Good video, but saying Clement possibly advocated for _sola fide_ is totally false and misleading, please be careful with that, dear brother, it kinda' ruins the rest of the very well crafted and enjoyable video. Clement simply said that, first, we are saved because God decided so, and then concludes that we must keep doing good works regardless. That's the full context. Here is the complete context by quoting the previous and next paragraphs of his first letter to the Corinthians [1Corinthians 32, 3s; 33, 1s]: _[3] They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, _*_but through His will._* _[4] And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen._ (This is the paragraph quoted in the video, but is totally missing the following conclusion, it is not faith alone [which is a heresy], but faith working through love). _[1] What then must we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love? May the Master never allow this to befall us at least; _*_but let us hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work._* _[2] _*_For the Creator and Master of the universe Himself rejoiceth in His works._* I hope this helps. Good video otherwise. God bless. I'll keep en eye on this channel, seems promising.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia Perhaps!! :D God bless, dear brother. This is the first video I've watched of yours, and I can tell you truly put an effort into it. I will definitively keep an eye on your channel.
I was very impressed and almost shared this until I got to the end. St Clement did not teach justified by faith alone and no where does his letter state that idea. What's more the Church, it's Father's, it's successors have never taught that anyone was justified by works alone. It has always taught that we are justified by faith. Proof of that faith is that it bears good works (love) or God Himself for God is love because faith without deeds (works of love) is DEAD. The final statement of this video is a convolution of a Church Fathers words and God's Church.
00:45 Philippians 4v3 mentions an evangelist named Clement who worked with Paul & some women. Jumping to conclusions, the video says he is recognized as an important Christian leader.
Well Clement was an important early Christian leader. He's regarded as the most important 2nd generation Christian by basically everyone serious, protestant or otherwise. He was also Bishop of Rome. I kind of have a feeling Paul knew the guy.
Clements letter to the leaders in the church in Corinth was written in the tone of an older brother appealing to the young men to do what was right. It was not written as a command from the head of “THE church”, to a a group of bishops under his authority.
It was written charitably and in love, as an elder brother, but it carried veiled threats of excommunication. You have to ask yourself WHAT is the purpose of the letter. It is due to sedition, some upstarts have overthrown their bishop and Clement was calling upon them to submit. How can that not spell out authority? "But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger, 59:2 but that we shall be guiltless of this sin; and we will ask, making with earnestness our prayer and supplication, that the Maker of all things may keep uninjured in all the world the number of those that have been numbered as his elect, through his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, through whom he hath called us from darkness unto light, and from ignorance to a knowledge of the glory of his name." The Roman Bishop clearly implies something when asking God to keep untouched the number of the Elect. And, what does the Pontiff mean when he said "we shall be guiltless of this sin"? Now near the end, see what St. Clement wishes: "It is right, therefore, that those who have attended to so great and so many examples should submit their necks, and fill the place of obedience, so that being at peace from the vain sedition we may attain, without any blame, to the end set before us in truth." He starts off in praise obviously, as he's writing to Corinth, a world famous Apostolic city that got two favorable letters from St. Paul, but in the end he writes"without any blame" clearly implying something like "don't make us do this, please" There's things like that all over. The whole POINT of the letter is to not rebel. The tone used is beside the point.
There are a lot of twists in this video. I wonder why Clement became the first pope and not Paul. Why pope? The word is not even biblical. At that time, the new testament churches were independent.
I thought Peter was the first Pope? Actually, Pope means holy father. Not just father. The Catholic priest are called father and the pope holy father. None of it is biblical.
Paul was the first Pope. But saying it’s not biblical is like saying the Ford Model T wasn’t a car because the word car wasn’t in use yet. With that type of logic, the word biblical itself isn’t biblical, because the Bible hadn’t been written at that point. Sola Scriptura is not biblical, nowhere does the Bible mention sola Scriptura. Faith alone is not biblical. The only place in the Bible you find the phrase “Faith alone”, the word before it is ‘not’… “not by faith alone”. Where in the Bible is the word, Trinity? That’s just a few examples of why that argument is so poorly thought out..
What scriptures show Clement being ordained by Peter? Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. Here is the ONLY mention of Linus in Scripture: 2 Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. No mention of him becoming a Bishop! Peter's name means rock. That absolutely does not make him the Rock of Jesus' Church. It makes him Peter whose name means rock. Nothing more! Clements letters mean 2 things. 1. They are not and never were a part of Scripture. 2. His "faith alone" doctrine brings every other part of his theology into question.
Welcome @brucedavenport7016! Thank you for commenting and bringing up the important point about Clement. Indeed the evidence for ordination is not found in scripture but in the writings of the Church Fathers, namely Irenaeus. The understanding is that he was referring to the Clement that is in what would later be considered scripture. About his faith alone statement, I hope I clarified that in the following video. Again thank you for participating and keep you comments coming; it is through honest and respectful dialogs that we can reach the Truth.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia Who are/were the church fathers, what writings and how sure are you that what you say they wrote is what they actually wrote? What documents do you refer to that "would later be considered scripture"?
@@brucedavenport7016 The same way we know the authors of the New Testament. When saying "what would later be considered Scripture" is just what it means. If you read Christian writings within the lifetime of the Apostles, the only thing they called Scripture was the Old Testament, and it was extremely rare for someone to directly quote St. Paul for example. Only later would you start finding people quoting the Gospels and such. Clement's letter was one such writing that some actually considered part of the New Testament, but that fell out of favor given that the letter wasn't directly concerning the Gospel, the author wasn't an Apostle, and most importantly the whole Church just stopped using it as Scripture. The Bible canon was a little shaky back then, some also casted doubt upon Hebrews (due to having no certain authorship), Revelation, and Jude. Irenaeus, the one who tells us who ordained Clement, is also the first Christian author to quote the Gospels and to proclaim that, yeah, those are Scripture now. He was a mid 2nd century bishop of Lyon, though native to Smyrna. Fascinatingly enough, Irenaeus was ordained by none other than Polycarp, a disciple of St. John Apostle!
@@crusaderACR One of many problems I have with catholicism is that you prefer and reference the teachings of the pupil rather than the teacher. Irenaeus, polycarp and clement rather than Jesus, Paul and John. When you consider that Apostacy/heresy were alive and well prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus, how much more likely was it to be strong for the pupil (ie polycarp) of the pupil (ie John) of the teacher - Jesus?
@@brucedavenport7016 We can use them to clarify the teachings of their teachers. In Catholicism we make a distinction. Development: A clarification of a teaching that has already been passed down. Innovation: Something entirely new, which shouldn't be given any weight. We try to build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, either by finding better and more precise language, like how the words "Trinity" and "homoousios" were termed; or building new conclusions over well-established premises. With Irenaeus, for example, we could learn which books were genuinely written by John, and know that the Gnostics were denounced by him and which arguments from the epistles are meant to them, etc. Irenaeus wrote a wonderful, long book called Against Heresies, where he lays out all Gnostic teachings and debunks them with precision one by one with the knowledge he inherited from John, referencing John's writings.
It's very important to distinguish the early church title of "father" from the self aggrandized "universal bishop" instituted by the mass murderer Phocas 600 years later.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "On this rock I will build my church," distinguishing between the Greek words "Petros" (small rock, referring to Peter) and "petra" (large rock or bedrock). This indicates that Jesus was not building His church on Peter himself, but on the foundational truth of Peter’s confession: that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Thus, the church is built upon the recognition of Christ's true identity, not on Peter as an individual. Secondly, Peter and the 12 were ministers exclusively to Israel, and agreed to limit their ministry to Israel only (Galatians 2:9). Peter was never a "pope", Peter was however a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1), which suggests Peter did not see himself as having a greater authority or position than his contemporaries. Historical evidence for a formalized papal office in the early church is lacking and based on later traditions rather than contemporaneous documentation. The concept of the papacy as a centralized authority developed over centuries, and early church leadership was more collegial and less hierarchical. Early Christian writings and the New Testament depict church governance as involving multiple elders or bishops rather than a singular pope. Furthermore, figures like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus suggest a different understanding of church leadership, with Clement's role being more about addressing local issues rather than exercising universal authority. Lastly, Paul was given the Revelation of the Mystery (Ephesians 3) and laid a new foundation for the Church the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10) due to the fall of Israel (Romans 11). This video is catholic propaganda to support an unbiblical office. The pope has zero authority from the word of God.
Thank you @VFXShawn for commenting. It's through dialog that we can reach the Truth. I appreciate your objections and hope you continue to watch and discuss. I'll try to address the petra/petros objection in another video. The short answer is that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and used the word Kephas. Also the adoption of the word Pappas definitely came later as I stated in the video but there are more episodes to come! Once again I appreciate your views!
@@VFXShawnVenomfang! Listen man I used to watch you all the time back in ‘07-‘08. Hope you are doing well and God has blessed you over these many years. Old youtube was a different beast then. You had ZKeuker88, Jezuzfreek777, OneTrueChurch, TheAmazingAtheist, TonyfromtheBronx, Thunderf00t, etc. Pretty crazy to see how things have come huh?
@VFXShawn Wrong! Jesus changed Simon's name to Kepha or Rock in Aramaic, as shown in: John 1:42 42. And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him, said: "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas," (which is translated as Peter). The Greek New Testament translates Kepha/Rock as "Petros" which, in first century Christianity, also meant Rock. However, modern Greek changed its meaning to small rock; quite different from 1st. Century etymology.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia There’s also popes of Antioch, Alexandria, etc. tho, right? Even to this day there is a pope of Alexandria. I agree with you about that, but I don’t understand why you insist so strongly that only the bishop of Rome is called the pope. It’s confusing.
Thanks for commenting @littlefishbigmountain! You are right to say there were πάππας in all these churches. Even today we call the leader of Coptic Orthodox Church a Pope and the Patriarchs of many Orthodox churches can use the same designation. I don't want to be ethnocentric so point conceded. However, I think the question at hand is the difference between "a pope" and "the Pope". Hopefully future episodes will clarify the recognized role of the Bishop of Rome among all the churches in early Christianity. Please stay tuned and thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Hi @gamerjj777 Thank you for your comment. According to St. Irenaeus, Clement was ordained by Peter. I'm not sure the order of succession played a role.
@JohnFalstaffMedia why do u think the order of succession does not matter. If Peter ordained Clement as the next Pope, why does there appear two in between them?
@@gamerjj777 He's using the less accurate list of Tertullian, it confuses the timelines. Those of the other Church Fathers notably St. Irenaeus are much more reliable historically and this is the official list of the Catholic Church. However it should be noted that both St. Linus and St. Clement are mentioned in the Bible, see 2 Timothy 4:21 for St. Linus.
He ordained him bishop, not Pope. The Pope (Peter's successor) is selected by what we know today as a "conclave" (basically a gathering of bishops, elders, and other prominent figures of the Church). The Pope will then become the Bishop of Rome (if he wasn't already), but he could have been a bishop somewhere else first. Also, while nowadays it is rare to see more than one bishop per locality, it is possible to have more than one (particularly in larger cities or regions, like Rome was). Given the Church was barely starting back then, and how it had to hide and many other things, it is very probable they had more than one bishop in Rome, but that doesn't mean they were all the leader (the Pope); it just means they functioned as helping overseers there (helping bishop-episkopos). So, Clement being ordained bishop by Peter himself, and then becoming Pope after Linus and Anacletus is perfectly fine.
Can you find the title Pope or father in all the epistles ,all of the disciples called themselves servants. Only 2 epistle's of Peter he never called himself father of the faithful like Abraham. Jesus pray is significant the our father pray. The Pharisees and others plus the temple worship and sacrifices would be obsolete , therefore jesus words call no man father on earth or teacher. Because that old system be destroyed with the temple.
Thank you @frederickanderson1860. I appreciate your comment! You are correct. The word Pope does not appear in the Bible. The early Christians began calling their leaders Pappas. Why do you think they did that?
@@JohnFalstaffMedia simple the high priest's were appointed by king Herod and they did not know that jesus was the promised Messiah, a threat to their authority. Jesus prewarned his disciples about the destruction of their beloved temple. Hence the priesthood was also obsolete and sacrifices abolished , therefore his warnings about calling these corrupt priests father or teacher. The age of the old covenant was about to end ,
@@Kwisatz-Chaderach that's a poor way to explain your catholic dogmas. Servant is mentioned and jesus said the servant not greater than his master. Compare psalm 110. Who is the lord spoke unto my master in some translation or lord. How can it be David son
While Peter played a central role in the early spread of the gospel (as indicated in Matthew 16:18-19), Scripture, when taken in context, does not declare that he held authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor does Scripture teach that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Instead, Scripture shows that Peter's authority was shared with the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the "loosing and binding" authority attributed to him was also shared with local churches, not just their leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
You are right in stating that Scripture doesn't say the bishop of Rome should have primacy over other bishops but consider this: if Peter didn't have central authority over the other apostles, then why would Jesus SPECIFICALLY reference him(Peter) in Luke 22:31-32 and also John 21:15-17. kindly let me know why Jesus would speak directly to Peter in the aforementioned passages if he(Peter) had no primacy over the rest of the apostles. also why would Peter, apart from James, be the only apostle to make a prominent speech in Acts 15.
There’s much that could be said about your use of Scripture, but why do you read yourself into it so much? Jesus and Peter go to the temple and the disciples come to them at that very moment arguing about who’s going to be the greatest, and you read the answer He tells them, along with what Paul wrote to his son in the faith Titus in a personal letter (one of the Pastoral Epistles), and you read yourself into that?
@@nyantakyibannor9328 In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17, Jesus speaks directly to Peter, which Catholics interpret as establishing Peter’s leadership and the foundation of papal authority. However, the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions see Peter’s role differently. They argue that while Peter had a unique and important position, it wasn’t one of supreme authority over the other apostles. Instead, leadership was shared among the apostles, and Peter’s role was more pastoral than hierarchical. The Orthodox view especially emphasizes a collegial leadership model rather than a centralized authority.
@@TheCoachsCoach933 While Peter is specifically given the “keys of the kingdom” in Matthew 16:19, the authority to “bind and loose” is later extended to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. This suggests that Peter had a significant role, but he was not the only apostle with authority, as the collective leadership of the apostles was emphasized.
After looking into the pertinent verses, and doing some fringe research; The word 'pope' is not in the bible. Clement lived not in rome, but mostly in philipi a Greek city. He was not named as a pope in the Bible. Clement was called pope, in philipi, as the word has a Greek base: 'pappas', which means father. The pope is often referred to as; Holy Father. Jesus said; call no man father. So if anything, this illustrates the very foundational subversion of Christian teachings in the roman church from the very begining; it does not legitimize popes. The bible is simply written to simple common men, and these contradictory aspects of the catholic church require extensive narration to justify church practices, that are contrary to biblical truth. Like, as I've said before, valentines day, easter, christmas, the Sunday sabbath, all come with a long church narration, explaining why they aren't what they seem.
Not to mention that clement, was pope from 92 ad to 100 ad. Philipians was written sometime between 55 ad and most likely 62 ad., which means this may not even be the same clement.
@williamschlosser77 William, The Bible is not a historical book. It is mainly a book of Faith. However, it does reveal the presence of Clement in Scripture. The English word Pope does not exist in Greek, where the word "Patéras" or Páppas mean Father. An affectionate title for an Elder of the Church. It was later restricted to refer to the successor of Peter, as Bishop of Rome. Clement became 4th Pope after the death of Pope Cletus. Read his letters to the Corinthians.
Thank you for commenting. I appreciate all views. I’m not quite sure what is meant by your comment. In simple words, Peter, Linus, and Clement are mentioned in the New Testament. The Bishop of Rome came to be known as the Pope. Thank you for initiating a dialogue. I hope we can reach some common ground!
@@JohnFalstaffMedia where does it say in scripture that the bishop became the pope? I thought the pope was supposed to be celibate and given to the office…. Peter was a married man….. that’s deception. The deceiver is satan.
Thank you again @allenmcrae433 for engaging in dialogue. As far as I know, the Bible doesn’t use the word Pope anywhere. From the early 2nd century, bishops (everywhere) were commonly called πάππας or pappas or father and this is where the word Pope comes from. Gradually the term came to refer exclusively to the bishop of Rome. Celibacy for clergy, though it has its origins in the early Church, was not required until the 11th century. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, celibacy was only required of bishops after the 4th century.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia thank you for being so welcoming also, i agree and feel that Truth always invites investigation. with that, it's clear in Scripture that catholicism mandates sin. we can't agree to this unless you agree that God's Word = Truth, which is proven in John 17:17 i look forward to your replies, Sir! again, thanks for being so kind. after all, we are all trying go get to the same place with as many as possible with us.
How does Catholicism teach sin/ on the contrary; look at the hoops you jump to say baptism is not necessary, or that the Eucharist is just a symbol. You guys are plain and simply hilarious, the game was set the rule book is there, 15th century let’s get rid of history and start sola scriptura and sola fide. Put sola scriptura to the test, how many different Protestant churches are there? You guys clearly teach a different gospel, than what Jesus left, prove me wrong. By the way it’s not just Catholics, but everyone else, with of without sola scriptura. The only exception. SDA and Messianic Jews both from the 19 or 20th century
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm well, if sin = transgression (breaking) of His Commandments -- as 1 John 3:4 defines for us... and Exodus 20:8-11 is speaking of the Lords day being the 7th day Sabbath... and this 'church' pretends the 1st day is such.... it's promoting and mandating sin.
@@tony1685 Colossians 2:16 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. We all agree with 1 John 3:4 no defining what transgression is that would make me or you guilty. Matthew 16:19 loose and bind. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the phrase "binding and loosing" is a technical term that means to "forbid and permit". The Torah gave the power to "bind" and "loose" to the Sanhedrin, judges, and priesthood of Israel. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (c. A.D. 160), "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. 1 Cor. 16:2, •"On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come." Acts 20:7, •"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight." St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 10 (c. A.D. 150), •"Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this: have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage?" We agree on the 10 commandments, if anything that’s what I like about SDA, if you are one. Now based on tradition we go for Sunday, if you are SDA your tradition started in 19th century?
This series is so informative and the format is so easy and relaxing to appreciate. Please keep it coming!
More to come!
Good video, but saying Clement possibly advocated for _sola fide_ is totally false and misleading, please be careful with that, dear brother, it kinda' ruins the rest of the very well crafted and enjoyable video.
Clement simply said that, first, we are saved because God decided so, and then concludes that we must keep doing good works regardless. That's the full context.
Here is the complete context by quoting the previous and next paragraphs of his first letter to the Corinthians [1Corinthians 32, 3s; 33, 1s]:
_[3] They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, _*_but through His will._*
_[4] And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen._ (This is the paragraph quoted in the video, but is totally missing the following conclusion, it is not faith alone [which is a heresy], but faith working through love).
_[1] What then must we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love? May the Master never allow this to befall us at least; _*_but let us hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work._*
_[2] _*_For the Creator and Master of the universe Himself rejoiceth in His works._*
I hope this helps.
Good video otherwise.
God bless.
I'll keep en eye on this channel, seems promising.
@GranMaese You are correct... It was meant to get you to watch the next episode. Did it work?
@@JohnFalstaffMedia Perhaps!! :D
God bless, dear brother. This is the first video I've watched of yours, and I can tell you truly put an effort into it. I will definitively keep an eye on your channel.
Loving this series, production is great and so much information that clarifies what early Christianity was really like.
Really great series
Thank you!
Such fascinating information!
Keep uploading them, very interesting stories
Thank you @kingjoetv2747, I will!
Your videos are amazing my friend!!!
Thank you very much!
I was very impressed and almost shared this until I got to the end. St Clement did not teach justified by faith alone and no where does his letter state that idea. What's more the Church, it's Father's, it's successors have never taught that anyone was justified by works alone. It has always taught that we are justified by faith. Proof of that faith is that it bears good works (love) or God Himself for God is love because faith without deeds (works of love) is DEAD. The final statement of this video is a convolution of a Church Fathers words and God's Church.
@danteprudente8637 You need to watch the following episode.. it was a teaser. Waiting to hear back...
00:45 Philippians 4v3 mentions an evangelist named Clement who worked with Paul & some women. Jumping to conclusions, the video says he is recognized as an important Christian leader.
Thank you for contributing @toferg.8264. Your opinion is valued here. Please continue to follow and comment.
Well Clement was an important early Christian leader. He's regarded as the most important 2nd generation Christian by basically everyone serious, protestant or otherwise. He was also Bishop of Rome.
I kind of have a feeling Paul knew the guy.
Clements letter to the leaders in the church in Corinth was written in the tone of an older brother appealing to the young men to do what was right. It was not written as a command from the head of “THE church”, to a a group of bishops under his authority.
Thank you for your comment @KelvinYork67. I appreciate all perspectives that are sincere.
It was written charitably and in love, as an elder brother, but it carried veiled threats of excommunication. You have to ask yourself WHAT is the purpose of the letter.
It is due to sedition, some upstarts have overthrown their bishop and Clement was calling upon them to submit. How can that not spell out authority?
"But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,
59:2 but that we shall be guiltless of this sin; and we will ask, making with earnestness our prayer and supplication, that the Maker of all things may keep uninjured in all the world the number of those that have been numbered as his elect, through his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, through whom he hath called us from darkness unto light, and from ignorance to a knowledge of the glory of his name."
The Roman Bishop clearly implies something when asking God to keep untouched the number of the Elect.
And, what does the Pontiff mean when he said "we shall be guiltless of this sin"?
Now near the end, see what St. Clement wishes:
"It is right, therefore, that those who have attended to so great and so many examples should submit their necks, and fill the place of obedience, so that being at peace from the vain sedition we may attain, without any blame, to the end set before us in truth."
He starts off in praise obviously, as he's writing to Corinth, a world famous Apostolic city that got two favorable letters from St. Paul, but in the end he writes"without any blame" clearly implying something like "don't make us do this, please"
There's things like that all over. The whole POINT of the letter is to not rebel. The tone used is beside the point.
Love the comic book format
Thank you @jep6752! I appreciate the feedback!
There are a lot of twists in this video. I wonder why Clement became the first pope and not Paul. Why pope? The word is not even biblical. At that time, the new testament churches were independent.
Pope is just a traditional title, not an official one, if you know what i mean. It just means "Father"
I thought Peter was the first Pope? Actually, Pope means holy father. Not just father. The Catholic priest are called father and the pope holy father. None of it is biblical.
Paul was the first Pope. But saying it’s not biblical is like saying the Ford Model T wasn’t a car because the word car wasn’t in use yet. With that type of logic, the word biblical itself isn’t biblical, because the Bible hadn’t been written at that point. Sola Scriptura is not biblical, nowhere does the Bible mention sola Scriptura. Faith alone is not biblical. The only place in the Bible you find the phrase “Faith alone”, the word before it is ‘not’… “not by faith alone”. Where in the Bible is the word, Trinity? That’s just a few examples of why that argument is so poorly thought out..
@@mr.e8432 is faith alone biblical
@@brendanmuller7301 Nope.
Problem is that the majority of this info is false.
Welcome to the channel @pacratproductions5004! I am happy to receive criticism if it will help us reach the Truth.
Just a comment to support your work
Much appreciated!!!!! 😃
What scriptures show Clement being ordained by Peter?
Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
Here is the ONLY mention of Linus in Scripture:
2 Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.
No mention of him becoming a Bishop!
Peter's name means rock.
That absolutely does not make him the Rock of Jesus' Church.
It makes him Peter whose name means rock. Nothing more!
Clements letters mean 2 things.
1. They are not and never were a part of Scripture.
2. His "faith alone" doctrine brings every other part of his theology into question.
Welcome @brucedavenport7016! Thank you for commenting and bringing up the important point about Clement. Indeed the evidence for ordination is not found in scripture but in the writings of the Church Fathers, namely Irenaeus. The understanding is that he was referring to the Clement that is in what would later be considered scripture. About his faith alone statement, I hope I clarified that in the following video. Again thank you for participating and keep you comments coming; it is through honest and respectful dialogs that we can reach the Truth.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia Who are/were the church fathers, what writings and how sure are you that what you say they wrote is what they actually wrote?
What documents do you refer to that "would later be considered scripture"?
@@brucedavenport7016 The same way we know the authors of the New Testament.
When saying "what would later be considered Scripture" is just what it means. If you read Christian writings within the lifetime of the Apostles, the only thing they called Scripture was the Old Testament, and it was extremely rare for someone to directly quote St. Paul for example. Only later would you start finding people quoting the Gospels and such.
Clement's letter was one such writing that some actually considered part of the New Testament, but that fell out of favor given that the letter wasn't directly concerning the Gospel, the author wasn't an Apostle, and most importantly the whole Church just stopped using it as Scripture. The Bible canon was a little shaky back then, some also casted doubt upon Hebrews (due to having no certain authorship), Revelation, and Jude.
Irenaeus, the one who tells us who ordained Clement, is also the first Christian author to quote the Gospels and to proclaim that, yeah, those are Scripture now. He was a mid 2nd century bishop of Lyon, though native to Smyrna. Fascinatingly enough, Irenaeus was ordained by none other than Polycarp, a disciple of St. John Apostle!
@@crusaderACR One of many problems I have with catholicism is that you prefer and reference the teachings of the pupil rather than the teacher.
Irenaeus, polycarp and clement rather than Jesus, Paul and John.
When you consider that Apostacy/heresy were alive and well prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus, how much more likely was it to be strong for the pupil (ie polycarp) of the pupil (ie John) of the teacher - Jesus?
@@brucedavenport7016 We can use them to clarify the teachings of their teachers. In Catholicism we make a distinction.
Development: A clarification of a teaching that has already been passed down.
Innovation: Something entirely new, which shouldn't be given any weight.
We try to build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, either by finding better and more precise language, like how the words "Trinity" and "homoousios" were termed; or building new conclusions over well-established premises.
With Irenaeus, for example, we could learn which books were genuinely written by John, and know that the Gnostics were denounced by him and which arguments from the epistles are meant to them, etc. Irenaeus wrote a wonderful, long book called Against Heresies, where he lays out all Gnostic teachings and debunks them with precision one by one with the knowledge he inherited from John, referencing John's writings.
It's very important to distinguish the early church title of "father" from the self aggrandized "universal bishop" instituted by the mass murderer Phocas 600 years later.
God bless you, and God bless your work.
Thank you kindly
If you have a King why would you need a pope?
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "On this rock I will build my church," distinguishing between the Greek words "Petros" (small rock, referring to Peter) and "petra" (large rock or bedrock). This indicates that Jesus was not building His church on Peter himself, but on the foundational truth of Peter’s confession: that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Thus, the church is built upon the recognition of Christ's true identity, not on Peter as an individual.
Secondly, Peter and the 12 were ministers exclusively to Israel, and agreed to limit their ministry to Israel only (Galatians 2:9). Peter was never a "pope", Peter was however a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1), which suggests Peter did not see himself as having a greater authority or position than his contemporaries. Historical evidence for a formalized papal office in the early church is lacking and based on later traditions rather than contemporaneous documentation. The concept of the papacy as a centralized authority developed over centuries, and early church leadership was more collegial and less hierarchical. Early Christian writings and the New Testament depict church governance as involving multiple elders or bishops rather than a singular pope. Furthermore, figures like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus suggest a different understanding of church leadership, with Clement's role being more about addressing local issues rather than exercising universal authority.
Lastly, Paul was given the Revelation of the Mystery (Ephesians 3) and laid a new foundation for the Church the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10) due to the fall of Israel (Romans 11). This video is catholic propaganda to support an unbiblical office. The pope has zero authority from the word of God.
Thank you @VFXShawn for commenting. It's through dialog that we can reach the Truth. I appreciate your objections and hope you continue to watch and discuss. I'll try to address the petra/petros objection in another video. The short answer is that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and used the word Kephas. Also the adoption of the word Pappas definitely came later as I stated in the video but there are more episodes to come! Once again I appreciate your views!
@@JohnFalstaffMedia I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge and deal with objections and writing a polite comment. Thank you.
@@VFXShawnVenomfang! Listen man I used to watch you all the time back in ‘07-‘08. Hope you are doing well and God has blessed you over these many years. Old youtube was a different beast then. You had ZKeuker88, Jezuzfreek777, OneTrueChurch, TheAmazingAtheist, TonyfromtheBronx, Thunderf00t, etc. Pretty crazy to see how things have come huh?
Thank you for commenting @TheCoachsCoach933. I hope you stay tuned to my new videos. Your comments are welcome.
@VFXShawn
Wrong!
Jesus changed Simon's name to Kepha or Rock in Aramaic, as shown in:
John 1:42
42. And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him, said: "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas," (which is translated as Peter).
The Greek New Testament translates Kepha/Rock as "Petros" which, in first century Christianity, also meant Rock.
However, modern Greek changed its meaning to small rock; quite different from 1st. Century etymology.
A bishop is not the same as a pope.
Why would you manipulate and pervert facts, hm? 🤔
Thanks for commenting. Pope = Bishop of Rome
@@JohnFalstaffMedia
There’s also popes of Antioch, Alexandria, etc. tho, right? Even to this day there is a pope of Alexandria. I agree with you about that, but I don’t understand why you insist so strongly that only the bishop of Rome is called the pope. It’s confusing.
Thanks for commenting @littlefishbigmountain! You are right to say there were πάππας in all these churches. Even today we call the leader of Coptic Orthodox Church a Pope and the Patriarchs of many Orthodox churches can use the same designation. I don't want to be ethnocentric so point conceded. However, I think the question at hand is the difference between "a pope" and "the Pope". Hopefully future episodes will clarify the recognized role of the Bishop of Rome among all the churches in early Christianity. Please stay tuned and thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Until First half of 2nd century episkopa and presbyter were indentical.
The Pope is a colloquial name for the Bishop of Rome. Nice try though.
How can Peter ordain Clement as Bishop of Rome when it is said Linus succeeded Peter, then Anacletus, and then Clement.
Hi @gamerjj777 Thank you for your comment. According to St. Irenaeus, Clement was ordained by Peter. I'm not sure the order of succession played a role.
@JohnFalstaffMedia why do u think the order of succession does not matter. If Peter ordained Clement as the next Pope, why does there appear two in between them?
@@gamerjj777 He's using the less accurate list of Tertullian, it confuses the timelines. Those of the other Church Fathers notably St. Irenaeus are much more reliable historically and this is the official list of the Catholic Church.
However it should be noted that both St. Linus and St. Clement are mentioned in the Bible, see 2 Timothy 4:21 for St. Linus.
@VirginMostPowerfull isnt he quoting Irenaus for Clement's ordination?
He ordained him bishop, not Pope. The Pope (Peter's successor) is selected by what we know today as a "conclave" (basically a gathering of bishops, elders, and other prominent figures of the Church). The Pope will then become the Bishop of Rome (if he wasn't already), but he could have been a bishop somewhere else first.
Also, while nowadays it is rare to see more than one bishop per locality, it is possible to have more than one (particularly in larger cities or regions, like Rome was). Given the Church was barely starting back then, and how it had to hide and many other things, it is very probable they had more than one bishop in Rome, but that doesn't mean they were all the leader (the Pope); it just means they functioned as helping overseers there (helping bishop-episkopos).
So, Clement being ordained bishop by Peter himself, and then becoming Pope after Linus and Anacletus is perfectly fine.
Can you find the title Pope or father in all the epistles ,all of the disciples called themselves servants. Only 2 epistle's of Peter he never called himself father of the faithful like Abraham. Jesus pray is significant the our father pray. The Pharisees and others plus the temple worship and sacrifices would be obsolete , therefore jesus words call no man father on earth or teacher. Because that old system be destroyed with the temple.
Thank you @frederickanderson1860. I appreciate your comment! You are correct. The word Pope does not appear in the Bible. The early Christians began calling their leaders Pappas. Why do you think they did that?
@@JohnFalstaffMedia simple the high priest's were appointed by king Herod and they did not know that jesus was the promised Messiah, a threat to their authority. Jesus prewarned his disciples about the destruction of their beloved temple. Hence the priesthood was also obsolete and sacrifices abolished , therefore his warnings about calling these corrupt priests father or teacher. The age of the old covenant was about to end ,
Thank you @frederickanderson1860. Brilliant response.
Bro you can't find the word Bible, Trinity, or hypostasis. Please sit down.
@@Kwisatz-Chaderach that's a poor way to explain your catholic dogmas. Servant is mentioned and jesus said the servant not greater than his master. Compare psalm 110. Who is the lord spoke unto my master in some translation or lord. How can it be David son
WOW! Great video, I am excited to have discovered this channel.
AVE MARIA!
Welcome aboard!
While Peter played a central role in the early spread of the gospel (as indicated in Matthew 16:18-19), Scripture, when taken in context, does not declare that he held authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor does Scripture teach that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Instead, Scripture shows that Peter's authority was shared with the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the "loosing and binding" authority attributed to him was also shared with local churches, not just their leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
I love scripture. Stay tuned for Episode 7
You are right in stating that Scripture doesn't say the bishop of Rome should have primacy over other bishops but consider this: if Peter didn't have central authority over the other apostles, then why would Jesus SPECIFICALLY reference him(Peter) in Luke 22:31-32 and also John 21:15-17. kindly let me know why Jesus would speak directly to Peter in the aforementioned passages if he(Peter) had no primacy over the rest of the apostles. also why would Peter, apart from James, be the only apostle to make a prominent speech in Acts 15.
There’s much that could be said about your use of Scripture, but why do you read yourself into it so much? Jesus and Peter go to the temple and the disciples come to them at that very moment arguing about who’s going to be the greatest, and you read the answer He tells them, along with what Paul wrote to his son in the faith Titus in a personal letter (one of the Pastoral Epistles), and you read yourself into that?
@@nyantakyibannor9328 In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17, Jesus speaks directly to Peter, which Catholics interpret as establishing Peter’s leadership and the foundation of papal authority. However, the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions see Peter’s role differently. They argue that while Peter had a unique and important position, it wasn’t one of supreme authority over the other apostles. Instead, leadership was shared among the apostles, and Peter’s role was more pastoral than hierarchical. The Orthodox view especially emphasizes a collegial leadership model rather than a centralized authority.
@@TheCoachsCoach933 While Peter is specifically given the “keys of the kingdom” in Matthew 16:19, the authority to “bind and loose” is later extended to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. This suggests that Peter had a significant role, but he was not the only apostle with authority, as the collective leadership of the apostles was emphasized.
After looking into the pertinent verses, and doing some fringe research;
The word 'pope' is not in the bible.
Clement lived not in rome, but mostly in philipi a Greek city.
He was not named as a pope in the Bible.
Clement was called pope, in philipi, as the word has a Greek base: 'pappas', which means father.
The pope is often referred to as; Holy Father.
Jesus said; call no man father.
So if anything, this illustrates the very foundational subversion of Christian teachings in the roman church from the very begining; it does not legitimize popes.
The bible is simply written to simple common men, and these contradictory aspects of the catholic church require extensive narration to justify church practices, that are contrary to biblical truth.
Like, as I've said before, valentines day, easter, christmas, the Sunday sabbath, all come with a long church narration, explaining why they aren't what they seem.
Not to mention that clement, was pope from 92 ad to 100 ad.
Philipians was written sometime between 55 ad and most likely 62 ad., which means this may not even be the same clement.
Thanks again @williamschlosser77 for sharing your thoughts. You may have just solved almost 2000 years of controversy with these two comments.
@williamschlosser77
William,
The Bible is not a historical book. It is mainly a book of Faith.
However, it does reveal the presence of Clement in Scripture.
The English word Pope does not exist in Greek, where the word "Patéras" or Páppas mean Father. An affectionate title for an Elder of the Church. It was later restricted to refer to the successor of Peter, as Bishop of Rome.
Clement became 4th Pope after the death of Pope Cletus.
Read his letters to the Corinthians.
@@JohnFalstaffMediakekw. Classic.
Bro do you call your dad, Father? Or what do you say about St.Paul in 1st Corinthians 4:15?....make some sense Prots, your stuff is old and tired.
It’s all a transformed angel of light. No such office exists in scripture. That is adding. Revelation 22:8… cursed i say!!
Thank you for commenting. I appreciate all views. I’m not quite sure what is meant by your comment. In simple words, Peter, Linus, and Clement are mentioned in the New Testament. The Bishop of Rome came to be known as the Pope. Thank you for initiating a dialogue. I hope we can reach some common ground!
@@JohnFalstaffMedia where does it say in scripture that the bishop became the pope? I thought the pope was supposed to be celibate and given to the office…. Peter was a married man….. that’s deception. The deceiver is satan.
Thank you again @allenmcrae433 for engaging in dialogue. As far as I know, the Bible doesn’t use the word Pope anywhere. From the early 2nd century, bishops (everywhere) were commonly called πάππας or pappas or father and this is where the word Pope comes from. Gradually the term came to refer exclusively to the bishop of Rome. Celibacy for clergy, though it has its origins in the early Church, was not required until the 11th century. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, celibacy was only required of bishops after the 4th century.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia Jesus said to call no man on earth father. Though the people did. He said not too.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia so that’s proof they added in the 4th century. Jesus said to believe on him how the scriptures say.
entirely too much in Scripture proves catholicism is not Christianity.
Thank you @tony1685 for initiating a conversation. It is through dialog that we can reach the Truth. Feel free to share more of your knowledge.
@@JohnFalstaffMedia thank you for being so welcoming also, i agree and feel that Truth always invites investigation.
with that, it's clear in Scripture that catholicism mandates sin. we can't agree to this unless you agree that God's Word = Truth, which is proven in John 17:17
i look forward to your replies, Sir!
again, thanks for being so kind.
after all, we are all trying go get to the same place with as many as possible with us.
How does Catholicism teach sin/ on the contrary; look at the hoops you jump to say baptism is not necessary, or that the Eucharist is just a symbol.
You guys are plain and simply hilarious, the game was set the rule book is there, 15th century let’s get rid of history and start sola scriptura and sola fide.
Put sola scriptura to the test, how many different Protestant churches are there?
You guys clearly teach a different gospel, than what Jesus left, prove me wrong.
By the way it’s not just Catholics, but everyone else, with of without sola scriptura.
The only exception. SDA and Messianic Jews both from the 19 or 20th century
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm well, if sin = transgression (breaking) of His Commandments -- as 1 John 3:4 defines for us...
and Exodus 20:8-11 is speaking of the Lords day being the 7th day Sabbath...
and this 'church' pretends the 1st day is such....
it's promoting and mandating sin.
@@tony1685 Colossians 2:16 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
We all agree with 1 John 3:4 no defining what transgression is that would make me or you guilty.
Matthew 16:19 loose and bind.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the phrase "binding and loosing" is a technical term that means to "forbid and permit". The Torah gave the power to "bind" and "loose" to the Sanhedrin, judges, and priesthood of Israel.
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (c.
A.D. 160),
"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
1 Cor. 16:2,
•"On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come."
Acts 20:7,
•"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight."
St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 10 (c. A.D. 150),
•"Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this: have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage?"
We agree on the 10 commandments, if anything that’s what I like about SDA, if you are one. Now based on tradition we go for Sunday, if you are SDA your tradition started in 19th century?