OUR SAVIOUR ALMIGHTY LORD JESUS CHRIST! AMEN! FATHER JESUS CHRIST FORBID ANY HINDERANCES OF FATHER JESUS CHRIST NAMED SINCERE SOULS ZEALOUSLY PRAYERFULLY SINCERE! That vatican false teaching of trinity according titles of FATHER and SON and HOLY GHOST TO BAPTIZM IS A LIE THAT CAME out falsely from JOHN Tertullian and was backed by vatican souls to control the masses and THEREBY claim obedient rule and lawful oversight.... FOR MANY MANY SADLY SO YEARS!!!! MATTHEW 28 19 EVEN CLEARLY READS LORD JESUS CHRIST SAYING BAPTIZING THEM IN MY NAME!!!!! NOT titles OF FATHER AND SON AND HOLY GHOST! HOLY RESPECTFULY! AUTHORITY IS ONLY DELGATED OFFICIALLY BY BIENG IN THE NAME! LORD JESUS CHRIST IS SALVATIONS ONLY NAME! ACTS 2 38 AND YEA EVEN ACTS 4 12 FOR NIETHER IS THERE ANY OTHER FOR THERE IS NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED! IN HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAME ACTS 4 12! PLEASE PRAYERFULLY READ!!!!! JOHN TERTULLIAN AND the INFAMOUS VATICAN?! THIER LYING infamous claim of the AFORE ALLEGED STATED trinity EVEN dogma OF trinity is humanistically IDOLATRY and rooted satanically to overall mock AND FAIL HOLY SPIRITUAL TRUE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD HIMSELF THE ONLY LORD GOD OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST! THAT VATICAN TEACHING OF trinity CAME FROM JOHN Tertullian and his infamous claim of the lie of trinity only as a matter of HISTORICAL REFERENCE IS AS follows! Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology". Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas) ADVANCING NOT THE TRUTH NOR LORD JESUS CHRIST NAME THAT ONLY AUTHORS HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAMED SALVATION! THEREFORE.... AUTHORING THE LIE OF 1 GOD IN 3 PERSONS! ALL LIES! ALL IDOLATRY! ALL HISTORICALLY REFERENCED REFLECTIVELY VOLUMISED IN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA FORMAT AND BEYOND SETTING FALSE TEACHINGS WITHIN the EARLY GROWING VATICAN YEARS! AND THIS lie had been zealed MANY MANY YEARS AFTER GODLY CALVARY WHEREIN GOD IN CHRIST ROBED IN FLESH AS JESUS CHRIST ALONE HIMSELF ZEALED ALL LOVING MIRACLES UNTO REDEMPTION OF ALL SOULS UP TO AND EVEN BEYOND THE CRUCIFIXION OF HIS LOVING SACRIFICE UNTO AGAIN BY HIS OWN POWER PROMISED ROSE FROM THE DEAD THAT WHOSOEVER WILL WOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND ALL BELIEVING WOULD RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST!!!!! ACTS 2 38 PLANNED SALVATION ZEALOUSLY! HOLY JESUS NAMED ONLY PLANNED SALVATION!!!!! FATHER JESUS CHRIST ORDAINED ACTS 2 38 AS HIS HOLY ONLY PLANNED SALVATION TRUTH! ADVANCING NOT THE TRUTH NOR LORD JESUS CHRIST NAME THAT ONLY AUTHORS HOLY JESUS CHRIST NAMED SALVATION! THEREFORE.... AUTHORING THE LIE OF 1 GOD IN 3 PERSONS! ALL LIES! ALL IDOLATRY! ALL HISTORICALLY REFERENCED REFLECTIVELY VOLUMISED IN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA FORMAT AND BEYOND SETTING FALSE TEACHINGS WITHIN the EARLY GROWING VATICAN YEARS! AND THIS lie had been zealed MANY MANY YEARS AFTER GODLY CALVARY WHEREIN GOD IN CHRIST ROBED IN FLESH AS JESUS CHRIST ALONE HIMSELF ZEALED ALL LOVING MIRACLES UNTO REDEMPTION OF ALL SOULS UP TO AND EVEN BEYOND THE CRUCIFIXION OF HIS LOVING SACRIFICE UNTO AGAIN BY HIS OWN POWER PROMISED ROSE FROM THE DEAD THAT WHOSOEVER WILL WOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND ALL BELIEVING WOULD RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST!!!!! ACTS 2 38 PLANNED SALVATION ZEALOUSLY! HOLY JESUS NAMED ONLY PLANNED SALVATION!!!!! FATHER JESUS CHRIST ORDAINED ACTS 2 38 AS HIS HOLY ONLY PLANNED SALVATION! THE 1ST CHRISTIANS WERE NAMED SO IN ANTIOCH NOT rome!

@@Nathan-mf2yz " but wholly lean on Jesus name"

Then why did Jesus give the apostles authority to forgive sins? Jesus can do whatever He wishes.

Jesus is the one mediator between God and man in the sense He is the only one that can save you. The only one that can redeem man with the Father. This is much different from intercession.

@@TheRealCSD6 exactly

@@alimeryssaaljazairi7692 Jesus told them whatever sins you forgive shall be forgiven. Of course the apostles forgave in Jesus name. But Jesus gave them the authority right after the resurrection. Read your Bible

@@alimeryssaaljazairi7692 well, right. The apostles received the authority to forgive sins from Jesus, not on their own. Where did anyone say they did it on their own!?

@RoboMint, AMEN!

To quote Jesus, "You shall be called Cephas ("Rock")."

God called Abraham a rock: (Isaiah 51:1-2) “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; 2 look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth. When I called him he was only one man, and I blessed him and made him many."

@@bigfootapologetics, Peter is NOT the Rock that is the foundation of the Ekklessia of Christ. Jesus Christ ALONE is the Rock, the Cornerstone, the solid foundation of His Church. So just stop it already with your Catholic blasphemy. You worship your goddess, your “Queen of Heaven”, Semiramis, and her son, Tammuz, which is why you celebrate the birth of Tammuz on December 25. Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25. Jesus was born around the feast of tabernacles, when God came to earth to tabernacle with mankind. Mary of the Bible says she’s a sinner who needs Jesus as her Savior too, but the “Mary” of the RCC is made to be a “god” by the pagan Church of Rome, which declares their “Mary” ascended to Heaven on her own righteousness, which is something ONLY OUR SINLESS CREATOR, YHVH INCARNATE IN CHRIST, CAN DO! Mary is a sinner, like all mankind, and she’s awaiting the resurrection of the dead in Christ, like all those who died in Christ. She’s not sitting on the throne of Heaven, YHVH is. She’s not a “mediatrix”, because Jesus Christ is the ONLY MEDIATOR between YHVH and mankind. She’s not a co-Redeemer with Christ, because our Redeemer is sinless and perfect in righteousness, and He is YHVH manifest in Christ ALONE, and NOT “MARY”! You simply ignore the truth of God’s Word, because your religion is your “savior” in your brainwashed mind, and not Jesus Christ, the One who died for your sins. That’s why your Pope carries a bent cross to mock the crucifixion of Christ, and it’s why throughout the Vatican, the crown is on “Mary’s” head, and not Christ’s. You choose to cling to your false, pagan, idolatrous religion, and you deny Jesus Christ.

@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ Jesus Christ named Simon "Rock." I'll take the words of Christ over the words of Protestants who want to deny what the Bible plainly says any day. Catholics don't worship Mary - the Church teaches that will land you in hell. "Semiramis, and her son, Tammuz" are not and have never even been brought up by Catholics. This is false witness concocted by Protestants out of thin air. If you really think we worship them, then it should be fairly simple for you to find any official Catholic teaching referencing them, right? Show me a single document concerning their worship from the magisterium. Similarly, the traditional date for the birth of Christ comes from the idea that the sons of Abijah ministered in the eight month of the Jewish year, between mid-October and mid-November. Elizabeth was in seclusion for five months. After the sixth month of her pregnancy, Mary conceived Christ. This would land us between mid-March and mid-April; traditionally celebrated on March 25th. Nine months would bring us to December 25th. You can bring your pagan gods into it, but Catholics stick to Christian tradition here. Again, your various claims about us considering Mary to be a god or goddess ascending on her own righteousness (as opposed to Christ's) are false witness. We don't teach or believe that. We don't believe she's on THE throne of heaven, although we recognize her as the human, infinitely less mother of the King of Heaven. We don't believe she is equal to God or God manifest in any way. We DO believe Jesus saved her from sin, although you disagree with us on the means. Jesus Christ is our savior, and was nearly 1,600 years before the first Protestant put pen to paper. The Pope doesn't carry a bent cross to mock the crucifixion of Christ, and we have LOADS of art featuring Jesus wearing the crown of thorns and more glorious ones! Please, if you care about your soul, either research this stuff first or stop lying--it's a serious sin.

Amen amen

Jesus picked 12 men. Jesus said to them “He who hears YOU hears me He who rejects YOU rejects me” Lk 10:16 We are commanded to listen to men

We are not commanded to listen to men! We're to follow Christ and do the will of the Father. We have His Word which was used when satan tried to tempt Christ which satan used actual scripture word for word but used it out of it's CONTEXT! Christ refuted him with the Word in it's true meaning. It's obvious satan's old tricks still work. Narrow is the gate to heaven not wide.​@@PInk77W1

All you have to do is look up on you tube "25 Reasons Peter was not the First Pope ! (Rebutted)" He would not dare to debate with Trent

He wouldn't dare. Protestors are scared of informed Catholics

@Mthf I agree. I would be a great video.

@@waseemhermiz7565 Agreed.He's all blabber, attached with his evilish smile just to hide his biblical ignorance.

I don't think Todd would even consider such a debate. He would be forever exposed for the flake content he dishes out. Trent graciously but firmly wiped the floor with him.

I don't think Todd could hold a candle to any Catholic apologist that I know of.

Forever

In Christ and with his one Church alone.

@@amalp9784 Individual Christians are the church not a denomination.

protestant

@@CopperheadAirsoft you can call me whatever you want to. I am Christs so..... are you?

@Sinful Bastard Child Just thanking God for answering this prayer and the prayer of many others. It’s not about me but Christ through me

​@@samtschannel6164 it's great your prayer was answered It helped me too

Praise God!

It's not even a question and if people really got into their bibles like they should they would easily know all of this....

God is good I can't wait to meet him in person. Thank you for answering his prayers

You should have just deleted the comment. It looks smug.

@Sinful Bastard Child 100%

The Tanker Beautiful May I use Spurgeon’s words with a bit changed. “Trinity is contrary to Christ’s gospel and we ought to pray against it.” The Trinity doctrine comes from the Catholic Church

@@robertabrao7785 It is in the Bible.

Eddie Boggs And my friend, I’m supposed to take your word for it? JESUS taught that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22) the apostles said the same, that the oracles were given or entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:1, 2) find out what the Jews believe about God and accept Jesus as the Christ and you’ll have truth. Paul kept nothing back from Jew or Gentile, Paul declared the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:20-31) The Jews don’t believe in a 3 in 1 God (Trinity) and the only thing the Jews had to be convinced or persuaded to believe, the only teaching that was new, is dietary/ceremonial laws and circumcision was done away with. And there are plenty of scripture to convince and Persuade the Jews of this. (Circumcision: Acts 11:2, 3/Acts 15/Romans 2:25-29/1 Corinthians 7:17-20/Galatians 2:3-10/Galatians 5:1-6/Galatians 6:12-15/Philippians 3:3/Colossians 2:11-14) (Dietary/ceremonial laws: Mark 7:14-23/Romans 14:1-9, 17/1 Corinthians 8:8/Colossians 2:16-23/Hebrews 13:9) You see all these scriptures to convince the Jews and nowhere in the word of God is even the slightest attempt to convince the Jews that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity nor that God is a 3 in 1 God, nor that Jesus is God.

The reality is that it’s much closer to really no one having a problem with it for only 200-500 years and it had to do with historical instability. It wasn’t always the same papacy we see today but rather progressed to some head figure The first ‘offficial’ pope came about in 5th century the same time of the fall of the Roman empire only out of necessity for stability and protection of the church after Constantine made Christianity the official religion Over the next few years you gave the warring states of Germanic tribes and Viking invasions all over western Europe (Lombard’s, visigoths, saxons, etc) It wasn’t until the 8th century that the pope becomes a relevant political figure under Charlemagne where he asks for the popes blessings to become emperor of the HRE unifying many of the warring states From there you begin to ramp up papal doctrines up until we have unam Sanctam 14th century The reformation only happens soon afterwards starting with Tyndale But the pope continues to this until they finally invent the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870 So notice the pope wasn’t really the pope until 1300s and then reformation happens shortly soon after. Do also note, most believers had no clue there was even a pope.

@@duckymomo7935 so which faith is the right one?

@@woolglovesI support the reformation

@@duckymomo7935 we have a complete list of popes since St. Peter

If you study the church fathers you actually see there is disagreement. The Carholic church also didn't tolerate much dissent

Actually Jesus said in the hopes of John that his prayer is for ALL believers. And clearly all of the authors of the New testament strengthened the brothers. And Paul wrote far more than Peter. Peter was not the pope.

Could Jesus's words strengthen others in that they were full of grace and mercy toward Peter in that He fully forgave Him after he denied Christ three times? So, Peter's testimony becomes a gift for countless others, not because of Peter, but because of Jesus Christ.

@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 The authority of St. Peter as the first pope was exercised on several occasions, as recorded in the Bible. He presided over and opened the first council of Christianity, in Jerusalem (see Acts 15:7-11). He was the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (see Acts 8:14-24). His proclamation at Pentecost concerning the “house of Israel” (Acts 2:36) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision, and a disciplinary decree (see Acts 2:14-41) - an example of “binding and loosing” (see Mt 16:17-19). He had the authority to judge the first recorded case of Church discipline (see Acts 5:1-11). Jesus prayed for Peter “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:33). God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7). The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26). Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14). Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15). Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11). Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3). After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18). Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just “Peter and the twelve. ” Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together. Jesus’ chief disciple, Peter (also called Simon Peter or Cephas), has been associated with Rome for nearly 2,000 years. The earliest testimony to the apostle Peter’s presence in Rome is a letter from a Christian deacon named Gaius. Writing probably toward the end of the second century C.E.-so, around 170 or 180 C.E.-Gaius tells about the wondrous things in Rome, including something called a tropaion (see below for more) where Peter established a church-in fact, the Church, the Roman Catholic church at the site where St. Peter’s Basilica is today. Gaius, Roman jurist (130-180 AD) “It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Why did Jesus still give Peter the Keys to the True Church , Protestants were taught lies

@@jordanmunk3041 Having been raised in the catholic cult, it took me awhile to recognize that Peter's confession of faith rather than Peter was the rock on which Yeshua's church is build. I thank God every day that He gave me this realization.

These guys love the cool aid and do not care about grammar or language or truth.

So, why didn't He use Petros twice?

@@digitalnomad9985 cause that's not how the greek language works. He is changing his name to Petros, and not Petra because Petra is the feminine.

@@digitalnomad9985 think of it as similar to Spanish. The word for rock is roca, which has the feminine article "la". So if you were to change a person's name to rock and they were male you would have to change the gender of the word. So it would be changed to el rock

The original sentence was in Aramaic Kephas for Rock, not masculine or feminine as there is no such distinction for nouns in this language.

The council of Jerusalem, you know from the Bible. Judas was given a successor clearly in the scripture (Matthias), but you think Peter did not because it is not explicitly said in the scripture, but it is contained in the sacred Christian tradition.

@@Cato_the_Christian the same "tradition" handed down by evil men who blasphemed God at every turn? right

@@shaunsteele6926 2 Thessalonians 2:14: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” What is easier for you to believe that Judas the traitor had a successor or Simon Peter?

​@@Cato_the_ChristianMathias didn't succeed Judas in the traditional sense. The disciples voted to have him replaced.

I'll discuss the idea of a successor first. Because heresies were rampant in the early Church, much care was taken to ensure the credentials of a Church leader. This is called apostolic succession, and it works like this: Jesus named Peter as the head of the Church (Mt 16:16-18), and Protestant scholars confirm that yes, Peter is the rock in that context. Paul named Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus was made the first bishop of Crete. Here is what the Early Church Fathers wrote: Clement of Rome (cf. Phil 4:3) "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). Irenaeus of Lyons "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21].

You don’t have a pastor ?

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊

I missed that verse in the Word of God where Peter visits Rome. Where is it? Can you help?

@@Totem360 After Jesus crucifixion and death, Peter travelled to Rome between 42 and 54 AD, during Claudius and Nero Emperor's reign. In the Eternal City, he managed to spread the faith. That is not in the Bible, but it is according to historians. And also, problem is disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox about what happened. Catholic claim that Peter established the church in Rome, but other sad that according to some text, Peter come in Rome to speak with some church members. So the church was already there before Peter come.

@@lightv114Peter is buried in Jerusalem not Rome as The Roman Catholic Church claimed and here’s the problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it’s this The Roman Catholic Church lied to people saying he was buried in Rome but If you read The Bible nowhere does it ever says he was the first pope all it says is that he was a Christian and an apostle of Jesus and also he was buried in Jerusalem too.

It called Roman Catholic Church. Because Rome was in power when the Christian church started

Donald A. Carson (Baptist) “On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368) "The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

And you brighten ours! Thanks for watching! - Ethan from Wretched

yes a lot of people like fiction .... Now for faith and fact .... I will start with the passage in Question . Matthew 16:17-19: In the middle of a longish statement about Peter why he would break mid sentence and put a bit in about himself ???? .. It is linguistically poor to say the least and not in the style the Synoptic gospel writers have Jesus talking !! ,,,,,,,,,,, """""And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon 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.”""" ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Secondly , this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ-the authority of heaven-over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Thirdly, The substitution of small rock big rock " ...“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church.” The first rock, petros, you claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a large rock that is Jesus . The argument concludes that Jesus built his church not upon St. Peter, but upon himself ........ The Gospel of Matthew, we have solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly-and more certainly-Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language. ,,,,,, Fourth ,,,,,,, We have biblical evidence-John 1:42-that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter).,,,,,The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. ,,,,,,,,,, Fifth ......Even well respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,.......The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (Thanks to CA)

👆 Christ did NOT at any time, in any way, instruct any apostle to- Make himself a king Take titles/names of God Usurp authority from God Satan wanted to be equal to God, to be a “god” too. Popes ~ Satan-like OR Christ-like ?

😂

And here we have the truth: authority and worship belong to God alone. Jesus Christ is our LIVING God; we have no need of any specific man to take the place or act in the stead of Jesus. Jesus said more than once "follow me." He did not command people to follow his students; he did not command his students to teach and act that people were to follow them; Jesus taught explicitly that all of us are to follow him as he alone is the way, truth, and life. RCC is so strange. RCC is neither the way, nor the truth, nor the life. The church is the body of believers in Jesus as God. Jesus established that belief in him as God is what the church should be. RCC twists this. Paul warned us against any who teach a Gospel contrary to what we received from Jesus - not a Gospel from Peter, from himself, or even from another angel, but from Jesus. Literally, everything is Jesus alone. The arrogance and pride of RCC is astonishing.

@@francisgoin3112 😂 another one who doesnt know anything about the Roman Catholic Church The pope is not the Christ, he's His vicar on Earth for the new alliance as the great priest was for the 1st 500 years of protestant lies and deceit, so sad

@@naelbi8870 As RCC uses "vicar" in relation to the position of the pope: a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God's vicar on earth. Jesus is our living God. Jesus isn't on Earth, but he's alive. I turn to Jesus rather to a man who claims to act in the stead of Jesus. I understand this well. If you yearn to acknowledge an entity that places itself between you and God, that's on you. Again, Jesus said to follow him. There is no instruction or statement from Jesus, his father, or the Spirit, implied or explicit, that any other entity takes the place of Jesus - at any time or in any place. I don't follow the bandwagon quips that choosing the teachings of Jesus over the arguments of man suggests a specific denomination, but if it comforts you to behave intentionally that way, feel free. It seems we differ on the Gospel truth that Christ supersedes man; I gleam from your language that you may not be choosing God first in favor of choosing whatever the RCC teaches; that's your choice. Still, I hope you come to place Jesus above the church, friend. I hope you look to God always rather than look to the church. The church (the body of believers that Jesus is God) is a wonderful place to fellowship; let it be that, but look to God over man and what he may say. You're welcome to respond, and I suspect you will, but I have nothing else save Jesus alone to point you to. I can make no further response to you that isn't redundant of what I've already presented. Work it out for yourself, as Paul said. Good luck to you.

It would matter because it’s scripture and Jesus is the Cornerstone of the faith, not Peter!

If Peter truly is the first pope, your arguement insinuates that Jesus failed, that He was unwise and mistaken to select the disciples that He did. You insinuate that Jesus did not do a good enough job at establishing His church here on earth. Is that the right arguement to make? Moreover, in that same verse where Jesus said "On this rock I will build my church," He also says "and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. What you loose/bind here on earth will be loosed/bound in Heaven."

@@sandstorm7768 Jesus was talking to the disciples and not just Peter. You argument makes not sense and scripture does not teach "papacy".

@@rlhicks1 Jesus was not talking to all of the disciples. He was clearly only talking to Peter. I'm not saying he was the pope, but let's not play dishonest games with the scriptures here.

F - for your false claim A+ for the accuracy of the man who spoke historical truths and facts in the video above No comment for financial gain. It has nothing to do with that.

@@latter-daysaintbatman2679 Mormon detected, opinion rejected

Catholicism is false

Never seen Todd debate a serious Catholic or orthodox. Probably never will since he knows he can’t misrepresent them and get away with it.

@@jesuschristsaves9067 No mainstream Protestant will (except James White in the 90s ... and he won't let you forget it)

Amen. As a fellow Catholic, I'm grateful to be in the one true church.

This is the stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time. You get 25 undeniable arguments and it STRENGTHENS your false beliefs? You lack intelligence, humility and a desire for truth.

@@Spainkiller your comment adds to my faith, keep your cantankerous comments coming 🙏. Become a Christian and join the church that Christ founded not Martin Luther.

@@paul_321 And, again, logic is not found within your comment; merely an equivalent of “la la la I’m not listening”.

@@Spainkiller Matthew 16:19 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.” He missed/ intentionally left out this verse ;-) Clearly all authority is given to Peter.

Sorry, gotta go tell my dad that I can’t call him father anymore

@@IpCrackle ok, you know better than that. You know what they mean. Your father is your father but another man? Are you guys like strippers calling random men daddy? Your arguments are laughable. They are grasps of desperation.

He wasn't talking literally micro brain.

@@IpCrackleit refers to spiritual fathers such as rabbis.

@@Yurzys Someone gets it. Heavenly Father, Pope likes to try to assume the role of ultimate authority, which we ALL are Nothing compared to A Holy God. We ALL deserve to go to hell, its only by the grace of God by sending His Son for us are we saved.

Jesus didn't name him peter. His name was simon, also called peter. It stated in the gospels twice and in the Epistles of Paul. Jesus renamed people in the Old testament several different times but he did not rename Peter. If you remember he would even say peter, also called Simon Peter. It's according to what part of the country they were in. It's also according to who is saying it. Whether they're speaking Aramaic or greek. Technically Koine Greek which is what the New testament is written in.

@@bigcountrymountainman9740 did you read Mark 3:16?

@@bigcountrymountainman9740 actually, he did name him Peter, in John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

@@IpCrackle they wouldn't want to hear that cuz' it just debunked what they want to preach

@@bigcountrymountainman9740 Wrong. Mark 3:16 explicitly mentions that this particular Simon was renamed "Peter": "Simon, to _whom He gave the name 'Peter_ '". The name "Peter" was a title that was used in the ancient world to signify someone as being the leader of a religion. I'm not arguing that Peter was a pope, but it certainly means he was chosen to be the lead apostle when combined with Jesus' words in Matt. 16:18.

"Peter, ( who was once simon) I call "YOU" rock and on THIS rock I shall build MY church " why didn't that say "Peter, I am the rock and I shall build my church on my rock "

@@jacobalexander4167 - paraphrase for clarity... peter (small rock - for importance comparison) you are correct, I am the Son of the living God, and on that truth (large solid rock) I will build my church.

@@johnw4227 no. Remember that Matthew was written in Koine Greek. Petros and Petra both literally mean "rock" in Koine Greek, not "little rock" or "big rock". So your argument is invalid.

@@GregorasProject my explanation is a reference to the greek definitions and you would be incorrect on that one. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immov­able rock. This indicates clearly that Christ's church is built on petra and not on petros.

@@johnw4227 again, you're referring to Attic Greek, an archaic Greek that would've been unfamiliar to the Apostles. I'm referring to Koine (common) Greek, which is what the Apostles wrote in. Even D. A. Carson, who has a far greater knowledge of Greek than Todd Friel does, admits this. Like I said before, *petros* and *petra* mean the same thing in Koine (common) Greek.

Yep. I’d suggest Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin.

@@andonedave LOL. Apostates.

I would too, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it!

Isaiah is not a parallel. Jesus identifies that as Himself in Revelation 3:7. A poor interpretation of Matthew is the ONLY scripture "Catholicism" has to stand on. There is nothing in scripture or history that Peter ever fulfilled what "Catholicism" claims. Early church fathers, like Ignatius, used the word catholic in its true meaning of universal. The Gospel is universal. Peter was prominent among the apostles as he was very bold. John and Paul were also very prominent. Ignatius was a disciple of John. Paul was most prominent in founding or teaching churches outside of Jerusalem, including Rome. That Peter was ever even in Rome is only tradition. No Apostles were ever bishops; that was not in their mission. They were only to make disciples.

@@joycegreer9391 words with symbol imagery in the Bible can be used for more than one thing. Christ is clearly listed as the foundation several times in scripture. But in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 20 we have the apostles and prophets listed as foundations. We have the church listed as a pillar and foundation of truth. In first Timothy chapter 3 verse 15. As for Ignatius, you may be extrapolating a context on how he used the word Catholic based on a post 16th century hermeneutic. Ignatius specifically referred to the church in Rome, as chief of all of the churches that presides in love over them all. As for Isaiah, not being parallel, it might be worth looking at RU-vid videos on that Isaiah passage Suann Sonna. He quotes maybe half a dozen protestant theologians, who affirm a parallel between the passage from Isaiah 22.

Good thing there are multiple senses of Scripture, so that you can have Christ be the Rock, Peter himself be the rock, Peter’s faith be the rock, and all the apostles be the rock, and they are all valid interpretations and should all be taken into account and not held as competing against each other.

@@IpCrackle good thing none of that is in the Bible as it only refers to God as the rock

@@IpCrackle 2 Peter 1:20 Peter expected scripture to interpret scripture not the pope who rejects scripture.

@@Vitamortis. not in the Bible? It’s all in the Bible.

@@davidsinclair47 If Scripture interprets Scripture, and not the reader, how do you know that you are interpreting that verse correctly? 2) The verse specifically refers to prophecy and to private interpretation. It doesn’t actually refer to Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Interesting - we will look into it. Thanks for watching & commenting! - Ethan from Wretched

Muddy boots . would you believe the red shield of the Salvation Army is actually the red shield of the Jewish Rothschilds . Elite central bank Jews who do not represent the Jewish nation

Then why would he have said he was building his church on the gates of hell? You didn’t think this through

@@cosmictreason2242 No, He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He's taking back the world and is starting at ground zero.

@@RealCaptainAwesome he said “on this rock I will build my church.” Was that’s not the rock youyou were referring to in your first comment?

@@cosmictreason2242 Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi to a place called Mount Hermon. And the belief at that time was that was where God sealed His covenant with Abraham but that is more speculation. But the point is playing games and trying to figure out who the rock is when they are literally standing on one is silly. Look up Dr Michael Heiser, he breaks this down really well.

I have heard scholarly arguments on both sides of the "petros/petra" debate. It is a moot point either side of the debate because it is important to also note that the early church fathers when taking their writings as a whole talk about the "rock" as a reference to Peter's confession or to Jesus himself. (over 80%). This research was actually done by Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick in 1870 and was to be delivered to the Vatican but never was (In 1870 at Vatican I Pope Pius IX proclaimed: “I am tradition” and hence, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope (Ex Cathedra) emerged). It was eventually published. Kendrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith. As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admitted: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome. ”In fact, no one before Callistus used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope” as Rome call it)-no one.

@@hirakisk Concerning the study you’re referring to, if it is the same one I’m thinking of, I believe it has been well argued that the survey was too simplistic. While the majority of the fathers’ *emphasis* might be on the rock as being Peter’s confession, many of them actually refer to Peter himself also being the rock, even in the same paragraph. It’s not a simplistic “either/or.” Think about it: Peter’s confession is what made him a rock in the first place, of course the confession of Christ is the primary part of the picture. Peter is the rock, the confession is his “rockiness.” This is what many of the fathers are basically saying. As a Catholic, I have no issue with Murdock’s point. A doctrine like that doesn’t need to be argued for until it’s challenged.

@Ethan Meyers This is a fantastic comment.

@@IpCrackle I don't know if it is or not. There have been other scholars who have also done a wide survey and reached the same conclusion. Even though some did believe that Peter was "the rock", they didn't believe that it gave him special status. Even the gospels note that after this there were disagreements on who was the greatest amongst them. But, In the older one I cited by the Catholic Bishop. He was actually supposed to speak at Vatican I on this issue. The RCC actually prohibited ANY private printing of materials that challenged the view. They also prohibited ANY of them speaking at this event when they were originally supposed to. 1871, is the same year is when the RCC declared that the Pope was infallible even though this was not a universal or widely held opinion. They HAD to have their interpretation held to pass their new dogma of infallibility.

It's a moot point. Jesus knew that his Church needed a leader once he ascended back to heaven. Jesus was GOD incarnate. He could see the future. If he did not want unity under the Pope he would have said so. However, Jesus knew full well how things would unfold and, obviously, was satisfied with it. With respect to the supremacy of the Pope this was established long before Vatican I. Henry VIII couldn't get any of the bishops in England to grant him a divorce. He appealed to who? The Pope! We all know how that worked out. Which brings us to: Jesus was not pleased with how the Faith would splinter. First with the great schism (It should be noted that even the Orthodox consider the Bishop of Rome to be "first among equals, primus inter pares") and then the total train wreck brought by the protestants. On the cross Jesus prayed that all would be one as He and the Father are one. Please see my other comments about this video for more information. Thanks

So those fake women who are actually men are not winning anything because they are not following the rules by entering into the Women's Only Sports teams. Haha, Timothy sucker punched the predicted "transgender athletes" of truthphobia, Christophobia and Heterophobia.

Great explanation. Trent Horn's rebuttal to this make the man look silly. He needs to delete this video

@@cjr4497 Nah, he should examination his logic and then his better informed self should give a rebuttal to his earlier self.

Peter's significance? Doesn't the Bible state that no man should boast? Can you address other points?

Because celibacy is not an innate function of the priesthood, but a policy deemed useful and a tradition highly valued

@@IpCrackleand we can see how that turned out with the common “jokes” specifically about catholics, their leaders, and children.

@@koki1829 That’s actually a terrible point. Celibacy has nothing to do with child abuse. Ask any woman: would they trust or marry a man who they know would act this way if they weren’t in the picture. No - and this is because something like marriage doesn’t solve the problem. There’s actually been a corruption and infiltration of the church hierarchy, as many Catholics have been pointing out.

@Belam Visinni I’m sorry for your tragedy. God have mercy on an deal justly with your abuser, he will have to answer for it. I don’t blame any bad feelings you have towards the institution. But as far as Paul’s words go, they are admonishing single Christians to marry to avoid lust. It wouldn’t help a homosexual.

@Belam Visinni so if the church should come together and pass out a law, you are suggesting the break this law because of the lust of some certain people. If your hands would lead you to sin, cut it off" if you know you can't cope without being married, why decide being a priest in the first place, isn't it better to go to heaven married than to go to hell single. The office of a priest is that of holiness and chastity and if a certain person can't keep to it because of lust, would you blame every single priest for one person's lust?

You wrote: “…if Peter was the Pope of Rome, why was the book of Roman’s written by Paul?” To say that we have a written address from Paul to the Romans is not to say that Peter did not also address the Romans. They could have been oral addresses as opposed to written ones. Paul seems to be alluding to that here: (Romans 15:20-22) “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about Him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22That is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.” So Paul was “often being hindered” from coming to the Romans because they had already been preached to by “another” who had laid a foundation there before Paul. Which is of course, referring to Peter-according to the traditions of the church: “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.” -(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]) You wrote: “Additionally, as mentioned Paul had to correct Peter…” Yes, and yet in spite of that we still consider Peter’s epistles the infallible word of God. This means that Peter was only infallible under certain conditions, which actually supporting the Catholic position regarding Papal Infallibility. You wrote: “Even if Peter was the first Pope, where is the Biblical Instruction that this was a position at all?” The instruction is derived from Matthew 16:18-19 and the way it was foreshadowed in the events of Isaiah 22. The problem is NOT that there is no scriptural backing for this instruction, the problem is that not e everyone UNDERSTANDS these passages to mean that. Or as St.Vincent explains: St.Vincent Of Lerins[died 445AD]: “But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.” -For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies.

If someone else was the Authority under Jesus in the bible other than Peter then why did Jesus speak to Peter 10 times more than he spoke to other named individuals in the Gospels ??

According to who? Paul? I wonder why Peter made no account of this in his words to confim or deny this. It’s a shame so many written books were lost or destroyed but TMH preserved his gospel as this is bigger than Peter and Paul. They are mere vessels who do not give salvation. Salvation only comes through one, our Lord and our Saviour.

@@faith1614 so you believe Paul might have lied? you believe Scripture isn't infallible? I wonder why you trust the gospels then

@@user-oh5gz4ue6r Are you implying that Paul was perfect and did not sin? Also Paul wrote epistles not the gospels.

@@faith1614 ?? It's basic christian teaching that Scripture is infallible. The Gospels are Scripture. So you're saying the Gospels could have lies as well.

@@user-oh5gz4ue6rAlot of Christians teach that HaMashiach was born at Christmas when he wasn’t. Your point doesn’t change the question i asked.

Who knows? If they had been the same then some atheist would have accused these texts of not being true eyewitness accounts since there is no variation amongst them. The bottom line is that Our Lord DID install Peter as the Chief Bishop and Peter’s Chair 🪑 has enjoyed this standing within the Catholic Church from the very beginning.

@@lightninlad If everything was the same, then the Gospels would look suspicious. But, the most important information would be in all the Gospels. Apparently this verse regarding Peter was minor to the whole of Christianity. RCC myth does not equal fact. Peter never did what RCC claims.

@@joycegreer9391 No, that’s just your arbitrary evaluation. No one knows why the Spirit inspired one author to write what they wrote in the way that they wrote it.

@@lightninlad Not really. If something as major as Peter establishing The One Official Church for all believers was true, it would be in more than one verse in one Gospel account.

@@joycegreer9391 Sorry, but you’re not the interpreter of the scriptures.

Why did the Roman Catholic Church completely "remove" the second commandment from their Catechism (and then split the 10th into two)? Please read what God Himself gave us in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 and then compare that to what you see in the Catechism. Most Roman Catholics I've asked have no idea about this, and I've yet to even hear an explanation on "why".

​@@MakeRoomForGodThey merged it with the 1st commandment Example: Dont go speeding and the 2nd law says speed limit is 20kmph And as for 9th and 10th, one is referring to a person and one is refering to a thing or item

What reference? Pls tell me

@@Johkah 3:17

Actually, it is quite shallow. See my other comments. Thanks

Because it is

What are her arguments? Please list them. 26-50.

@@kurtgundy Suan is a man. And you can find his RU-vid channel called “Intellectual Catholicism”

Dr.Ortlund rebutted it wonderfully

@@theknight8524 Dr. Ortlund rebutted wretched or Suan? Suan is head and shoulders above Dr. Ortlund intellectually, and he also has truth and reality in his corner so I'd find that surprising.

Really you raise a point I've been saying for decades. The reformation didn't actual happen. The point wasn't to make all these new Churches.

@@dman7668I have always said that "The Protestant Reformation" is a misnomer. It wasn't a reformation but a revolt. Jesus never gave any authority to Luther, Calvin, or any of the so called reformers to Interpret Holy Scripture or to start churches.

@@angelaandrews6875 Oh so christ only came to die for the pope. Got it.

Frielkishly tall*

at least his fingers have never touched nicotine

Dude is built for basketball for sure who knows he could've played in college or high-school.

It's so Todd can change our fire alarms in the office! - Ethan from Wretched

@@WretchedNetwork😂😂😂

what was it like to be baptized by the spirit? What happened? What was your experience?

At first heart breaking when he showed me id been practicing idolatry along with all my other numerous sins and I realized how wretched I was how none of my confessions to a priest had ever removed a single sin it involved a lot of weeping for a couple of days and the scriptures came alive the same Bible i have been reading for years but all of a sudden it was alive to me and made sense and my soul sucked it up like a sponge and the love I never knew that kind of love existed and it took all the joy out of sinning all of a sudden my sin cut me to my heart deep it would be impossible to explain it all because it was more then just an experience and continues in my life to this day it is beautiful and couldn't imagine life without him

@@justinharris6486 amen brother! Praise the Lord!

Are You sure about that?

Peter is buried in Jerusalem not Rome as The Roman Catholic Church claimed and here’s the problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it’s this The Roman Catholic Church lied to people saying he was buried in Rome but If you read The Bible nowhere does it ever says he was the first pope and he’s a Christian and an apostle of Jesus and he was buried in Jerusalem too.

You have to continue with the scripture where Jesus tells Peter to you I give the keys,you don't give keys to just anyone.Matt. 16 : 18 -19

The RC church is not 'The Church' and Peter was not the first pope, in fact he never even went to Rome, Paul did. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Peter is a foundation stone as are all of the apostles and prophets. It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Stone who is the Rock upon which He is building His Church ("for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4b). The Church is not a man-made organization, it is a spiritual temple made up of lively stones which is everyone who belongs to Christ..>>>>"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a Chief Corner Stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the Corner, And a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. 1 Peter 2:5-9

@@mil-ns3rc The keys symbolized authority to preach the Gospel and explain the Gospel, and if you keep reading you will see that all the apostles were given that authority clearly showing us that they keys were not just given to Peter.

And upon this rock, I will build My church. Meaning himself. What version are you reading? Go back to an old King James Version.

Thanks for watching and commenting! - Ethan from Wretched

Oh come on. Some Catholics may treat Mary as a deity, but they're heretics according to official Catholic theology. Mary is due "hyper-dulia" which is a very special kind of praise and honour because of the fact she mothered Christ. But it's not the same as "lutria" divine worship, that is only due to God. Catholics also do not "pray" to Mary in the same sense they pray to God - the reason why they talk to her at all is to ask her intercession. Granted, she may not hear them, and it may all be a wasted effort. But that's hardly something they do wrong either. Asking other people to pray for you is a standard thing all across the board for Christians.

why pray to dead people dude

@@user-oh5gz4ue6r You're getting it dude! 👍The point being it's useless.

@@user-oh5gz4ue6r nobody's praying to the dead. Catholics believe Christians go straight to Heaven and wait for resurrection of the body in the presence of God. So, they ask living people, who live in heaven, to ask God for something. Maybe it's confusing and all, but I don't think you can actually say they pray to the dead, because that's not what they believe.

@@mitromney Your example pulls from two different contexts though. If I ask someone to pray for me I call them on the phone or ask them in person. You are talking about praying TO the person you are asking which you apparently don't equate with worship. Is it okay if someone prays to Satan to tell him he lost?

Yes, I was going to type the same message! It's number seventeen.

Except when your foreign neighbor Keith received eight counterfeit beige sleighs from feisty caffeinated weightlifters...weird

@@Ironica82 Love your social media name.

@@mistymountains9968 Thanks. Have a whole story on why I chose it but that never panned out and I just kept it.

Freedom of Speech is important. FYI~ Some folks are reporting they’re being censored/blocked from specific podcasts IF /when their comments don’t agree with Host. Protestant “heretics” are being deleted, blocked or corrected via onslaught of verbal violence by Catholics. Disagreeing with Catholics can result in responses of Hostility + Hubris + Hypocrisy.

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 talk about.

Like Billy Graham, John Piper, John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, Jimmy Swaggart, Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Jim Bakker... C'mon. You can do...er...you NEED to do better than that.

I've never known Catholics to "snub" Christ, they seem to just add more to the gospel than what's needed.

@@ASMRyouVEGANyet Would love to hear how - in your view - Catholics add more to the gospel ("good news")

@@user-mv7kd7og5wyou have pretty much everything wrong here

I just saw Trent Horn 30 minutes ago and he debunked this man so badly:. They are now in deep desperation because PROTESTants are leaving their deceitful and Rebellious church.

@@michellebryan8148 yup! Trent roasted this guy. Protestants really need to try to come up with better content. However, the truth always comes out for those seeking it. I hope that this man and others will reconcile themselves to Christ's Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church in the future.

I just watched it too and posted in some of the comments here. I hope you do the same. So all the people who commented here watched the rebuttals by trent horn.

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm telegram for your reward 🎊🎊📦

Well before you convert, maybe research the below. Why did the Roman Catholic Church completely "remove" the second commandment from their Catechism (and then split the 10th into two)? Please read what God Himself gave us in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 and then compare that to what you see in the Catechism. Most Roman Catholics I've asked have no idea about this, and I've yet to even hear an explanation on "why".

😂 wait until you hear the Catholics sect people

He will never do it!

Sadly he wouldn’t because he would loose. Todd would much rather rehearse the same tired arguments.

There is no Pope in the Bible. The Catholic Church was just a repainting of the Roman Pagan Church led by the Pontinfex Maximus

Why? Catholics speak for another religion and moral code, so even if Todd debates someone like Trent Horn, Trent speaks for his own religion: Catholicism; whilst Todd speaks for Christianity, and there can be no unity or compromise between religions, especially when Catholics places their papacy, magesterium and ancient traditions above all else and for the Christians it's scripture above all else. Catholics will answer from the answers provided by their religion and their own read-in interpretations of scripture to justify their religion which Christians wont, and Catholics wont compromise or change their views to match scripture, so they can't unify or find common ground.

I’ve watched debates & rebuttals. After many, one realizes a fact. 👉 Irreconcilable Differences Can’t Reconcile. Too Different. Catholicism is a religion quite different than Christianity. Until both Foundation & Authority errors are corrected, any debate will most likely end just as it started. Irreconcilable differences. May every serious Truth Seeker find Holy Scripture and receive Holy Spirit, who can lead one to all Truth.

See?You have MORE wisdom than this man:)

Wrong! Read the Bible.oh wait you don’t!

@@edalbanese6310 you don't even know where the Bible comes from.

What do You call the man that is Your parent?

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊🎁

Obviously not as the RCC is as strong as ever.

The catholics do not equate the pope with Jesus but they elect a pope to lead the church as they need a man to head the church on earth while Jesus is spiritual head.

@@sulongenjop7436 ... except Jesus is alive. Jesus is literally alive, the same as man. Jesus is the head of the church.

So in other words, the early Church was in Jerusalem and Antioch. It was overseen by James the Just, Peter and John. Then it was destroyed or overtaken etc by evil. However, Jesus restored it later on. The true church has been restored and it is the true and living Church. It is still a challenge to Satan's rebellious realm of abominations.

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? v16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. v17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven v20 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. >>>>v 18 and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of "the grave/ my death" shall not prevail against it (stop it). >>>>Why would Hell have gates? keep people in or out??

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊🎁

"Catholic" content creators and RCC documents...lol. Now that's objective...smh.

@@joycegreer9391 Those are the same documents that you rely on for the Canon of your Bible. I wouldn't be so quick to dissmiss them.

@@strikevipermkII No they are not. The books of the canon were written long before the RCC existed. The RCC has produced lots of documents over the centuries.

@@joycegreer9391 The RCC never existed. The Catholic Church, however, began in 33AD, by Christ himself. So Catholics wrote the NT.

@@strikevipermkII There is no The Catholic Church. Jesus did not start a physical earthly church. The apostles and believers founded many churches continuing throughout the centuries. All are catholic in the true meaning of the word, but NOT "Catholicism" by whatever names you like to call it. That organization didn't start until at least the 4th century and has become very heretical, apostate, pagan and only quasi-Christian. The RCC never existed??...lol. We wish, but the Vatican does exist.

Most of them wouldn't even watch this. If they did, they wouldn't agree, unfortunately.

The problem with you guys is, you like to twist the bible to suit your narrative. The bible is whole not bit by bit

@@jacobalexander4167 It's the R•C•C that twists God's Word to fit her narrative--which basically furthers S*A*T*A*N*'S agenda for usurping God's authority.

@@EPHESIANS_5..11__Lady and what part of God's word did they twist, last I checked some sections of Christianity remove 7 books from the bible because it doesn't suit their teachings 🤔

@@jacobalexander4167 My reply to you got censored. I guess the truth hurts.

But Trent Horn rebuts this very effectively. I took the long dive into Protestant theories some time ago. It’s good to question but you just can’t prevail. it all comes down - always - to applying your own interpretations when the other side has all the real evidence. Instead of making so much of a ruckus to buck and resist and twist and guess w/o real basis for anything trumping any dogma - and if you instead just stood still and listened - and allowed the Holy Spirit in…

@@finallythere100 The why not quote what Trent said instead of giving opinions???

Thanks for your excess love ❤ and support, you've been selected as a lucky winner 🎉 Dm teIegram for your reward 🎊🎊

Why? Because the first one failed that is why.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9“for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:13

@@transformers_quotes5738 Yes calling on the name of the Lord is a reference to baptism, not Sola Fide. Calling on his name is just a short way of saying be baptized Also ephesians doesn't support sola fide and I like most Protestants you throw that verse out there like it's a slam dunk for lutheranism except it doesn't say you are saved by faith alone in the text.

@@dman7668 that is an appalling work of exegesis you have just done. In no way does Romans 10 reference baptism. If you follow Paul’s train of thought throughout Romans, it is clear that he is divinely relating the truth that salvation is NOT on account of works. Otherwise, grace is not truly grace (Rom 11:6). In addition, Ephesians 2 states explicitly that works do NOT save us. Works result from the faith that is given to us by grace. Please please read Ephesians without a set of Catholic goggles. Read the whole thing, and focus on Paul’s train of thought. 1:3-14 gives you the thesis for the whole book, especially 11-14. God bless.

@@AshtonSWilson Please read Ephesians without a protestant interpretation. Also. Yes calling on the name of the Lord does refer to water baptism. Not Sola Fide which we can both agree, is false. Saint Paul absolutely didn't believe justification is by faith alone. Sorry. Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins,👉 calling on his name.’ 🤯🤯🤯