And let us not forget that very important point of catechesis given to us by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, when he quotes the portion of the verse "But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook..." now Sheen emphasizes "But that WE may not scandalize them" Sheen then tells us that this is the only time in all of Scripture that God (Jesus) identifies Himself with one of His creatures (Peter) under the personal pronoun "WE"! Sheen then goes on to say that that is why popes would speak in the plural "We, Our" when signing letters or pronouncements and items of that nature. The pope would sign that he and Jesus (We) "pronounce and declare" or "set our signature to" I have always found that instruction from Sheen fascinating and enlightening.
I never noticed this meaning of the story before. Peter is also the one who goes first into the tomb even though John got there first. He definitely deferred to him.
Peter was always 'ram stam'. He opened his mouth without thinking all the time, and rushed foolishly. Just for your information, the Lord revealed Himself first of all to Mary Magdalene. The disciples had gone home thinking the Lord's body was stolen and it took Mary Magdalene to set them right. Notice is was that Mary, not His mother.
Maria Magdalene was there at "early dark" at the empty tomb before both John and Peter (John 20:1. Then look she can again (11-18) after Peter and John. The she came the third time to the empty tomb after sunrise (Mark 16:2) and she did not need to purchase any spices after sunrise because Christ resurrect 12 hours before sunrise. Can you see how Bibles are mistranslated to say the women need to purchase spices after sunrise.
Protestants seem to slam Mother Mary every chance they get. I sure don’t want to be at an exit interview where Jesus asks, now what did you say about my mother again?😮 Just sayin…
This is especially interesting given that Judas was the one in charge of the purse. If the point was merely "pay the tax," it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to ask Peter to do that; he'd have directed Judas to do that since he was responsible for the disciples' finances.
This makes me wonder....Did Judas pay taxes from the purse too? By this Miracle, was God the Father paying tax/add'l tax or their tax that was unpaid? It's a very good point that leads to add'l research.....
Joe Heschmeyer's book "Pope Peter" does a great job of fleshing this and other arguments out - I highly recommend it! A lot of Protestants today say Matthew 16:18 is the only verse we use to support the papacy, but as here, there are far, far more!
Unfortunately, you can recommend a lot of good things to protestants, but most of them will look at you like you've lost your mind, mumble somethings about all Catholics are going to hell, and then just go about their own business. Lord Lord
I read the early church was cathalic and was really unimpressed. He presented arguments that didn't follow and stretched the historical data beyond comprehension.
@johns1834 just curious, why do all modern scholars deny the papacy in the early church. Even cathalic scholars affirm there is little to no evidence for it. One has to deny evidence to be catholic.
@@jwatson181 Do you have any examples of these "arguments that didn't follow" or "historical data stretched beyond comprehension"? Heschmeyer heavily cites each and every point he makes, so much so that the majority of the book is simply reproducing early Church writings. And can you name any Catholic scholars who "affirm there is little to no evidence" for the papacy? I've never encountered one, and I've read quite a lot.
Also as you mentioned, non of this is a coincidence. Specially in John, where he very carefully chose his characters and stories. For that reason is very revealing when he is telling that John and Peter are running to see the open sepulchre and John gets there first. However, he allows Peter to go inside first!!! That is not a merely gesture of kindness. Not specially knowing the gospel was written almost 60 years later when this doctrine was established. Peter’s primacy is overwhelming in scripture.
Good insight.... but there's something else that gets missed here with John 21's connection with all this. When the six Apostle catch the fish, it's the direct result of the miracle Jesus performs for them... and whenever Jesus performs a miracle it is always to show that he has the authority to validate the divine message of what he has established and is establishing. This of course needs to be unpacked, but the point here is that the miracle in John 21 yet another sign that validates and confirms what Jesus established with Peter.
Whilst all of this is interesting I think it's far from supporting Peter as a Pope (have read some of the comments too): Yes Peter is given a special role, but so are the other disciples. After Jesus's death we never see Peter in a leading role (that is exceeding the other apostles). Acts 2 comes the closest to this but it's just a preach and after all he's the apostle for the jews whilst paul is the apostle for the nations (Gal 2:7). Paul rebuked him in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) He is mentioned as a pillar of the church besides James and John (in the list he is in the middle which shows no supremacy) in Gal 2:9 (and yes I'm noticing it's Gal 2 a lot haha) In the first church meeting in Acts 15 he speaks but doesn't lead the church but rather James comes up with the solution. (Though Peter calmed down the discussion). Most of the bible is written by Paul not Peter, which if he was instated as Pope is in my eyes a bit weird as he as Pope would surely be a leadexample and teach more, and as a matter of fact in none of the letters we see that there is another headship than Christ. There isn't even one mentioned to the church in Jerusalem, so it would be weird to support papacy from that. In Eph 2:20 we see that christ is the cornerstone and the foundation is the apostle and the prophets. No mention of Peter. Anyways after drifting off a bit let's go back to the topics of the video: - The story doesn't mention any of the other disciples. - It's not easy to interpret pictures without biblical teaching behind it (especially the examples of jesus) - In John 21 it's a difference between the discples trying to pull in the net and Peter. The disciples wanted to pull it into the boat whereas Peter pulled it on shore. It's clear that the others brought it to the shore. - Furthermore Peter is not responsible for the net not ripping. That's the LORDs doing just as the amount of fishes is the LORDs doing. - Luke 5 is interesting that he just speaks to Peter so maybe I need to study that a bit. So all in all I still have seen no great evidence that Peter was the first Pope.
He who comes first will be last. I think you confuse Peter’s role like a king. Peter is a servant of servants. He is to minister to us, he is our servant. This is what protestants do not understand. Protestants treat the pope like a king where many catholics would take a critical eye😅
@@markv1974 And from what verses do you gather that? Yes the first will be last but where do we see that it was peters explicit role? Personally I believe a king should also serve his people (see jesus)
Well, I see what I'll be reading this week!! What I'm about to say isn't a detraction from the Catholic church/Pope thereof. St Peter wasn't Bishop of Rome. His calling was a step above Bishoprics. St Peter was an Apostle and never Bishop of Rome. This fact doesn't change weather or not he was the head of the church on earth, and likely reinforces St Peter's primacy at that time. After all, Apostle is a higher calling, and aside from Jesus Christ is The highest calling. St Peter was in Rome more than once (I think) and spent his last minutes on earth IN Rome. In the Church back then, Rome was one of the seven Patriarch of the Church callings, and Apostle of The Lord is a calling Above Patriarch. Perhaps when we think of St Peter, we should remember this, and respect the fact that his burden and responsibilities far exceeded the boundaries of the Roman Bishopric.
@@RobertStewart-i3m I'm not quite sure whether you understood my comment but here are some things I would like to mention: (a) I don't care about the Bishoprics (b) Peter was an Apostle and so where 12-13 others. (c) Paul also died Rome what's your point? (d) wdym with seven Patriarch of the Church callings?
I never thought of that passage this way. I am Catholic and believe that Jesus gave authority to St. Peter, but this point of view is an eye opener for me. Great explanation!
One thing is to recognize that Peter had a special role, another is to affirm this line of succession that holds the Vatican 1 dogmas, they’re VERY different.
One detail that seems to be ignored here in Matthew 17:24 is that the tax collectors speak to Peter. Just Peter, not Peter and the other disciples. The tax collectors ask Peter if his master, not his master and the other disciples, pay the tax. It appears that it’s only Peter and Jesus who are being asked this question because the text does not mention anything about anyone else being present. It’s an extrapolation that there is some other message being presented here. In other words, this papal connection is a fabrication from information that is not in the text. God bless.
Personally, I am not Catholic. I am also aware of the substantial contribution the church has made to the world and to Christianity. Thank God for Catholics
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail. Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Some Protestants try to explain this verse by saying that all the other disciples were teenagers and did not have to pay tax. This has been popularised by Kenneth Bailey, who lived in the middle east for forty years and learned much from Orthodox Christians and wrote some great books but who maybe inoculated himself against a full acceptance of Orthodoxy or Catholicism by insisting that the disciples were super young. He even said I believe, that John was at the Cross with Mary because he was too young to be left on his own...!
The apostles were teenagers, but Peter was married and had a mother in law, who Jesus cured? Honestly, that's a very odd way to try to interpret the gospels in a way that does not recognize Peter as the main lead of the apostles. I know that people used to get married very young at that time, but it still sounds like a forced interpretation. Nevertheless, thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of it.
You might even ask who would base a Church on the Disciples, with betrayal and suicide and betrayal again - but that is the basis of our beautiful Church because it involves ultimate affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus.
The trouble with analyses like this is that they are only persuasive to people who already believe in the Catholic dogma. Protestants are correct in saying that Scripture does not say anywhere that our Lord set up a papacy. But Catholics do not believe in the papacy because of Sacred Scripture alone, but through Sacred Tradition which predates and ultimately gave us Scripture. If one wants compelling evidence for why Catholics believe in the papacy, one must consider the early Church Fathers (e.g., Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius). Catholics didnt just randomly make these things up in the last few centuries...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but for me it is just common sense. At the end of the day someone always has to be in charge. If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge. I am a father of 5 and God gave me the authority to be the head of my household. If God thought it so important to create something called fatherhood to be the leader of my small family of 7 why on earth would I ever think He doesn't believe a visible leader is necessary for His family of billions? Just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, like I said I also agree with what you said. God Bless
@@Matt-1926 to be clear, I am Catholic and believe in the papacy. I just think arguments like this are counter-productive and, sometimes, just reaching... like, do the Church Fathers interpret this passage this way?
But those same church fathers never considered the bishop of rome in the same way modern catholics do. Or even 13th century to now. Irenaeus gives a list of bishops of rome but there isn't a hint in that list it refers to the papacy. There were church fathers that were never bishop of rome that were called pope. It just meant papa, more of a diminutive. Not holding royal authority over the entire church. Irenaeus had no concept of that. But i agree with the rest of your post.
@ContendingEarnestly The early Church recognized certain episcopal sees as primary (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and later Constantinople). Among these, Rome was considered the first in primacy. See the third Canon of the First Council of Constantinople, which reads, "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome." This implies that Rome was considered by even Constantinople in AD 381 to have primacy in some sense.
@@connorhurley9512 *_to be clear, I am Catholic and believe in the papacy._* I figured your were, my comment wasn't against what you said, I was trying to give more insight. *_I just think arguments like this are counter-productive and, sometimes, just reaching_* Yes they can be. I think the point I was trying to make is if the person isn't in reception mode than the arguments you point to will also come across as counterproductive and reaching. I meant no disrespect. The point I was trying to make is if we look at the way God set up the world it is common sense that someone always has to have the final say. To me this should be common sense. If the other person obviously lives their everyday lives knowingly agreeing that authorities MUST exist and have no problem obeying said authorities for the common good of fallen human nature. Yet when it comes to salvation they believe Jesus set up a system with no visible authority here on earth. Then to me I am dealing with an illogical person who isn't in reception mode. Meaning they aren't going to be willing to listen to any argument we present. I agree everything you pointed to is evidence, I just don't think it is evidence to someone with a closed mind and the only way to open their mind is to get them to acknowledge the necessity that Jesus would have left us someone to settle the argument between us. *_like, do the Church Fathers interpret this passage this way?_* Here's one I found..... Clement of Alexandria “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Also, wanted to point out that this is just a video of a quick response to the verse. Joe goes into far more detail in his book with an entire chapter dedicated to the passage. You might want to get the book and read it. I thought it was enlightening. He goes into the meaning of the Greek words in the text that aren't translated well into English and give a deeper meaning to the verse. As well as to why Jesus stated Him and Peter are exempt from paying the tax pointing us to the OT which points out that only the priests were exempt from paying the tax. Anyway, I'm not sure if other fathers point to this verse as proof of Peter being the leader of the disciples but Clement does anyway. God Bless
The keys to the kingdom are not what Roman Catholics think. The LORD commanded Peter three times, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium. And Peter wrote to the sheep (2 Peter 1:5-11) and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep. Peter has been feeding the sheep even today by sharing the keys to the kingdom with anyone who will do what he tells them to do in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall. So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall? If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11). Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44). ... ... ...
John 14:23 “Yahoshuah answered and said unto him, If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” This is the Trinity fulfilled. The Father and Son and you 24/7, and your body as a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any religious tradition of man to insert themselves into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.
The Papacy if true is the most important office of the Church. It would not be buried in riddles, but would be taught as clearly as the other offices. We have more about Deacons than the supposedly infallible, universally supreme Pope in Scripture. I am so disappointed that I cant be Roman Catholic, I would like it very much, but the heterodoxy surrounding the post-1871 Papacy is just too much.
All apostles were given equal authority. Matt 18:18 binding and loosing. 1 pet 5:1 Peter calls himself a fellow elder , just like the other elders . James was the leader of the Jerusalem church. No where in the Bible is Peter ever called the pope, or is even said went to Rome.what is interesting is that Peter’s ministry was to the Jews ( circumcised) where Paul was ministry was to the gentiles. Paul who gave us the book of Romans greets all the Christians in Rome my name , but he never mentioned pope Peter? Jesus did not start the Roman Catholic Church, and the apostles were not Roman Catholics, they were Christian Jews, the church started in Jerusalem at Pentecost, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, Acts 11:26 “ the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch “ ( not Roman Catholics )
*_All apostles were given equal authority. Matt _**_18:18_**_ binding and loosing._* Actually if you read those verses in the Greek you will notice that when Jesus said the word you to Peter it was a singular you meaning Peter had this authority to bind and loose on his own. Were as when Jesus gave this authority to the others he used the plural you which would mean they have the authority to bind and loose collectively as a group. Also, there are no name changes being made or mention of the keys given to anyone else in Matthew 18, so it is pretty evident from the Bible that Jesus wasn't giving the same level of authority to all. God Bless
Not so sure about that. Jesus said look at the image on the coin. It was Ceasars s. HE then said render unto Caesar what is Caesar s and unto God what is God s
@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn That's entirely possible. I'll have to read those chapters again. Oh no! I have to read the Bible on Sunday! What a......Blessing. Not crime, as the saying normally goes.
Except, he sent Peter down, so no one else would owe the tax since they weren't involved in catching the fish...strange read. And the bible is literally full of reasons that Peter wouldn't be considered the pope, but RCC claws and scratches to desperately keep power and authority by distorting any verse that supposedly gives Peter extra special authority. There is no Pope of Jesus Christ, there is a primacy of delusion, an idol that doesn't belong in Christianity. Any extra-biblical document that demands special obedience and power for a human, is anti-Christian.
With all due respect, Peter being the most significant out of the apostles is a long stretch from him having an infallible office which is then passed down (with equal infallibility) to each one ordained in his place.
Peter is not merely the most significant, his role in Divine Providence was absolutely a singular one, for whenever God changes someone's name it signifies some singular special role in His plan. Also, Jesus made Peter sheepherd over all His sheep (which includes the Apostles) in Jonh 21:17-19. And gave him the Keys of the Kingdom, which mean delegated power from the King (Jesus) to his representative (Peter) according to Isaiah 22:22 Peter isn't merely the most significant of the Apostles, but the sheepherd of all christians and visible rock of the Church.
What confuses me is that wasn’t Peter spanked by Paul a bunch of times ? I’m just confused why apostle succession gives any of them the final authority. It looked like they voted or discussed stuff together
Just something that always struck me...serious question and not trying to snark....The metaphors of fishing, shepherding, fishermen, shepherds....all involve the focus of these activities, fish, lambs and sheep, being at best held down and shorn and at worst....eaten! They represent us! How is being shaved to the skin and/or being eaten correspond with being saved!?
I've been reading the church fathers for the past 8 years. I can answer this question (although I reject the heresies of the Catholics and Orthodox). The answer is that the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting us open and searching our inward parts. Since the body is a metaphor for the soul, this represents Christ exposing our true selves, even our secret thoughts. Christ, like the priests in the Old Testament, takes our body and puts the animal part of us to death, but preserves the invisible part of us by joining it to Himself, letting us become part of His body. When a man brings home an animal to his wife, and kills it, and hands it to his wife to season it and cook it in the fire, it represents Christ bringing unbelievers to the church, putting their sinful flesh to death, seasoning them with the pleasant odors of the gospel and prayers, and testing them with trials. Once we are perfected, we enter both Christ and His church (who are one body), and we are preserved, though our flesh must die, and all evil must be excreted from the church. If you want to learn about Christianity and be saved, you should check out my brother Nolan's channel Ante-Nicene Christianity.
@@pontificusmaximus I'm perusing the comments and replies, as I often do, to get a handle on Christianity and various Bible verses/chapters to read. I've saved one of your friends vids to start poking around his channel. After I'm done here! Thanks for the lead. Godspeed
@@pontificusmaximus Well I'm not familiar with the 'heresies of Catholics and Orthodox' whatever those are. but I am with with heresy of Gnosticism which the above wild flailing is, so....I'll just keep looking....
@@RobertStewart-i3m I sent you a reply yesterday, but I don't see it here, so I'll just repeat what I said yesterday: You're very welcome for the lead, and if you'd ever like to have a call over Discord or Skype or whatever to talk about early Christianity, I'd make myself available to you!
@@markgeraty8558 You have no idea what you're talking about. God invented the analogies of life. Man and woman were created to illustrate the relationship between Jesus and His wife, the church, who was joined to Him and becomes one flesh with Him by partaking of His body and blood. Do you really think the analogies stop there? You think there's no meaning in the analogy of a man bringing home food to his wife for her to cook and give to the children? You're not very religious.
it's interesting this shows up only in the tax collectors gospel. As Lord, Jesus owed no one taxes. As a citizen of Capernaum Peter didn't owe a tribute tax. I believe Peter owed other taxes to that tax office for living and doing business in Capernaum. This may have been an outstanding debt Matthew was aware of when he left his job. And Matthew is simply telling how the lord paid his tribute tax and Peter's debt.
The other disciples were not included because this is a discussion between Jesus and Peter. It says that the collectors came to Peter and asked if his teacher paid the tax. Jesus tells Peter to go and fish out this aquatic coin-purse and Jesus says that it’s to pay for them both. The next verse says the disciples came to Jesus at that time, apparently deep in talks about who is the greatest in Heaven. It does not say the other disciples were with them, at least at that moment.
Personally, I believe everything that is included in scripture was perfectly choreographed by the Lord. I do not think there’s anything in scripture that is mere coincidence or circumstantial. Peter and Jesus did not, in my opinion, just happen to be together when asked for the taxes. In fact, there are so many layers to scripture meaning, it is likely impossible for us to ever comprehend how deep it goes.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra I suppose that is true. But, there is the possibility that what we read was not necessarily for our benefit but was intended for the people back then. When Peter received the vision during his prayer time of the unclean animals and God told him to kill and eat, that was the beginning of Peter’s journey out of his life in the Old Covenant. Up to that point he was living a life as an obedient Jew. And even after his experience with Cornelius he still struggled. So much so that Paul had to confront him on his hypocrisy. We are not to live our lives as Jews in obedience to the Mosaic Law. Why be concerned if Peter and Jesus were paying the Temple tax? Sounds like a non-issue for us under the New Covenant. God bless.
@@gomezjkv No one said we were to live under the old mosaic law. That is, the legalistic laws, such as kosher food, and washing hands and circumcision. Jesus often emphasize the need to keep the commandments and to not sin as Paul affirmed. God bless.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra The laws God gave to Moses include the Ten Commandments. In Exodus 20 we see that God told Moses to bring the people to the mountain to hear His law. When God got to, ‘thou shall not covent…” the PEOPLE told God that they did not want to hear anymore. They TOLD God to give Moses the commandments and that they would listen to him. But they did not want to hear anything from God anymore. So God graciously did as they asked. Ironically the very next commandment God gave was the very law that the people violated when they made the golden calf. If they had just waited a bit longer. There is no separation between the 10 and the 600+ that God gave through Moses. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law. He said that until heaven and earth pass away… Heaven and earth are still here. Jesus taught the Mosaic Law because that was the covenant that was in affect during His earthly ministry. It was not until His resurrection that He instituted the New. Our lives in the New Covenant have nothing to do with obeying commandments but, instead, resting and trusting in what God has done for us. Which, by the way, is not as easy to do as some might think. Hope that clarifies my position. God bless.
“A parable of the Church moving forward” Perhaps, but if that’s the case it wasn’t realized for a thousand years until discovered to mean what you claim just as Calvin, Knox and Luther do 500 years after that. The Pope participated in the enduring consensus. Sometimes he even led it and other times he was rebuked by it but nothing remotely replaces the commands to be of one mind and judgement through principle of enduring consensus that is defined by Scripture to be pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Every meaningful heresy is attached to an individual and everyone of them used Bible quotes to claim truth whether that individual was Arius, Nestorius, Severus or an individual Pope unilaterally and now infallibly claiming new territory from which to rule. No one I mean no one disputed the Papacy from Leo III to Vatican I and on to Vatican II is a development,an innovation. Using Scripture and History in an attempt to prove its legitimacy after the fact is exactly Protestantism.
Peter was not a heavy handed selfish leader. Peter was a good leader so he did not have to throw weight around and be "recognized", they all knew what the stature of each other was. There was no reason to dictate what they all knew to be so. Peter's leadership was uncontested; writing it explicitly beyond the structure Jesus put in place would have been an unhumble act.
I do not get it, just because the collector came to Peter asked about Jesus was paying the tax or not, how this verse agreed with papacy? while Jesus said, Matthew 23:9 Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.
@@susand3668 It doesn’t directly say either of these interpretations in the Bible (the age of the apostles or the view given in the video), but it is a common interpretation. Peter is the only apostle mentioned having a wife or mother in law in the gospels.
Dear@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr, you are right, Peter has a mother-in-law, who is sick in his house, and who is healed by Jesus on the Sabbath after they come back from the synagogue. His wife is not mentioned. But the assumption that the other apostles were adolescent is a new one on me. I had never heard of it. Nor have I seen a single painting or any other depiction of the apostles that would imply such an idea. Nor was it suggested in any of the Church Fathers. And you have to admit that making a tax collector and three fishermen into teen-agers is adding considerably to the Bible. However, I have seen elsewhere the idea that Jesus united himself with Peter in the payment of the Temple tax as a signal of Peter's close connection with Jesus. Peter is not the visible head of the Church without Jesus assisting him. They are united in a special way.
You don't actually need one strange verse - the Church is built on the rock of St Peter (Mt. 16:18). And the house built on rock cannot fall (Mt. 7:24-25). In other words, the Gospel of Matthew clearly elucidates that after Christ built his Church, it has stood since then undamaged. “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock." (Mt. 7:24-25)
Actually, im quite curious about this. I can accept quite easily the Peter was the foundation. But i have a hard time seeing that translate to the vat 1 and 2 catholic church of today. Is there any way to connect the twain?
@@timothym2241if memory serves correctly I think the Church Fathers said it’s both Peter and his confession. Can’t have one without the other. God Bless
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 I'll do my best. First of all, St Peter isn't mentioned only in the Gospels, but in the writings of the early Church Fathers: St Clement I of Rome and St Ignatius. St Iranaeus wrote in the 2nd century AD of "Peter and Paul who in Rome preached the Gospel and founded the Church" (Adversus haereses, III). The Council of Ephesus in the 5th century referred to St Peter in a similar way. Now, I could continue through the following centuries to illustrate the same point - namely that this "house built on rock" has been able to survive all the storms of the past two millenia. I want to stress that to my mind, doubts surrounding the validity of papacy are among the main obstacles that keep Catholic and Protestant denominations apart, wounding the Body of Christ.
Peter put on a pretense and Paul had to call him out. Peter had no leadership role as there are no leaders among True Christians. Matthew 23:8-10. Neither Priests of any kind.
The papacy is fine, but it was ALWAYS honorary. Papal supremacy and infallibility is the problem we run into. It’s just not practiced in the first millennium at all and not taught in the Bible so we have absolutely 0 reason to believe it.
Not only that but I was just reading through the early church fathers, or rather quotes of them on Catholic Answers, and ALL the early church writings say that the church in Rome was founded by Peter AND Paul. They don't distinguish one over another. Here is such an excerpt from Iraneaus: _“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." The early church seems to put Paul on the same pedestal as Peter.
@@blusheep2 The flaw I see in that argument is that Jesus himself changed changed Peter‘s name from Simon, and to Peter alone he gave the “keys of the kingdom”. As we know in the Judaic kingdom, the significance of “the keys of the kingdom”, we see that Christ was leaving his authority on Earth to Peter alone. Hope this helps - God bless.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra I can understand why people are convinced that the exchange between Peter and Jesus singled out Peter in a special way. The argument isn't just scriptural though when presented by the Catholic Church. We are told that the church fathers saw Peter in such a light, but looking at the best examples Catholic Answers could produce, the church of Rome is attributed to both Paul and Peter. This is very important because it negates the very message the Catholics are trying to make. So the earliest church fathers do not see Peter as the vicar of Christ. Founder and First Pope of the Roman Church. That takes us back to the famous discussion in Matthew. What is actually going on here. It does seem that scripture holds Peter up in a way that the other apostles are rarely held up. We see more interactions between him and Jesus then the others and that carries through all the gospels. He is also the one in Acts who first realizes through a vision that the Gentiles are meant to be a part of whats happening. So the keys are interesting because no one knows what it means to be given the keys. Its all speculation. The best we can do is see that carrying the keys connects to the power to bind and loose. The problem is that in chapter 18 of the same book Jesus gives the power to bind and loose to all the apostles. This then looks like chapter 16 was certainly specific to Peter but Jesus makes it clear in the end that all the apostles carried such power. The other thing to consider about the verse is that even if this is specifically about Peter in some special role, it doesn't explain what that role will be or what it will look like. Certainly the "rock" is not talking about Peter because the author makes a point to use two different words for rock. Peter is Petros meaning "a small or detached stone," while the second "rock" is Petra, meaning "bedrock or a huge rock." Petra is often used for God in the Septuagint. This of course carries over to the church fathers because unlike what the Catholic Church will tell you. A survey done by some French Roman Catholics of early church fathers stretching into the 800s found that 17 believed the rock referred to Peter. 16 believed the rock was Christ 8 believed the rock was the apostles 44 believed that the rock was the confession. I think at a minimum this shows that the verse isn't that clear. God Bless.
The blessed virgin Mary, begs to differ. She has a firmed, the Catholic Church has primacy many times. Consider her appearances at Lourdes and Fatima. ❤
Seven: Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify completeness. At times it has reference to bringing a work toward completion. Or it can refer to the complete cycle of things as established or allowed by God. By completing his work toward the earth in six creative days and resting on the seventh day, Jehovah set the pattern for the whole Sabbath arrangement, from the seven-day week to the Jubilee year that followed the seven-times-seven-year cycle. (Ex 20:10; Le 25:2, 6, 8) The Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Booths were each seven days long. (Ex 34:18; Le 23:34) Seven appears often in connection with the Levitical rules for offerings (Le 4:6; 16:14, 19; Nu 28:11) and for cleansings.-Le 14:7, 8, 16, 27, 51; 2Ki 5:10.
Paul would be contradicting Jesus in 1 Corinthians 4:15 if we were to take your literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9. What Jesus really meant is "...that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the Catholic faith and seek followers for his opinions." (Catholic Answers "How can we respond to the 'call no man father' question?")
It is amazing how scripture can be twisted to support anything. Nothing in that passage or any other passage points to anything papal, what we just saw was eisegesis.
You are so obsessed with relating Peter uniquely to Jesus because of your made up narrative of the former being your pope (Jesus did not install any pope among the 12) Even Paul himself had to admonish him because of his unstable character, wrong teaching and example.
Does anyone doubt Peter's role as chief apostle and earthly head of the church after Christ ascends? I am pretty sure the objection to the papacy is that Linus was not his successor as chief apostle. Peter was chief apostle long before he was Bishop of Rome (if he did in fact serve that role) and so it is strange to suppose that his successor as bishop also succeeded him in the much more significant role as chief apostle.
IME A lot of Prots will try to mimic Orthodox rhetoric until it becomes obvious they're losing, then they usually switch to something akin to "well that doesn't matter because it was only for when the Apostles were alive, and once they died it ended"
@@historicalsongarchive to be convincing, it should have come from Peter himself, or at least another apostle. Followers of the popes a century or two later are obviously going to back the popes as his successors. Rome managed to fill the power vacuum when the apostles died without calling replacements (which was the only official method of succession recorded by the apostles/ Bible. See the calling of Barnabas). At least in the West, in the East it was the patriarchs/ eastern bishops collectively that filled the void. None of them were actual apostles though.
For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews. - Galatians 2:8 And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I’m not exaggerating-just telling the truth. - 1 Timothy 2:7
Matthew 16: 16-18 is quite crystal clear certain that Christ has designed and designated St. Peter , aka, Shimon Bar Jonah , to be the first Pope of Christ 's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, both Latin ( Roman) and Eastern ( Oriental) Rites, Full Stop. Point Blank and.🇺🇲🇺🇸❤️❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐⛪📖🙏‼️
Its not clear because there are two objects in the passage: Peter or the confession of Christ, and there are actually two different words for rock in the line, "You are Peter(rock) and upon this (rock) I will build my church. Since two different words for rock are used, it suggests that the author was making a distinction between Peter and the foundation that the church will be built upon. That being said there are many passages that seem to place Peter in a unique spot in the 12 and so its possible that the verse has a double meaning. The rock of Christ AND the rock of Peter. The problem that Protestants have is that this verse says nothing about succession, infallibility questions, the protection from error of successors that come hundreds if not thousands of years later, or that the church wasn't also founded upon the other apostles who did their own church planting in various parts of the world.
Fish, Nets, Rocks all parables suggesting primacy of Peter that can only transfer to the City of Rome. Begs the question what was Christ suggesting when he called Peter Satan? What Special Role was he taking on when without ambiguity, riddle or word play Christ called him that? Of course he didn’t mean Peter was actually Satan he was referring to his lack of faith being bad and of Satan just as when he referred to the Rock just 114 words and four verses prior referred to Peter’s strength of faith as being good and of God. Proof texting and quote mining and worse prioritizing Scripture to validate a particular claim is at the beginnings of every heresy ever uttered.
Pope Peter was exposed by Paul for his hypocrisy in Galatians 2:11-21 Then in Acts 15 we see that it was James and not Peter who headed up the Jerusalem Council as the head spokesperson of the Church.
Your comment implies, very incorrectly, that because Peter himself made mistakes, that he could not be a leader. The Church *never* supports the notion that the Popes, of which Peter is the first, are inerrant. In fact, your verse (in addition to Peter's own denial of Christ in the events to the Crucifixion) show how Peter was just as human as any of his successors or fellow Apostles. But Jesus, after the Resurrection, shows the means and method for the Sacrament of Confession (The "Do you love me (Peter)/Yes, I do love you, Lord/Feed my sheep") with Peter to undo his sin. Peter was not appointed the leader of the Twelve (nor his successors) because they were perfect in any way. The Acts of the Apostles shows, in the Council of Jerusalem, how the Apostles (and, later, the bishops) would come to a consensus on an issue, with the Leader/Pope speaking to support or modify a decision. James being a leader for the meeting did not make him a leader of all the Church. Peter is among the most mentioned person in the New Testament because of his special appointment by both the Father and Son (Matt. 16:18). Apostles and bishops were recognized as offices; this was shown in Acts by the appointment of Matthias to fill the empty seat of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:20-26).
@@kspencerian Take a look down through the corridor of history and see all the Christian martyrs that were put to cruel deaths at the hands of Popery. Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs to get the full details. Popery has all sorts of evil underpinnings.
Not even sure I want to watch this. We (Christians) are all priests and we have a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Christ). There is no need for a vicar of Christ. As long as that institutionalized system exists, as well as the traditions surrounding it, I don't see how this impasse changes - at least for me.
I'm an Alaskan native from a family of commercial fishermen, and spent 4 months a year for 4 years at it. We did purse seine, until some Corp crashed a super tanker there. Map reference: Prince William Sound. My hometown Cordova is on 🎉and east side and Valdez is on the north side. We caught a school once. We're in a 46' boat and the net's 3/4 aboard, and several hundred feet are still out. There were so many fish that they were swimming over the cork line in places. Across the whole area inside the net, about 250' by 75', the whole area is the backs of salmon. Yes there was space between the fish. There were 10s of thousands of salmon. We had the ring line aboard (the bottom of the net) and the boat kept leaning portside. There was no way to get the nets aboard, and we couldn't hold that many. In fact, there's so many fish other boats set their seine beside us for the ones we missed/jumped out. Is that picture in your mind? Perfect. Now imagine you're in a 22' rowboat with a sail and you're 100' from shore. You have a couple hundred feet of net, but you've got 100' aboard. All of a sudden, there's 25,000 fish in your net. People in neighboring boats come to tow you close to shore and people are coming off the beach to get you And the fish. That was FOOD for a starving people. Yes money, but food. Everyone won that day. The Israelis did share like that. Imagine Seeing it happen. A massive school of fish out of Nowhere. Like my fishing boat, they were nearly pulled down. And look-- Because they worked for it, they were rewarded. By a visible act of direct Divine Intervention. Work, food, and some money for everybody there in that hour. I know how much space 300 salmon averaging 5lbs each, compared to a 22' skiff with an outboard motor. Thousands of fish for an occupied and starving people. There were probably 50 people that directly laid hands to help. There would've been a couple hundred people out on the shore. The Apostles spread the wealth. If each person got 10 fish, the Apostles were left with well over a thousand fish.
GRECO-ROMAN CHRISTIANITY OR JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY? Given the fact that Jesus is not one of the many sons of Zeus, the god of the Greeks, and that the God of Abraham had never promised a Son to Israel but the Messiah (HaMashiak) which the Greek forgers and fiddlers translated as “Christos” as it is written: "I will raise among them the Messiah(Christos)HaMashiak, a Prophet(Messenger) like you Moses, Him they must listen..." Deut.18:15-19; Acts 3:17-24; Acts 7:1-30; Luke 24:25-27 and 44-47; Acts 17:1-3; John 4:24-25, Surah 3:81, etc. So Messiah(Christ) is a Prophet in the likeness of Moses as Matthew proved it. Like Moses He stayed in Egypt. Like Moses He is Mediator of a New Covenant. Considering that the Gospel that Paul proclaimed to the world mentions JESUS CHRIST SON OF GOD and not just JESUS. Therefore, we can deduce that Trinity is a misunderstanding of the Pauline doxology of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”! Because between Jesus Christ (HaMashiak) Son of God and Jesus Son of God... there is a great philosophical and legal difference if we take as a legal framework the TEN COMMANDMENTS and the social environment where Jesus was born!
Why did Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax with just one coin? The New Bible Dictionary comments: “It would appear that Jews frequently united to pay the Temple tax in pairs.” Additionally, any individual who wants to pay tax for just one person was liable for an agio, a fee changing money which could be as high as 8 percent. However, those who paid for two people at the same time were exempt from this charge. So even the is minor detail recorded by Matthew agrees with what is known about common practices in Jesus’ time. Church Father Augustine wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ! In the fifth century he wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock” (Petra) was CHRIST!”
*_Church Father Augustine wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ! In the fifth century he wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock” (Petra) was CHRIST!”_* just wanted to point out that this goes right along with Catholic teaching. We believe it is both Peter's confession and that Jesus changed His name to Rock. We also believe that Peter is the Rock because he is attached to Jesus who is the Rock. That is why Augustine could also write that Peter and his successors are the leader of the Church... “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). Why do you believe the letter you posted holds authority but this other letter doesn't? God Bless
Dollinger was right. Catholicism post VI is nothing but obsession with the pope. Everything simply boils down to the pope. Are we baptized in the name of the Trinity or of the pope?
@@floridaman318 not as dumb as saying 'Are we baptized in the name of the Trinity or the pope?'. That would be like if I said are we baptized in the name of the Reformers or the name of the Trinity.
The four-drachma (or shekel) coin would be exactly enough to pay the temple tax (two-drachma coin) for two people. It is usually thought to be a Tyrian shekel. You guys are reaching.
@@thomasgrice8864 So you are assuming that since Christ produced a coin that covers for both men rather than producing two coins for each individual man this means Peter is Pope. That is a reach, wouldn't you say? What if I were to say the same for John, the disciple that Jesus loved. Would you then make a similar claim that since this is a unique expression of Christ's love for one of His disciples, that John then must be linked with Jesus uniquely, even though Jesus clearly loved them all? The same can be said about the keys of the kingdom, how that they are given to all of the disciples, not just Peter (Matthew 18:18). MY argument is that there are just as many unique moments for other disciples, and yet the Catholic will not dare make the same claims that they do for Peter. They go into the tet with the notion that Peter is the first Pope and then try to find texts to fit it.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Do you honestly believe that Christ accidently had a 4 drachma coin? Why use two separate coins when one makes more sense. Why was Matthew 16:18, 'you', instead of 'ye'. What about the foreshadowing, which saw John the baptist as the new Moses and Peter as the new gatekeeper/high priest (on earth). Christians upheld this belief for 1500 years until Protestantism arrived. Should we keep with the traditions of Christians for 2000 years, or a 500 year old German sect, that almost immediately spilt between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and continues to split into 10s of thousands of denominations today despite the teaching of the Church being one. A sect that removed books from the Bible that Jesus himself quoted from? John isn't a great example for a Protestant either, as why would Mary go to John's house, instead of one of her other children, if she had other children, as per Jewish customs and traditions at the time.
@@thomasgrice8864 Firstly, the text of Matthew 18:18 reads, ’Verily I say unto YOU’ not ’ye.’ He is speaking to them all, regardless of the singular being used afterwards. He could be looking directly at John or Andrew or any of them and say the same words. Again, reaching. And nothing you have put forth proves anything for the case of Peter being a pope. Not one single point you make says Peter was pope.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Why would he say "you". God doesn't make mistakes. Peter literally being call Rock, and being described as the rock Jesus would build his church on, and being charged with pastoring the flock of Christ. Jesus renamed him Peter (from the Greek for rock) and then told him that he would be the rock, the Church of Jesus would be build upon. The etymology of Peter is 'petra', a masculine of the word 'rock in Greek.
This kind of hyper-symbolism is what I've always hated about popular Christianity (both protestant and catholic), because it makes it way too easy to take a small thing and say it supports [unrelated preconceived idea] and pretend you've proven your point. When all you've really done is throw together a word salad to entrench your confirmation bias. I find it sad that the theological community has even developed terms for this (exegesis vs eisegesis) yet 90% of theological leaders I see lean far to heavily on eisegesis.
The talk of Mathew 16:18 as authority by Jesus to bring about the papacy, let alone make it a permanent doctrine for the catholic church has no validity, for a number of reasons, #1- there is no verification of such in scripture, since there is no such thing as, "a catholic church!" #2- there is no verification other than Jesus being the true rock, #3- there is no verification for a high priest to succeed the temple high priest, but there is verification that after his death, Jesus became the royal high priest, as well as the living temple of God! There is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved than by Jesus Christ, #4- prophecies are not only verified, but also repeated, at times more than 3 times in the bible! Catholics need to read the bible and be born again, so they can discern what the Spirit has to say.. the best teacher is Jesus, and the best drink to wash down the manna from heaven is the Spirit of God!
Btw: why not John as 1st Pope? He was the youngest, stayed by Jesus through his trial, was at the crucifixion (didn't run off or hide), took Mary in wrote Revelation & outlived all the other Apostles. Peter was taken to Rome as a prisoner, like Paul, he didn't found that Church. He was a "fellow elder" by his own words. 🙄
If you read your bible, it was God who revealed to Simon important information about Jesus. Jesus, in turn, changed Simon's name to Peter and gave him the keys and the authority to bind and loosen.
The simple answer is that the other eleven apostles were not yet twenty years of age. (See Exodus 30:11-14) They each would have been between 13 and twenty. This scenario fits well with their individual call from Jesus to “follow me”. Young men, who were bar mitzvah anxiously waited for a rabbi to invite them to become a disciple. Jesus, as an itinerant preacher, was no exception to this practice. The idea the eleven were “super young” is ridiculous, as is the notion that they were in their thirties or forties, as films would suggest. Peter was over twenty and so needed to pay the tax, as did Jesus. Jesus’ ministry for three years was with a group that would appear like a high school youth group. But remember, young men in that day moved into the work force after their bar mitzvah. It would not have been out of the ordinary at all.
*_The simple answer is that the other eleven apostles were not yet twenty years of age. (See Exodus 30:11-14) They each would have been between 13 and twenty._* Why does this response keep coming up? Honestly where did this come from and who made this up? I mean no disrespect but so many people are claiming this should be common knowledge. Let's look at Matthew. Are we to honestly believe the guy that wasn't old enough to pay the tax was the guy they put in charge of collecting the taxes? Also wanted to point out that the Gospel tells us that Matthew gave a great banquet in Jesus' honour in his own home. Most scholars take him being a tax collector along with this as evidence that he was more likely between the age of 25 to 30. Think about it, even if Matthew was a teenage tax collector there is no way he would amass enough wealth to buy a home large enough and pay to feed Jesus his disciples and the many tax collectors and sinners that showed up. Matthew was a wealthy man, unless we are to believe he started being a tax collector at the age of 12 I honestly can't see it being possible that he was still under the age of 20. *_Young men, who were bar mitzvah anxiously waited for a rabbi to invite them to become a disciple. Jesus, as an itinerant preacher, was no exception to this practice_* Once again back to Matthew. He was a tax collector he already had a vocation he wasn't sitting around waiting for a rabbi. Sorry not seeing how this applies? I honestly want to know does this line of thinking come from any ancient sources or is it a 21st century invention. Because this is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that anyone other than John was a teenager. God Bless
@@Matt-1926 I think you make some good points. I haven't heard this objection before and therefore I hadn't heard an answer to this. The thing is, that I think it highlights the weakness of the connection. Its mere speculation. There could be a host of reasons. It could be that Jesus was just making a point to Peter. It could be that the others had already paid their taxes and Jesus was aware that Peter was the only one left to do so. Peter did seem to be separated from the others when approached by the tax men. Maybe they were grabbing people as they headed toward the building. Peter coming late hadn't been hit up yet. Do you see what I mean. There really isn't enough information in the story to use it as a proof text for Jesus's choice to make Peter a pope.
@@blusheep2 *_I think you make some good points._* Thanks for the reply. *_There could be a host of reasons. It could be that Jesus was just making a point to Peter._* Actually, I think Jesus was making a point to Peter. Wanted to point out that this is just a video of a quick response to the verse. Joe goes into far more detail in his book with an entire chapter dedicated to the passage. You might want to get the book and read it. I thought it was enlightening. He goes into the meaning of the Greek words in the text that aren't translated well into English which give a deeper meaning to the verse. As well as to why Jesus stated Him and Peter are exempt from paying the tax pointing us to the OT which points out that only the Levitical priests were exempt from paying the tax. Is there a different point you think Jesus is trying to make here? And how do you come to that conclusion? *_It could be that the others had already paid their taxes and Jesus was aware that Peter was the only one left to do so_* The only problem I can see with this line of thinking is we are told that Judas carried the money purse John 12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. So it's highly unlikely each disciple would have paid their own tax, most likely Judas would have paid for all 13. Honestly, from what we know of the other scriptures the fact they only asked about Jesus tells us they were trying once again get Jesus on something and didn't really care about whether or not the disciples paid. Notice they didn't even ask Peter to pay when they approached him. There's definitly a deeper meaning going on here. *_Peter did seem to be separated from the others when approached by the tax men_* This is possible but it doesn't seem that way from the verse. It says "After THEY had arrived". Sure it is possible Peter might have been alone but it sure seems to me the other disciples were in a group at the time. *_Maybe they were grabbing people as they headed toward the building. Peter coming late hadn't been hit up yet. Do you see what I mean._* Not really because nowhere does it say Peter went into the building it actually says they approached Peter. It is more likely he was in the street. Also wanted to point out that it actually says Peter went home after this and spoke with Jesus. *_There really isn't enough information in the story to use it as a proof text for Jesus's choice to make Peter a pope._* Just wanted to point out that this isn't a proof text that Jesus made Peter the leader of the Apostles. This is more useful as evidence of the bond between Jesus and Peter. I honestly was never taught that there is any one proof text making this claim. Even Matthew 16 isn't meant to stand on it's own. It's the overwhelming evidence pointing to Peter that all comes together to show us that he was appointed the leader by Jesus. The primacy of Peter in the leadership of the Church was: 1. foreshadowed in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-24. 2. promised by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:15-19. 3. prayed for by Jesus Christ in Luke 22:31-32. 4. counseled by Jesus Christ in Luke 12:41-46. 4. confirmed by Jesus Christ in John 21:15-17. 5. lived out by Peter in the chapters 1 thru 12 and 15 in the Acts of the Apostles where he is involved in all the Church's important "firsts" 6. pointed out in the list of apostles in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, and Act 1:13, where Peter's name is listed first among the apostles. 7. Peter's name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times). The list really goes on and on, but there is one that opened my eyes the widest, but it is long. If you are interested I'll share it. God Bless
@@Matt-1926 I guess I would have to read his book to see how he makes some of these connections. I don't see myself doing this for some time unless the subject becomes more interesting to me then it currently is. Right now I am reading a book by the NT scholar Walton, I have 3 of Dostoevsky's books waiting after that. I'm also reading the Book of Mormon, the Quran, less so 1 Maccabbees and I've begun to read the early church fathers. Lots of reading in front of me. I'd be curious why he believes that the Greek enlightens us on the verse as well as why he tries to connect it to the Levitical Priesthood. The scripture does connect the church with the old Levitical Priesthood but not through Peter. In Hebrews it is Jesus that is our high Priest and Peter himself tells us: You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9). The idea being that we are now the temple of God. We are sacred space, and we are told to carry that sacred space to the world. We are the ones that minister the gospel to world as we go out and make disciples of all men. We are the priests. I guess its possible that Judas would have paid for all the apostles which would have included Peter. Judas, on the other hand, hoarded his money and ultimately betrayed Jesus for money. He might not of paid anymore then he absolutely had to, but its not a bad argument against my suggestion. _As well as to why Jesus stated Him and Peter are exempt from paying the tax pointing us to the OT_ I do have to take issue with this statement though because the verse doesn't say Peter was exempt. When Peter came in to collect the Jesus's tax, Jesus asks him about the sons of kings and if they pay the tax or if the common folk do. That is all about Jesus being the Son of God. Jesus, being the Son of God and sinless has no obligation to pay the tax. Remember the New Covenant had not yet come. Jesus had yet to die on the cross and rise again, ushering in the New Covenant. They were still under the Old Covenant and the only one that could be exempt for that tax would be someone like Jesus. _This is possible but it doesn't seem that way from the verse. It says "After THEY had arrived". Sure it is possible Peter might have been alone but it sure seems to me the other disciples were in a group at the time._ This was interesting because I went back and reread the verse and realized, I likely got it backwards. The part that confused me was the fact that if Jesus was with the others and the others paid their taxes how could Jesus have been singled out. Would the revenue men count the shekels and say, "hey you gave us 12 half shekels but there are 13?" Something about that did seem off to me. After reading it, I think I understand. It wasn't that Peter was away from the group, as you have said. Its that Jesus was away from the group. The group is with the tax men and Jesus walks off to the house, which elicits the question from the tax men about their teacher not paying the tax. The crux to this scenario, though is that it says that Jesus approached Peter "first." I was first thinking that Peter being asked this question ran off to Jesus to ask Him about it, but "first" would suggest that as Peter went to the house, so did the others, so that Jesus had to pick him out of a crowd to speak to him specifically. I do love Greek though. I looked up a few of the words in Greek, since you had said earlier that the Greek might shed some light and what I found is that "first" in Greek doesn't mean first as in a line. It means, "to come before, to anticipate." So it means that Jesus came before Peter in anticipation. This of course makes sense when one reads what Jesus said. It totally, carries the meaning that Jesus spoke before Peter could speak. Anyway, that actually preserves my suggestion. The group is approached to the revenue men for taxes but Jesus walks off. This elicits the question to Peter and Peter runs off to ask Jesus about it. He doesn't go with the group and Jesus anticipating the question pays for the taxes with the fish. He only pays for Peter because the rest are in the town and already making their payment. The question only remains if Judas would have paid the tax in bulk or if he would hand out a half shekel to each of the apostles as they stood in line to have their names recorded. _Also wanted to point out that it actually says Peter went home after this and spoke with Jesus._ I'm not contesting this point, but where does it say that? I've scanned through the next chapter and don't see this. In the story Jesus is in a house. Peter's mother's house is in capernaum and you can visit it today. It would be my guess that this is where they were meeting. I visited Capernaum last April and the house isn't more then a 100' or so from the water.
@@Matt-1926Lol, I accidentally hit the reply button before I was finished reading everything you wrote. _Just wanted to point out that this isn't a proof text that Jesus made Peter the leader of the Apostles_ Yes, I understand that. The question is if it can even be used at all. _This is more useful as evidence of the bond between Jesus and Peter._ It does that much better then the Pope thing. _Even Matthew 16 isn't meant to stand on it's own._ But everyone rests their hat on it. Could the suggestion that Peter was chosen as first Pope even be made without this verse? 1. Isaiah 22:15-24: I can see why someone might make the connection but why would this be a prophecy of Peter and not Jesus. Jesus is said to hold the key of David in Revelation 3:7, Jesus is the throne of honor to his fathers house? 2. Maybe. There are questions about this verse and the church fathers lean away from this interpretation. 3. Peter is prayed for right before He denies Jesus three times. I'm not sure how this supports his authority. 4. One of the things I like about Peter is that he seems to be the inquisitive one. Hes the one always asking the deep questions. He wants to learn. He also knows his faults and really wants to serve Jesus, in spite of them. I think this is one of the reasons he gets so much attention in scripture. Nonetheless, the more I have been talking about this lately, the more I am convinced that there was something special about Peter. Mark was written as a recording of the stories Peter was telling, so we expect to find Peter prominant in that Gospel, but he also is very prominent in the other gospels written by other apostles. He is also the focus of Acts until Paul comes around and it switches to Him. In the letters, Paul is dominant and Peter writes little but that might be because Peter needed scribes to write for him and was therefore likely illiterate. You wouldn't expect someone that is illiterate to write much. 5. In Acts the power of the Jerusalem church appears to be shared and in the few verses we have on the matter, James seems dominant. 6. Maybe. 7. Ok. If I was going to argue for Peter, I would say this. #7. Peter is a central figure in gospels evidenced by him being referenced 170 times compared with 130 for the rest combined. #2. In Matthew 16, it appears that Jesus is singling out Peter with a special call. #3. To a lesser extent the fact that Peter is mentioned first in the list of apostles might be messaging by the authors. #4. To an even lesser extent, Isaiah "may" be foreshadowing Peter, though it maybe foreshadowing Christ. I would leave the others out because praying for someone before they fall or talking with someone specifically or paying the tax for someone says nothing about who they will become in the later church. I think a better argument for #3, where Jesus prays for Peter, would be to ask the question why Satan was trying to sift Peter and no another apostle or all of the apostles. That is more interesting then the fact that Jesus was being protected by Christ. As I've been studying this in more depth recently, I am moving in the direction that Peter was a powerful tool for Christ in His church. As a Protestant, we don't talk about Peter much and thats probably because we fear sounding like Catholics, lol. As a Protestant, I don't have a problem with Peter being chosen to be the head of the original church though I don't think that is what happened in history. My issue with the idea, is how that is extrapolated to mean that all the Popes have the same authority and hold the same keys, and are infallible, etc. I have not heard all the arguments for Peter and so I would like to. So, if you have a longer argument for the Papacy then I would love to hear it so I can evaluate all arguments for it.
The catholic argument for "Peter is pope" is so weak. It certainly appears that Peter was the spokesperson, perhaps even the "leader" of the Apostles. That in no way equates to Peter being appointed to a position that is never otherwise mentioned in scripture. Such an important position, to be God's appointed infallible representative on earth with the role of leading and correcting God's Church on earth until such time as The Lord returns. Yet that position is never alluded to by God in the OT and likewise, never alluded to by Jesus in the NT. Maybe they just forgot!
I think you are misunderstanding the teaching. Jesus appointed a man to an office. Jesus appointed Peter to the office of His prime minister. The job of the prime minister in the book of Kings was to lead in the absence of the King. Well at the present time until the second coming the King Jesus is physically absent from the earth. Also, if you read the Kings it tells us that the office stands and when the office holder dies he is replaced. So Jesus appointed and office with the full intention that it would always have an office holder. Hope this helps, God Bless
what @matt1926 said, **PLUS** before Peter was appointed, Jesus told the people they must **STILL** listen to those in the seat, even though MOSES had DIED centuries earlier **AND** even despite their personal corruption!! Jesus established A **NEW** covenant therefore, like his forefathers Jacob and Joshua 'poured oil over a witness **STONE** , the Living Stone of Peter for the Living New Covenant! Totally scriptural and Jesus **FULFILLED** EVERY WORD of OT !!!!
@@Matt-1926 well that is his view, as the questioner states it’s not shared by those outside the Roman Catholic Church. You’re kind of sidestepping my question which is essentially where is the support in scripture for Apostolic Succession. Even if Jesus appointed Peter as Pope, he didn’t appoint the next one or today’s.
@@jaybee1570 Thanks for the response. *_well that is his view, as the questioner states it’s not shared by those outside the Roman Catholic Church._* OK fair enough. Not seeing how this is really evidence of anything though? Is the fact that it is not being shared outside of Catholic belief somehow how evidence? Couldn't we use this line of thinking for objecting to anything taught in Christianity that isn't shared within every single aspect of all Christian circles? My first thought on that would be the atheists would have a field day with that one. *_You’re kind of sidestepping my question which is essentially where is the support in scripture for Apostolic Succession._* I do apologize, I did not realize that this is the question you were asking. I think the best Biblical evidence for Apostolic secession comes from 2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Here Paul is instructing Timothy that it is his duty to entrust the teachings of the faith to faithful men who will be able to teach others all that Paul taught him. Nowhere does Paul ever teach that anyone can pick up a Bible and proclaim they have the authority to teach. Here we see that Paul (an apostle) is making Timothy his successor with the authority to teach. We also see that Paul gives Timothy the authority to choose faithful men and give them the authority to teach all that Paul taught Timothy. Finally, it is only logical that one of the things Timothy would have taught these faithful men is 2 Timothy 2. Which means Timothy would have instructed these men, appointed by him, to go out and appoint other men. Maybe you read this verse differently but I honestly can't see anyway around Paul teaching Apostolic succession/authority to teach here. Other verses of scripture are: Acts 1:20-26, where we see the apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s suicide. Showing the Peter, guided by the holy spirit, stated "His office let another take". That was my point in the first reply. The Bible calls their position an office that remains filled. 2 Timothy 1:6 and 1Timothy 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands, meaning it's not something one can self appoint themselves to. Another good one is 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role. *_Even if Jesus appointed Peter as Pope, he didn’t appoint the next one or today’s._* Well like I said Jesus appointed an office which He fully intended to remain filled. Just honestly think and pray about Jesus words.... Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Notice Jesus commands the Apostles to make disciples by teaching ALL nations. Well Jesus knew how many nations there are and knew full well no one would be getting to America until the 1500's. So if he wasn't talking through the Apostles to the next ones, who will be taking their places, then who the heck was He talking to that is still alive today and made it to all the nations? Also notice Jesus said I am with you to the close of the age. Jesus is talking about the second coming here. If Jesus is going to be with those whom He commanded to teach all nations until the close of the age then where are these people Jesus is speaking of here, since you claim it is not the successors of the Apostles? Sure you might not agree as most protestants don't. But how is your disagreement in interpretation evidence that we are wrong? I would be interested in hearing how you guys interpret these verses because I honestly can't see how you can get around Apostolic succession, both logically and Biblically. God Bless
Peter was a great Apostle and had a great deal to teach us, however even Peter himself stated if you want deeper understandings of doctrine you need to get the Pauline epistles. Paul was by far the most intelligent, most prepared individual for the ministry of all the Apostles. It was Paul that opposed Peter to his face when he started becoming legalistic, conforming to the whims of the Jews. Peter was also wrong when he suggested they cast lots to replace Judas with Mathias. You never heard of that man again. It was Jesus alone that selects Apostles. The Rock has always been Jesus Christ. Not Peter.
@@iggyantioch you should become more familiar with your Bible. You find this in acts 1:26. The lot cast fell to Matthias. You never hear from this man again. Jesus alone selects an Apostle. Just as Jesus is the rock the church is built upon. Not Peter. You should take a close look at Revelation. In chapter 17. It gives a detailed description of what awaits Rome ( the city sitting on 7 hills) drunk on the blood of the saints. Rome is guilty of at least 9 million murders ,starting from 400ad to this very day. Did you ever wonder why so many people fled Europe seeking religious freedom? I can assure you Rome hates our constitutional republic. It protects us from religious tyranny.
@@jeffmusselwhite9631 Oh I see Dave Hunt enthusiast Conspiracy. Still waiting on scripture proof of The error of Mathias Oh and get your hills right. Those hills are not where the Vatican is located Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well. Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about-pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well as, or better than, Rome during the Christian centuries. Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City-the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered-and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west. Wishful thinking 🤔
@@jeffmusselwhite9631 Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city “known as Babylon.” This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is “Babylon the Great.” The phrase “Babylon the great” (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as “the great city” seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to “the great city.” That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses “will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified [emphasis added].” “The great city” is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called “Sodom” in the Old Testament (see Isa. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1-3, 46-56). We also know Jerusalem is the “the great city” of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was “where [the] Lord was crucified.” Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one “great city” (“the great city”), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts-Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.
Peter was married. So, why can't Pope's marry if your "first pope" had a wife? Matthew 8:14, "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." The apostle Paul (who increased in notoriety in the latter part of Acts as Peter diminished, and wrote more scripture than any other apostle) defines forbidding to marry as a doctrine of devils, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
I'm not sure association's are a good way to argue, all the more when crossing from different Gospels. That's how Protestants see Jesus 'I Am' statements in the Gospel of John and conclude Bread of Life is symbolic since Door, Living Water, Good Shepherd etc are symbolic. I think a better explanation why Jesus only paid for himself and Peter is because of Exodus 30:14-15. Only Jews 20 years and above were required to pay tax.
*_I think a better explanation why Jesus only paid for himself and Peter is because of Exodus 30:14-15. Only Jews 20 years and above were required to pay tax._* But how do you know everyone but Peter was a teenager? The fact that we know Matthew was already a tax collector when he was called makes it highly unlikely he would have been under 20. You don't honestly believe they had the guy who was to young to pay taxes actually being the one to collect the taxes do you? Just food for thought, God Bless
"Only Jews 20 years and above were required to pay tax" which insinuates that the apostles were all under age 20 except for Peter. That right there is eisegesis and not supported by Scripture or tradition.
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn we are not arguing about Peter's unique role but about using this text to support. Conversely, Protestants amass lots of references about God as a Rock in their attempt to debunk Peter as the Rock. It's silly and not respecting the context of Matt 16:18-19. Similarly we shouldn't employ this kind of argument
@@Matt-1926 We cannot read our modern context that we begin working only when we 20 something. Remember they got married as teenagers. We also make that kind of inferences eg when Jesus gives the Blessed Mother to the Beloved disciple, we infer that Jesus didn't have any other siblings. It makes a lot of sense in a Middle Eastern-Asian society that respects age that Peter was slightly older than the rest, hence his leadership
Pardon! Mais, il me semble qu’on s’écarte du texte biblique! Il est question de l’impôt du Temple : « ton maître paie-t-il les didrachmes?- si! » on est à Capharnaüm, non à Rome. Bon à savoir, le Fils , fils de Dieu, comme un fils de roi, ne paie pas d’impôts, à plus forte raison celui de Temple, puisque le Temple Lui appartient ! Mais Il paie l’impôt pour Lui et Pierre, les 4 drachmes de la bouche du poisson! Pour ne pas scandaliser. Note de la Bible orthodoxe pour l’étude. Mais, je retiens l’amitié du Christ pour son disciple Pierre.
No but if you call into catholic answers the next time Joe is on and ask a question about Peter being the Pope I bet there is an almost 100% chance Cy will send you the book for free. God Bless
John Calvin isn't the greatest example of a protestant even though calvanism has spread like a virus. Your interpretation is a stretch. His word states that the Holy Spirit will teach us all we need and that Jesus dwells in the heart and minds of His followers. Peter denied christ 3 times whereas John and Mary stayed. Yes Peter was the first and deemed the rock but catholicism puts too much emphasis on works, man's interpretation, and sacraments to keep them "Holy and pure." Both calvanism and catholicism promote living in sin because we just can't help it... just confess to another man, go through the motions and you're saved. The theology of evangelism or holiness, is exactly that. Biblical through and through with the emphasis being in Christ and his indwelling nature that resides in those that choose Him and walk with Him daily, not just on Sundays.
Sacraments are essential for receiving grace esp Baptism Jn 3:5 and Acts 2 38-39 and the real presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17. Generally, Protestantism does not have altars so no sacrificial worship as commanded by Jesus, therefore no “church” but more like a synagogue with prayer and teaching
@@geoffjs I don't live by a verse or two. I take the entire Bible into consideration, especially the words of Christ. He made it very clear, we can't earn grace for it is a gift from God. Communion is to remember Him and a metaphor for what He has done. Nowhere does it say that we must go through the religious motions in order to be saved! Works do not equal salvation. It is only by Faith that we can be pleasing to Him. Jesus called out the religious hypocrites and lukewarm Christians. The word of God says we cannot inherit the kingdom without holiness! Christ said be perfect as I am perfect. Perfected by His love and Grace (indwelling of Holy Spirit). So you all can put emphasis on works and sacraments but according to His word, it's about repentance. "If you choose to be my disciple, deny yourself, pickup your cross and follow me." Not, come to church on Sundays, go through the motions, receive the "sacraments," and be saved. I suggest reading the book of Luke and John. The people are what make a church not an "altar." You're also incorrect, Protestant churches do in fact have altars. Cherry picking a couple verses from Paul do not equal the gospel. The entire word of God must be read, digested, and applied. God made it clear that He wants a right relationship with us. In revelation, Christ rejected the religious hypocrites and they did all the things that you mention.... works!
You know, the Bible mentions Peter's name 195 times compared to the nearest disciple John 29 times!! How is that not pointing to the important of Peter in Jesus's ministry on earth???😂😂😂
If it was so important then how come No single verse says peter is the pope .papacy comes after 300Ad We build on christ not peter He never suffered crucified died buried rose again for anyone. Rome is nowhere prophesied or stated as seat of xtianity Is.he even infallible We all represent christ on earth not pope for gods sake Those are created by men Constantine was first bishop hence pope of rome. Muslims ask you where is a verse where jesus said i am god.....None...but you teach that jesus us god Now where is that clear verse that peter was a pope and papacy is christs teaching. Let us follow christ stop defending empty traditions which dont lead to life after here with christ
more vague references by the roman catholic church to peter being the first "pope". just like the rock that the church will be built on, actually in greek means part of the bedrock of the church. FACTS: 1. peter, himself said he was just another elder in the church. 2 peter was not the head of the church in jerusalem, james was. 3. there is no evidence peter was ever in rome. 4. there is no connection between peter, and the 1st roman catholic "pope", gregory 1 in the 6th century. the roman catholic church tried to splice the connection by the bishops of rome, but this does not hold up, because the bishops of rome had no real authority over any other bishops, and there is no clear evidence peter was ever in rome.
Its not that object to the papacy, nor do I deny that the catholic pope sits on the "seat of Cephas" just as the Pharisees did really sit on the "seat of Moses" and Jesus gave them real legitimate authority!! But what I must OBJECT to is treating the words and traditions of the pope or council of bishops as EQUAL to the Word of God! Just as in the example given to us, the traditions of the Pharisees were NOT equal to the Word of God! Despite sitting on the Seat of Moses! Likewise, the traditions of the pope and the bishops do NOT equal the Word of God! Now what about Peter? Cephas? I do NOT deny that Peter was the rock of the church (although this commission had much more to do with Peter's revelation of Jesus' true identity as the Christ but I digress). YES, even Peter the rock of the church denied Christ three times! YES, even after receiving the Holy Spirit and YES even on matters of doctrines of the faith, Peter the rock fell into ERRORS and needed to be publically corrected by Paul! God gave us these teachings for a reason. YES even Paul's teachings were checked against Holy Scripture! YES we are commanded to TEST every one and every teaching against the Word of God! Even ANGELS!! So YES the pope sits on the seat of Cephas and the church has real authority. But NO the pope is NOT INFALLIBLE! Only God is perfect and infallible! Only the Word of God is perfect and infallible! Whoever claims to have speech equal to the Word of God in its perfect infallibility is a BLASPHEMER
No Catholic believes the Pope has equal speech to the Word of God. Papal Infallability is a narrow and negative gift. The last 200 years it has only been used 2 times.
I am still not hearing how this legitimizes the papacy. It legitimizes the role and significance of Peter being the leader of the Apostles, if you interpret it like that, but not the papacy. Could it be another reference to give Cesar what is Cesar's? Mat 22:17. The same Hebrew word for the tax is used in Mat 17:24-27. So again, I do not see how this legitimizes the papacy. It is just like Mat 16:18 "Upon this rock I will build my church." is what people point to, stating that upon Peter, Jesus will build his church. That is a bad misinterpretation as Peter's name translates to Stands on the Rock... So what rock ("petra" in Hebrew) is it? It is Peter(Simon)'s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, as evident by what Jesus said in Mat 16:17 "flesh or blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven." Most Catholics who read the bible stop being Catholics Sincerely, Former Roman Catholic
*_I am still not hearing how this legitimizes the papacy._* just wanted to point out that I don't believe this claim is being made. All Joe is presenting is one more verse as evidence here. *_It legitimizes the role and significance of Peter being the leader of the Apostles, if you interpret it like that, but not the papacy._* Just curious what's the difference between Peter being the leader and Peter being the Pope? Pope is just a title that we use to signify Jesus' prime minister the visible leader until Jesus returns? *_That is a bad misinterpretation as Peter's name translates to Stands on the Rock_* I'll be honest I have never heard that interpretation before? Where did you get that from? The Greek word for stands is stah'-o which is nowhere to be found in the verse? *_So what rock ("petra" in Hebrew) is it?_* Petra is a Greek word, why are you pointing to the Hebrew? Also Jesus spoke Aramaic so He would have actually changed Simone's name to Cephas. *_It is Peter(Simon)'s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, as evident by what Jesus said in Mat _**_16:17_**_ "flesh or blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven."_* Actually we agree with this. We say it is both because you can't have one without the other. *_Most Catholics who read the bible stop being Catholics_* The more I read the more it makes me Catholic. I'm talking to a guy right now that has to ignore so many of the Bible verses I ask him about that I'm pretty sure he is down to about 2 books of the New Testament. Sure at the end of the day we might not agree on interpretation, but do you actually have any real evidence that proves the Catholic position wrong? God Bless
Do you understand the significance of the words, “I give you the keys of the kingdom“? To any first century Jew, this would monumental. In the Judaic kingdom, if a king was going to be away for a period of time, he gave the “keys of the kingdom” to his chosen steward. That meant that, until the King’s return, the steward was in charge of the kingdom. Every first century Jew in earshot knew exactly how significant this was.
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Wow - That is a great argument! I had no idea how few days are recorded in the New Testament! Thank you so much for sharing your Cliff Notes analogy!!!
Loads of self made words and rules in the catholic and orthodox organizations instead of understanding and doing exactly what the Bible says. The true believers in Christ are called The Body Of Christ which IS the only description in the Bible, with Lord Jesus as Head - not 'church', as church is originally a replacement word for an assembly of believers. But the word church had become a word for "original true (catholic) believers" and for an institute or organization called the catholic church, erected by….. I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the catholic church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Mark 6 : 3 "Is this not the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? And are not HIS SISTERS here with us?” Matthew 13 : 55-56 "Is this not the Carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And HIS BROTHERS JAMES, JOSES, SIMON, AND JUDAS? AND HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth - how can a sinful man be te replacer of Christ on earth? That is blasphemy ! Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine (306 - 337 AD) who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible in printed form to the common people: they were persecuted by Rome and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. The pope, cardinals and bishops wear a Mitre - which odd head dress comes from the old pagan Rome priests representing a FISH BEAK god (I suggest you search for that). Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
All the false religion and sect use the same way : take a verse out of context and make a doctrine. So much verses Can contredict this ! You need herméneutic
Matthew 17:24 talks about THEY. Namely, Jesus and his many apostles. Verse 27:Take that and give it to them for me and you.” The YOU is a plural. Meaning for all those present. The very fact that Popes, Archbishops, Cardinals, Priests and other titular garbed individuals exist, proves that these religions have nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. Jesus forbade the appointment of such among his disciples. (Matthew 23:8-10) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
I don't believe you are correct that "you" is plural. From Strongs: "the personal pronoun of the second person singular; thou". There are other spellings for the plural.
@@blusheep2 : Yes! That could be the case. Because the question was "“Does YOUR TEACHER not pay the two drachmas tax?” The apostles, being Jews would have paid it as was their custom. Then Jesus asked Peter: "Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? " Verse 25. Then Jesus asks Peter if taxes are taken from members of the King's family or others. When 'Peter' said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free. Verse 26 The Temple was God's and Jesus was a member of God's family, he being a son. Then Jesus said to Peter, find the coin and : "Take that and give it to them for me and you.” Verse 27. It would seem that it was only Jesus and Peter who was alongside Jesus, who hadn't paid the tax. My mistake. Sorry! However using this incident to make some case for Peter being the Head of the Church is rather extreme and a groping in the dark. Ephesians 5:23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CONGREGATION (aka the Church), he being a savior of this body.
@@georgepierson4920 : Why would I take offence about Jesus entrusting Peter with the keys to the Kingdom. The keys, three in number, were used by Peter to help Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles become members of the anointed Christian Congregation. Peter never had any Head role within the Congregation. Colossians 1:18 and 'Jesus' is the head of the body, the congregation (aka the Church).
THE QUR'AN IS A CHRISTIAN TEXT AND JESUS IS MUHAMMAD AS MUHAMMAD IN THE QUR'AN BEING A EUPHEMISM FOR MESSIAH(CHRIST)HaMASHIAK. The Qur'an properly read appears to be a Christian text calling for the return to the authority of the first apostolic Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-32 in rejection of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. So the only way to pull the rug from under the obscurantists'feet even defeat Jihadism is to reject the categorization Christianity versus Islam and affirm instead Nazareans versus Islam. Nazarean being anybody following the teachings of Paul which of course permeate the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople. Islam is a reaction to the West attempt to hijack Christianity or the Gospel and use it to overrun the globe. And the Prince rejected by the Arabian builders became the cornerstone and this is the Lord doing ! More in: The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-30 and the partition of Christianity in two Apostolic Traditions: Circumcised(Muslims) vs. Uncircumcised(Paul's Nazareans or Catholics...
Stop misrepresenting Scripture! Re-read John; the net was dragged to shore by the boat; Peter didn't "singlehandedly" drag the net in or even go back out to help! That is NOT exegesis! The way you interpolate & twist the text to support your dogma is truly amazing & offensive to us who take Bible seriously. 🤨
These guys must have aced their creative writing class with this style of eisegesis but fail at exegesis. It is crafty to insert so much into a written account that is just not there and then try to convince someone that there is an unbroken line of succession that somehow props up the claims but don’t look at the clear revelation in scripture to find understanding. Galatians 1:6-12 CSB [6] I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - [7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!
LIke all other stretches.....this one fails to reach just as the others. Thats a high office to be strangely ambiguous about. It shouldn't be a puzzle. That is how eisegesis works out usually though. Gotta pound those puzzle pieces into place with a hammer to make them fit.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my This is a very nice list. When it was time for me to take my lackluster minimal Christianity more seriously I first went to some Evangelical church since that is what my mother was. Than to some Orthodox churches and than finally the local Catholic churches. I never really considered Protestant churches as an option. So it was between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I prayed to God for guidance. So I went to both Catholic and Orthodox churches for a while. One day I went to an Orthodox church and the door was closed. Whereas I could always walk into Catholic churches if I wanted to. That and Fatima and that Orthodox like to talk about hierarchy and order and somehow always stop short in answering wher authority in Gods Church on earth lies.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my If you want to get technical we can go back to the beginning of the church . Let's see.....the lay people heard the apostles letters and scripture by word of mouth on The Lords Day. (Sunday) .....at the time of the reformation the RCC wasn't doing that....they forbade it, did everything in Latin except.for about 4 special messages a year. Learning the scriptures and faith in your own native tongue was revived (yes...revived) by John Wycliffe , Morning Star of the reformation. That was a protestant idea, the earliest church did not have icons or Venerate Saints or Mary (protestant again) , they confessed sins to each other and to the lord ( protestant practice still) , they did not partake in a system of paying for temporal punishment just like today's Protestants do not 🤔 hmmmmm....... i'm seeing a pattern here. I mean.....we rebelled against the clergy for being corrupt as hell, took the Bible from them translated it into almost every language on earth without their permission and paid for it on blood (fulfilling the great commission Command) and heavily evangelized the world with this. Do you have a Bible in your house? On your phone? Does it have chapters and verses? That is ALL of the Protestants! Weather you like it or not.....we are also the church. It is VERY obvious brother. Our history is the same.
Peter "the Pope"? uh sorry. fair question here.. how is Peter, a first century man, Jewish to boot, the leader of a gentile Roman religion that begins in the 4th century (325 ad/ce is the 4th century) at the council of Nicea? I was raised Catholic. There is far more about roman catholicism that isn't Biblically grounded than what is.
If you read Scripture it states that Paul had to correct Peter because it seems Peter was insisting that only Jews could convert to Christianity. So Peter was not a gentile Roman, he was in fact Jewish until his conversion. Scripture when listing the Apostles by name always list Peters name first, another way of demonstrating Peters precedence and demonstrates how the gospel authors held Peter in special esteem. Jesus telling Peter that he bequeathed authority to him is also another example of Peters exalted role in the church.
@@seamusweber8298 *_If you read Scripture it states that Paul had to correct Peter because it seems Peter was insisting that only Jews could convert to Christianity._* Actually if you read Scripture you will see Peter actually at with the Gentiles it wasn't until certain men came from James that Peter drew back and separated himself. Sure this was scandalous but the claim that it was because Peter was insisting that only Jews could convert is no where in the text. Also wanted to point out that Paul did the very same thing that he accused Peter of doing, thus making himself a hypocrite. Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. This happened one chapter after the council ruled that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. Paul (doing exactly what Peter did) feared what Jews would say that they were preaching to goes and cuts off poor Timothy's foreskin. OUCH. All I am pointing out is no one is perfect. But to claim Paul rebuked Peter because he refused to allow Gentiles to convert is nonsense. Hope this helps, God Bless
That's not the right way to interpret this passage. You need mental gymnastics to make this passage fit a narrative that is not substantiated by the Bible.
@evanjatkinson, well, this passage it's obviously not known by being the pillar that establishes the papacy! Look, when all you can do is to speculate about the so called "special treatment " of Peter is a desperate way to substantiate this unbiblical position.
Peter spoke in tongues. Acts 2. Does your Pope speak in tongues? If Peter was the first Pope & he spoke in tongues. How many Pope's do you know that spoke or speak in tongues. If none, then I don't think Peter was a Pope. It can't be in 2 milleniums not one Pope spoke in tongues. Something wrong Somewhere.
tongues mean other languages, not mumbo jumbo like the modern montanists think. I am no papist but most popes have known and do know a ton of the most prominent languages of the world.
@@dlingfasin6826 Are you saying you can learn tongues from the Holy Spirit? It is not tongues if you can speak the Language. Yes it can help you edify the church if you can translate the spoken word for the church. But to say you speak in tongues cause you know the language, ha, it's not from the Holy Spirit. That's like saying I speak in tongues as in Hebrew Jehovah Shalom is God our Peace. 🙄🙏
@@tknciliba4743 i want you to realise that the new testament wasnt originally written in english but in greek. The greek word for tounges is the same word and has the same meaning as ''languages'' when we use it in modern english. It doesnt mean that they spoke in these ''tounges'' modern montanists do. In acts we see the apostles talking in these LANGUAGES and the people from different countries and cultures understood them.
@@dlingfasin6826 Please have some Coffee. I totally agree that tongues are languages. Tongues from the Holy Spirit is something you do not understand on your own knowledge, not studied. But you speak it. Acts 20_day of Pentecost. I totally agree with you there are tongues of man & tongues of Spirit. I am talking about the tongues of the Spirit.
I know someone who had a private audience with Pope John Paul II, and in prayer, he overheard him praying in tongues, though quietly, since others were in the room.
Alone, perhaps not. But with all the other verses, that point to Peter as the head of the apostles, it merely reinforces the historical Christian claim.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra That still doesn't answer a single thing about how we get to the idea of the Bishops of Rome inheriting his authority. I'm constantly having Catholics send me "evidence" and it's always super weak stuff like "Ignatius was very complimentary of the Roman church in his epistle to them, that means that the Roman bishop is in charge of the Church somehow. Nevermind any questions about why a guy from Antioch is giving instructions to Rome instead of just letting the Pope handle it."
@@chrisdoe2659 I suppose part of it is common sense: immediately, after the death of Peter, the apostle, we have an unbroken line of popes to this very day. As a pope is a head bishop of all the bishop, we similarly have an unbroken line of Bishop traced all the way back to the apostles.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra Why do you suppose that most scholars disagree with the idea of an unbroken line of Popes in the ante-nicene period and instead think that Rome was run by a council of presbyters after Peter's death?
The key aspect of the coin story is not about Peter (or the other 11), but about Jesus. It aligns with the Parables of the Kingdom, and is about the Kingdom's provision for those that take refuge under the fruit of the seed that's planted.
None of the passages mentioned supports the papacy. That is totally reading into the texts what is not there. All of the texts mentioned, centered around the house of Israel at the time, not Gentiles. Gentiles did not come on the scene until 3.5 years after Jesus death, with the Cornelius household. Peter only shared the gospel with the Cornelius household, then Paul took it from there as far as sharing the gospel with the Gentiles. Peter was still only an apostle to the Jews, or circumcised, Galatians 2:7. He was one of the 12 to judge the 12 tribes of Israel, Matthew 19. This idea of him being a pope, does not fit the biblical narrative at all.
@@chezjowy8596 Here we go again, another baseless comment. I don't belong to a denomination. The tax that was being talked about here, was a religious tax for the temple. It was a tax equivalent to two days of wages. The one who asked if they pay the tax, made a connection between Peter and Jesus. But Peter and Jesus were not walking together, since Peter answered when they asked about their teacher also paying the tax. When they arrived in the house, Jesus knew Peters thoughts. The purpose of the coin was not to offend them, if they don't pay even though they were exempt. Peter was also the oldest, so it would make sense they would ask him instead of the other apostles. I do consider Peter to be chief of the apostles btw, but he never was a pope, this was not the role given to Peter by Jesus. He was an apostle to the Jews, and an elder. Never a bishop, nor pope, let alone even stepped foot in Rome as a pope.
@@chezjowy8596 I simply pointed out what was going on in the passage. The passage says nothing about papacy, nor infallibility, nor succession. Simply pointing out what is going on in the passage, is not weak, it is simply pointing out what went on. Lol.
@@soteriology400 St. Peter died in Rome...where he was crucified upside down. Nails in his feet driven so tight they had to cut them off to get his body down! Interesting note, just lately his tomb was opened and they found his bones had ossified turning to STONE...backing up the name Jesus gave him! I do not know of any King in any kingdom who does the day to day work; he has a Prime Minister (or some such position) to do that! That is what the Pope does! The position tracks back to Eliakim in the OT who carried the keys of the kingdom--the prime minister- just as Peter does. Hope this helps.....God bless
@@soteriology400 The English word "bishop" is translated from the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos). The noun ἐπίσκοπος literally means "one who watches over," an overseer. In the New Testament, the ἐπίσκοπος was essentially synonymous with the "elder," or Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros). At 1peter 5:1 he says he is a fellow elder/bishop and "exhorts" other elders/bishops in the Christian communities to shepherd the flock of God as overseers, or taking oversight, v2 If "the church that is at Babylon" at 1 Peter 5:13 is Rome, which is highly likely, then you have Peter at the church that is at Rome claiming to be a πρεσβύτερος (elder) and therefore, a ἐπίσκοπος (bishop)
@@duhdims There are two different Greek words, one is translated as "overseer" which later was translated as "bishop" after there was no separation between the state and the church. There is another Greek word for elder. You are being dishonest when you blend the two together like that. 1 Peter 5:13 was not using apocalyptic literature nor was a metaphor being used (unlike revelation, John was using apocalyptic literature, which Babylon was the old Jerusalem, the harlot who committed spiritual fornification with their husband, Christ when they cried out "crucify Him, we have no king but Caesar!"). It was literally Babylon. There were two Babylon's on the map at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter to those 5 churches. Since he was an apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:7), he was actually writing to the Jewish Christians in those 5 churches or areas. They knew instantly which Babylon Peter was referring too (Peter did not need to state which Babylon, and only wrote the word "Babylon" as a way to protect them). They knew it wasn't the one in Iraq, due to their 70 year captivity in the past. They knew it was Egypt, and Egypt to the Jewish people at the time (Matthew 2) was considered the safe place at the time. Peter was referring to Babylon Egypt. Egypt spoke Aramaic at the time, which is the common language Peter was familiar with. Rome spoke Greek and Latin, which languages Peter did not even know since he was uneducated (Acts 4:13). Peter wrote to them they were scattered (scattered from Jerusalem, whom were the stick of Joseph, Hellenized Jews). This was a subtle way of telling them, it was time for their gathering (Peter wrote this immediately after the lawless one was revealed, per 2 Thessalonians 2, August 14, AD66 was the day the lawless one was revealed). The reason why Peter could not spell it out, was due to the fact they had to leave quietly for their gathering, so the Gentiles would not follow them with the Neronic persecution that was going on at the time. So where were they to go? Where Peter was, in Babylon Egypt. When you look at the topography of Babylon Egypt, the logistics were perfect. It had many water channels funneling to Babylon Egypt, where Peter was. If you look at the most western water channel, this is where Mark was, whom Peter mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13. This was a strategic spot by Mark, since this particular water channel would have been the safest water channel, since it was the furthest away from the Roman navy. Peter would have escorted them to Petra, not Pella (this was a lie, by Eusebius, all to make it appear more believable Peter was in Rome, making it appear John 21 no longer applied, Peter feeding the house of Israel, in Jerusalem). When looking at the topography, we see the earth split per revelation 12, just south west of Petra), When looking at Pella, we do not see the split, nor does Pella have a history of flooding, Petra does). So when the stick of Judah fled the temple (on the afternoon of April 10, AD70), they went to Petra, not Pella. It would make no sense for them to flee to another dangerous area out of another, since the Roman Army traveled through Pella, and besides, it was burned down in AD66 by the Roman army). This was all a lie by Eusebius to centralize power around Rome, the claim Peter was in Rome. The Basilica was built to fool people, who are not familiar enough with their bibles (authors intent, many know scripture, but not with authors intent). Eusebius was not able to modify scripture, because there were too many copies around the known world at the time. But he was able to destroy, modify and rewrite church history (to again, centralize power around Rome). This is partly why Constantine liked Eusebius so much. If one was to do this today, it would be too difficult to get away with it and pretty much impossible.
Jesus was unconcerned with taxes until Peter showed how bothered he was with it. HE relieved Peter s conscience when he did not take the ministry funds but relieved Peter s conscience with the money from the fish. Scripture is clear that we should obey the law and pray for our leaders in government. I Timothy 2:1-3
You should read and study your bible. Believers in Christ, are no more under the law. For Christ is the end of the law for those who believe. Romans 10:4 And nobody will be saved by the works of the law. Galatians 2:16
@@donaldgodin3491 thank you, I do and have for 40 years but not too proud to admit I haven’t finished learning through the Holy Spirit. Salvation is through faith alone in Jesus Christ and by repentance and acceptance of the blood He shed to cover my sins.
@@deborahcarter3300 Read Paul's gospel, by which we are saved, and there is no repentance mentioned. See 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. See John 3:16 also. No repentance mentioned. Also, Romans 10: 9,10. no repentance. Ephesians 2:8,9...no repentance mentioned. Salvation is by grace through faith alone.
@donaldgodin3491 there are so many times in the Old Testament of the Hebrews repentance causing God to turn His face back to them and bringing deliverance. Roman's 6:2 says "so shall we continue in sin that grace my abound?" To which Paul says "God forbid" Luke 24:7 says, "and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations beginning in Jerusalem' Acts 17:30-31 God now commands all men everywhere to repent because He has appointed a day on which HE will judge the world" To repent is to turn around, turn away from sin and turn to the Lord
@@deborahcarter3300 We are not under the Old Covenant. We are under a new Covenant. Romans 6;2 does not says we will stop to sin! It says that we should not sin because we are under grace! It's not the same thing at all To repent means a change of mind. It does not mean to stop to sin. For example, do you know that God Himself repented, in the Old Testament? Exodus 32:14 Do you think that God had commit sins? Surely not! God changed His mind about the evil he had planned to do to His people. Nobody can turn away from sin. We will always sin in this body. That's why Christ died for all our sins; past, present, and future. About this, apostle Paul wrote in Romans 7:19-21, and I quote: For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. So, that idea of turning away (repent)from sin by our own power, is not biblical by any means.
And let us not forget that very important point of catechesis given to us by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, when he quotes the portion of the verse "But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook..." now Sheen emphasizes "But that WE may not scandalize them" Sheen then tells us that this is the only time in all of Scripture that God (Jesus) identifies Himself with one of His creatures (Peter) under the personal pronoun "WE"! Sheen then goes on to say that that is why popes would speak in the plural "We, Our" when signing letters or pronouncements and items of that nature. The pope would sign that he and Jesus (We) "pronounce and declare" or "set our signature to"
I have always found that instruction from Sheen fascinating and enlightening.
Very fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing! Very cool observation : )
Oh wow, that is fascinating. I love Fulton Sheen.
Do you know what Talk or Sermon the Blessed Archbishop Fulton Sheen stated this? I’m very interested in watching or listening to the whole thing.
@@swoosh1mil me too
I never noticed this meaning of the story before. Peter is also the one who goes first into the tomb even though John got there first. He definitely deferred to him.
Peter was always 'ram stam'. He opened his mouth without thinking all the time, and rushed foolishly. Just for your information, the Lord revealed Himself first of all to Mary Magdalene. The disciples had gone home thinking the Lord's body was stolen and it took Mary Magdalene to set them right. Notice is was that Mary, not His mother.
Maria Magdalene was there at "early dark" at the empty tomb before both John and Peter (John 20:1. Then look she can again (11-18) after Peter and John. The she came the third time to the empty tomb after sunrise (Mark 16:2) and she did not need to purchase any spices after sunrise because Christ resurrect 12 hours before sunrise. Can you see how Bibles are mistranslated to say the women need to purchase spices after sunrise.
Protestants seem to slam Mother Mary every chance they get. I sure don’t want to be at an exit interview where Jesus asks, now what did you say about my mother again?😮 Just sayin…
This is especially interesting given that Judas was the one in charge of the purse. If the point was merely "pay the tax," it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to ask Peter to do that; he'd have directed Judas to do that since he was responsible for the disciples' finances.
That's a solid point.
Yes, good point!
Good point
Great point.
This makes me wonder....Did Judas pay taxes from the purse too? By this Miracle, was God the Father paying tax/add'l tax or their tax that was unpaid? It's a very good point that leads to add'l research.....
Joe Heschmeyer's book "Pope Peter" does a great job of fleshing this and other arguments out - I highly recommend it! A lot of Protestants today say Matthew 16:18 is the only verse we use to support the papacy, but as here, there are far, far more!
Right on! Thank you for the kind words!
Unfortunately, you can recommend a lot of good things to protestants, but most of them will look at you like you've lost your mind, mumble somethings about all Catholics are going to hell, and then just go about their own business. Lord Lord
I read the early church was cathalic and was really unimpressed. He presented arguments that didn't follow and stretched the historical data beyond comprehension.
@johns1834 just curious, why do all modern scholars deny the papacy in the early church. Even cathalic scholars affirm there is little to no evidence for it. One has to deny evidence to be catholic.
@@jwatson181 Do you have any examples of these "arguments that didn't follow" or "historical data stretched beyond comprehension"? Heschmeyer heavily cites each and every point he makes, so much so that the majority of the book is simply reproducing early Church writings.
And can you name any Catholic scholars who "affirm there is little to no evidence" for the papacy? I've never encountered one, and I've read quite a lot.
Also as you mentioned, non of this is a coincidence. Specially in John, where he very carefully chose his characters and stories. For that reason is very revealing when he is telling that John and Peter are running to see the open sepulchre and John gets there first. However, he allows Peter to go inside first!!! That is not a merely gesture of kindness. Not specially knowing the gospel was written almost 60 years later when this doctrine was established. Peter’s primacy is overwhelming in scripture.
Narratives of the Ressurection
Jonh: Did you know I got there first???
Mark: ...
Luke: ...
Mattew: ...
Gosh, there’s a lot of angry prots in these comments just saying “NUH UH”
Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33 ... nah, pretty sure Jesus was upset there
@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn by referencing other experts? Oh the irony.
@@RomanPaganChurch can you guys take this argument somewhere else? Like honestly, just stop
@@thoughtlessroamer "nuh uh", how old are you.
FACT
Good insight.... but there's something else that gets missed here with John 21's connection with all this. When the six Apostle catch the fish, it's the direct result of the miracle Jesus performs for them... and whenever Jesus performs a miracle it is always to show that he has the authority to validate the divine message of what he has established and is establishing. This of course needs to be unpacked, but the point here is that the miracle in John 21 yet another sign that validates and confirms what Jesus established with Peter.
I first saw this argument in Joe's book "Pope Peter", I would suggest reading that for anyone who hasn't yet.
Whilst all of this is interesting I think it's far from supporting Peter as a Pope (have read some of the comments too):
Yes Peter is given a special role, but so are the other disciples. After Jesus's death we never see Peter in a leading role (that is exceeding the other apostles).
Acts 2 comes the closest to this but it's just a preach and after all he's the apostle for the jews whilst paul is the apostle for the nations (Gal 2:7).
Paul rebuked him in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14)
He is mentioned as a pillar of the church besides James and John (in the list he is in the middle which shows no supremacy) in Gal 2:9 (and yes I'm noticing it's Gal 2 a lot haha)
In the first church meeting in Acts 15 he speaks but doesn't lead the church but rather James comes up with the solution. (Though Peter calmed down the discussion).
Most of the bible is written by Paul not Peter, which if he was instated as Pope is in my eyes a bit weird as he as Pope would surely be a leadexample and teach more, and as a matter of fact in none of the letters we see that there is another headship than Christ. There isn't even one mentioned to the church in Jerusalem, so it would be weird to support papacy from that.
In Eph 2:20 we see that christ is the cornerstone and the foundation is the apostle and the prophets. No mention of Peter.
Anyways after drifting off a bit let's go back to the topics of the video:
- The story doesn't mention any of the other disciples.
- It's not easy to interpret pictures without biblical teaching behind it (especially the examples of jesus)
- In John 21 it's a difference between the discples trying to pull in the net and Peter. The disciples wanted to pull it into the boat whereas Peter pulled it on shore. It's clear that the others brought it to the shore.
- Furthermore Peter is not responsible for the net not ripping. That's the LORDs doing just as the amount of fishes is the LORDs doing.
- Luke 5 is interesting that he just speaks to Peter so maybe I need to study that a bit.
So all in all I still have seen no great evidence that Peter was the first Pope.
He who comes first will be last. I think you confuse Peter’s role like a king. Peter is a servant of servants. He is to minister to us, he is our servant. This is what protestants do not understand. Protestants treat the pope like a king where many catholics would take a critical eye😅
@@markv1974 And from what verses do you gather that? Yes the first will be last but where do we see that it was peters explicit role?
Personally I believe a king should also serve his people (see jesus)
Well, I see what I'll be reading this week!! What I'm about to say isn't a detraction from the Catholic church/Pope thereof. St Peter wasn't Bishop of Rome. His calling was a step above Bishoprics. St Peter was an Apostle and never Bishop of Rome. This fact doesn't change weather or not he was the head of the church on earth, and likely reinforces St Peter's primacy at that time. After all, Apostle is a higher calling, and aside from Jesus Christ is The highest calling. St Peter was in Rome more than once (I think) and spent his last minutes on earth IN Rome.
In the Church back then, Rome was one of the seven Patriarch of the Church callings, and Apostle of The Lord is a calling Above Patriarch.
Perhaps when we think of St Peter, we should remember this, and respect the fact that his burden and responsibilities far exceeded the boundaries of the Roman Bishopric.
@@RobertStewart-i3m I'm not quite sure whether you understood my comment but here are some things I would like to mention:
(a) I don't care about the Bishoprics
(b) Peter was an Apostle and so where 12-13 others.
(c) Paul also died Rome what's your point?
(d) wdym with seven Patriarch of the Church callings?
The early Church gave deference to the Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first such Bishop; thus, Peter was the first Pope.
I never thought of that passage this way. I am Catholic and believe that Jesus gave authority to St. Peter, but this point of view is an eye opener for me. Great explanation!
One thing is to recognize that Peter had a special role, another is to affirm this line of succession that holds the Vatican 1 dogmas, they’re VERY different.
Where does Peter teach Catholicism in the Bible?
Peter taught Catholic doctrine. The the words Catholic Church are found in the New Testament in the original Greek: Ekklesia Katholas
That was only one church for 1,500 years
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra Did Peter wear a big fish head hat and a big shiny robe?
Protestants want to identify Catholics as a denomination, when actually Christianity IS Catholicism and vice versa.
One detail that seems to be ignored here in Matthew 17:24 is that the tax collectors speak to Peter. Just Peter, not Peter and the other disciples. The tax collectors ask Peter if his master, not his master and the other disciples, pay the tax. It appears that it’s only Peter and Jesus who are being asked this question because the text does not mention anything about anyone else being present. It’s an extrapolation that there is some other message being presented here. In other words, this papal connection is a fabrication from information that is not in the text. God bless.
Wow. That was awesome. Thanks.
What an interesting detail I never noticed before.
Thank you Lord, for your Church, the Catholic Church!
Personally, I am not Catholic. I am also aware of the substantial contribution the church has made to the world and to Christianity. Thank God for Catholics
Yeah for the Catholic church, which is not the Romanist church, which has distorted the truth of the Bible.
Beautiful. Thank you.
So good. Thank you.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Some Protestants try to explain this verse by saying that all the other disciples were teenagers and did not have to pay tax. This has been popularised by Kenneth Bailey, who lived in the middle east for forty years and learned much from Orthodox Christians and wrote some great books but who maybe inoculated himself against a full acceptance of Orthodoxy or Catholicism by insisting that the disciples were super young. He even said I believe, that John was at the Cross with Mary because he was too young to be left on his own...!
The apostles were teenagers, but Peter was married and had a mother in law, who Jesus cured?
Honestly, that's a very odd way to try to interpret the gospels in a way that does not recognize Peter as the main lead of the apostles. I know that people used to get married very young at that time, but it still sounds like a forced interpretation.
Nevertheless, thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of it.
So John was too young to be left unsupervised, but old enough to be entrusted with Mary's care and to have a home to take her into?
You might even ask who would base a Church on the Disciples, with betrayal and suicide and betrayal again - but that is the basis of our beautiful Church because it involves ultimate affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus.
@@johnmccrossan9376That's the first thing I thought too.
Th orthodox are NOT Christian because they are NOT Catholic. Only Catholic’s are Christian! Only Jesus can found a Church!
The trouble with analyses like this is that they are only persuasive to people who already believe in the Catholic dogma. Protestants are correct in saying that Scripture does not say anywhere that our Lord set up a papacy. But Catholics do not believe in the papacy because of Sacred Scripture alone, but through Sacred Tradition which predates and ultimately gave us Scripture. If one wants compelling evidence for why Catholics believe in the papacy, one must consider the early Church Fathers (e.g., Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius). Catholics didnt just randomly make these things up in the last few centuries...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but for me it is just common sense.
At the end of the day someone always has to be in charge. If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge.
I am a father of 5 and God gave me the authority to be the head of my household. If God thought it so important to create something called fatherhood to be the leader of my small family of 7 why on earth would I ever think He doesn't believe a visible leader is necessary for His family of billions?
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, like I said I also agree with what you said.
God Bless
@@Matt-1926 to be clear, I am Catholic and believe in the papacy. I just think arguments like this are counter-productive and, sometimes, just reaching... like, do the Church Fathers interpret this passage this way?
But those same church fathers never considered the bishop of rome in the same way modern catholics do. Or even 13th century to now. Irenaeus gives a list of bishops of rome but there isn't a hint in that list it refers to the papacy. There were church fathers that were never bishop of rome that were called pope. It just meant papa, more of a diminutive. Not holding royal authority over the entire church. Irenaeus had no concept of that. But i agree with the rest of your post.
@ContendingEarnestly The early Church recognized certain episcopal sees as primary (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and later Constantinople). Among these, Rome was considered the first in primacy. See the third Canon of the First Council of Constantinople, which reads, "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome." This implies that Rome was considered by even Constantinople in AD 381 to have primacy in some sense.
@@connorhurley9512 *_to be clear, I am Catholic and believe in the papacy._*
I figured your were, my comment wasn't against what you said, I was trying to give more insight.
*_I just think arguments like this are counter-productive and, sometimes, just reaching_*
Yes they can be. I think the point I was trying to make is if the person isn't in reception mode than the arguments you point to will also come across as counterproductive and reaching.
I meant no disrespect. The point I was trying to make is if we look at the way God set up the world it is common sense that someone always has to have the final say.
To me this should be common sense. If the other person obviously lives their everyday lives knowingly agreeing that authorities MUST exist and have no problem obeying said authorities for the common good of fallen human nature. Yet when it comes to salvation they believe Jesus set up a system with no visible authority here on earth. Then to me I am dealing with an illogical person who isn't in reception mode. Meaning they aren't going to be willing to listen to any argument we present.
I agree everything you pointed to is evidence, I just don't think it is evidence to someone with a closed mind and the only way to open their mind is to get them to acknowledge the necessity that Jesus would have left us someone to settle the argument between us.
*_like, do the Church Fathers interpret this passage this way?_*
Here's one I found.....
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Also, wanted to point out that this is just a video of a quick response to the verse. Joe goes into far more detail in his book with an entire chapter dedicated to the passage.
You might want to get the book and read it. I thought it was enlightening. He goes into the meaning of the Greek words in the text that aren't translated well into English and give a deeper meaning to the verse. As well as to why Jesus stated Him and Peter are exempt from paying the tax pointing us to the OT which points out that only the priests were exempt from paying the tax.
Anyway, I'm not sure if other fathers point to this verse as proof of Peter being the leader of the disciples but Clement does anyway.
God Bless
The keys to the kingdom are not what Roman Catholics think.
The LORD commanded Peter three times, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium.
And Peter wrote to the sheep (2 Peter 1:5-11) and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep.
Peter has been feeding the sheep even today by sharing the keys to the kingdom with anyone who will do what he tells them to do in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall.
So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall?
If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures.
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11).
Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).
The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44).
... ... ...
NO, one of the times Jesus told Peter "**Shepherd** my sheep" (NOT feed all 3x) !!! Ποίμαινε (Poimaine) μου (mou) πρόβατά (probata)
John 14:23 “Yahoshuah answered and said unto him, If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.”
This is the Trinity fulfilled. The Father and Son and you 24/7, and your body as a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any religious tradition of man to insert themselves into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.
Good stuff! Always learning something new even when I’m not trying. Thank you for pointing it out, thanks be to God!
The Papacy if true is the most important office of the Church. It would not be buried in riddles, but would be taught as clearly as the other offices. We have more about Deacons than the supposedly infallible, universally supreme Pope in Scripture. I am so disappointed that I cant be Roman Catholic, I would like it very much, but the heterodoxy surrounding the post-1871 Papacy is just too much.
All apostles were given equal authority. Matt 18:18 binding and loosing. 1 pet 5:1 Peter calls himself a fellow elder , just like the other elders . James was the leader of the Jerusalem church. No where in the Bible is Peter ever called the pope, or is even said went to Rome.what is interesting is that Peter’s ministry was to the Jews ( circumcised) where Paul was ministry was to the gentiles. Paul who gave us the book of Romans greets all the Christians in Rome my name , but he never mentioned pope Peter? Jesus did not start the Roman Catholic Church, and the apostles were not Roman Catholics, they were Christian Jews, the church started in Jerusalem at Pentecost, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, Acts 11:26 “ the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch “ ( not Roman Catholics )
*_All apostles were given equal authority. Matt _**_18:18_**_ binding and loosing._*
Actually if you read those verses in the Greek you will notice that when Jesus said the word you to Peter it was a singular you meaning Peter had this authority to bind and loose on his own. Were as when Jesus gave this authority to the others he used the plural you which would mean they have the authority to bind and loose collectively as a group.
Also, there are no name changes being made or mention of the keys given to anyone else in Matthew 18, so it is pretty evident from the Bible that Jesus wasn't giving the same level of authority to all.
God Bless
Also if I remember correctly, that coin was for the temple tax for taking care of temple!
Not so sure about that. Jesus said look at the image on the coin. It was Ceasars s. HE then said render unto Caesar what is Caesar s and unto God what is God s
@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn That's entirely possible. I'll have to read those chapters again. Oh no! I have to read the Bible on Sunday! What a......Blessing. Not crime, as the saying normally goes.
This story was the favorite section of the book. It was eye opening to me.
That's why Peter CEPHEUS is Special & was the 1st Pope from Jesus Christ to Simon Peter CEPHEUS 🙏🙏🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic God bless
Except, he sent Peter down, so no one else would owe the tax since they weren't involved in catching the fish...strange read.
And the bible is literally full of reasons that Peter wouldn't be considered the pope, but RCC claws and scratches to desperately keep power and authority by distorting any verse that supposedly gives Peter extra special authority. There is no Pope of Jesus Christ, there is a primacy of delusion, an idol that doesn't belong in Christianity. Any extra-biblical document that demands special obedience and power for a human, is anti-Christian.
@@teeemm9456there is no “primacy of delusion”, instead, you are deluded with flawed illogical Protestant thinking
Thank you.
With all due respect, Peter being the most significant out of the apostles is a long stretch from him having an infallible office which is then passed down (with equal infallibility) to each one ordained in his place.
Why are you offended that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, gave him the keys, and the authority to bind and loosen.
@@georgepierson4920 I don't think he's offended, but making a point to consider.
Peter is not merely the most significant, his role in Divine Providence was absolutely a singular one, for whenever God changes someone's name it signifies some singular special role in His plan.
Also, Jesus made Peter sheepherd over all His sheep (which includes the Apostles) in Jonh 21:17-19. And gave him the Keys of the Kingdom, which mean delegated power from the King (Jesus) to his representative (Peter) according to Isaiah 22:22
Peter isn't merely the most significant of the Apostles, but the sheepherd of all christians and visible rock of the Church.
If Judas' role was passed down...why wouldn't Peter's be?
This tax or no tax is probably related to age, where 20 and older were required to pay the tax. Exodus 30.
Yes... so?
What confuses me is that wasn’t Peter spanked by Paul a bunch of times ?
I’m just confused why apostle succession gives any of them the final authority. It looked like they voted or discussed stuff together
Just something that always struck me...serious question and not trying to snark....The metaphors of fishing, shepherding, fishermen, shepherds....all involve the focus of these activities, fish, lambs and sheep, being at best held down and shorn and at worst....eaten! They represent us! How is being shaved to the skin and/or being eaten correspond with being saved!?
I've been reading the church fathers for the past 8 years. I can answer this question (although I reject the heresies of the Catholics and Orthodox). The answer is that the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting us open and searching our inward parts. Since the body is a metaphor for the soul, this represents Christ exposing our true selves, even our secret thoughts. Christ, like the priests in the Old Testament, takes our body and puts the animal part of us to death, but preserves the invisible part of us by joining it to Himself, letting us become part of His body. When a man brings home an animal to his wife, and kills it, and hands it to his wife to season it and cook it in the fire, it represents Christ bringing unbelievers to the church, putting their sinful flesh to death, seasoning them with the pleasant odors of the gospel and prayers, and testing them with trials. Once we are perfected, we enter both Christ and His church (who are one body), and we are preserved, though our flesh must die, and all evil must be excreted from the church. If you want to learn about Christianity and be saved, you should check out my brother Nolan's channel Ante-Nicene Christianity.
@@pontificusmaximus I'm perusing the comments and replies, as I often do, to get a handle on Christianity and various Bible verses/chapters to read. I've saved one of your friends vids to start poking around his channel. After I'm done here! Thanks for the lead. Godspeed
@@pontificusmaximus Well I'm not familiar with the 'heresies of Catholics and Orthodox' whatever those are. but I am with with heresy of Gnosticism which the above wild flailing is, so....I'll just keep looking....
@@RobertStewart-i3m I sent you a reply yesterday, but I don't see it here, so I'll just repeat what I said yesterday: You're very welcome for the lead, and if you'd ever like to have a call over Discord or Skype or whatever to talk about early Christianity, I'd make myself available to you!
@@markgeraty8558 You have no idea what you're talking about. God invented the analogies of life. Man and woman were created to illustrate the relationship between Jesus and His wife, the church, who was joined to Him and becomes one flesh with Him by partaking of His body and blood. Do you really think the analogies stop there? You think there's no meaning in the analogy of a man bringing home food to his wife for her to cook and give to the children? You're not very religious.
it's interesting this shows up only in the tax collectors gospel. As Lord, Jesus owed no one taxes. As a citizen of Capernaum Peter didn't owe a tribute tax. I believe Peter owed other taxes to that tax office for living and doing business in Capernaum. This may have been an outstanding debt Matthew was aware of when he left his job. And Matthew is simply telling how the lord paid his tribute tax and Peter's debt.
The other disciples were not included because this is a discussion between Jesus and Peter. It says that the collectors came to Peter and asked if his teacher paid the tax. Jesus tells Peter to go and fish out this aquatic coin-purse and Jesus says that it’s to pay for them both. The next verse says the disciples came to Jesus at that time, apparently deep in talks about who is the greatest in Heaven. It does not say the other disciples were with them, at least at that moment.
Personally, I believe everything that is included in scripture was perfectly choreographed by the Lord. I do not think there’s anything in scripture that is mere coincidence or circumstantial. Peter and Jesus did not, in my opinion, just happen to be together when asked for the taxes. In fact, there are so many layers to scripture meaning, it is likely impossible for us to ever comprehend how deep it goes.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra I suppose that is true. But, there is the possibility that what we read was not necessarily for our benefit but was intended for the people back then. When Peter received the vision during his prayer time of the unclean animals and God told him to kill and eat, that was the beginning of Peter’s journey out of his life in the Old Covenant. Up to that point he was living a life as an obedient Jew. And even after his experience with Cornelius he still struggled. So much so that Paul had to confront him on his hypocrisy.
We are not to live our lives as Jews in obedience to the Mosaic Law. Why be concerned if Peter and Jesus were paying the Temple tax? Sounds like a non-issue for us under the New Covenant. God bless.
@@gomezjkv No one said we were to live under the old mosaic law. That is, the legalistic laws, such as kosher food, and washing hands and circumcision. Jesus often emphasize the need to keep the commandments and to not sin as Paul affirmed. God bless.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra The laws God gave to Moses include the Ten Commandments. In Exodus 20 we see that God told Moses to bring the people to the mountain to hear His law. When God got to, ‘thou shall not covent…” the PEOPLE told God that they did not want to hear anymore. They TOLD God to give Moses the commandments and that they would listen to him. But they did not want to hear anything from God anymore. So God graciously did as they asked. Ironically the very next commandment God gave was the very law that the people violated when they made the golden calf. If they had just waited a bit longer. There is no separation between the 10 and the 600+ that God gave through Moses. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law. He said that until heaven and earth pass away… Heaven and earth are still here.
Jesus taught the Mosaic Law because that was the covenant that was in affect during His earthly ministry. It was not until His resurrection that He instituted the New. Our lives in the New Covenant have nothing to do with obeying commandments but, instead, resting and trusting in what God has done for us. Which, by the way, is not as easy to do as some might think. Hope that clarifies my position. God bless.
“A parable of the Church moving forward” Perhaps, but if that’s the case it wasn’t realized for a thousand years until discovered to mean what you claim just as Calvin, Knox and Luther do 500 years after that. The Pope participated in the enduring consensus. Sometimes he even led it and other times he was rebuked by it but nothing remotely replaces the commands to be of one mind and judgement through principle of enduring consensus that is defined by Scripture to be pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Every meaningful heresy is attached to an individual and everyone of them used Bible quotes to claim truth whether that individual was Arius, Nestorius, Severus or an individual Pope unilaterally and now infallibly claiming new territory from which to rule.
No one I mean no one disputed the Papacy from Leo III to Vatican I and on to Vatican II is a development,an innovation. Using Scripture and History in an attempt to prove its legitimacy after the fact is exactly Protestantism.
Peter was not a heavy handed selfish leader. Peter was a good leader so he did not have to throw weight around and be "recognized", they all knew what the stature of each other was. There was no reason to dictate what they all knew to be so. Peter's leadership was uncontested; writing it explicitly beyond the structure Jesus put in place would have been an unhumble act.
I do not get it, just because the collector came to Peter asked about Jesus was paying the tax or not,
how this verse agreed with papacy?
while Jesus said,
Matthew 23:9
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.
They are just desperate to put themselves in those positions. Biblically no connection
It seems to me the common interpretation is that Peter was the only one old enough to be charged temple tax.
Oh, no! Where does it say THAT in the Bible??
@@susand3668 It doesn’t directly say either of these interpretations in the Bible (the age of the apostles or the view given in the video), but it is a common interpretation. Peter is the only apostle mentioned having a wife or mother in law in the gospels.
Dear@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr, you are right, Peter has a mother-in-law, who is sick in his house, and who is healed by Jesus on the Sabbath after they come back from the synagogue. His wife is not mentioned.
But the assumption that the other apostles were adolescent is a new one on me. I had never heard of it. Nor have I seen a single painting or any other depiction of the apostles that would imply such an idea. Nor was it suggested in any of the Church Fathers.
And you have to admit that making a tax collector and three fishermen into teen-agers is adding considerably to the Bible.
However, I have seen elsewhere the idea that Jesus united himself with Peter in the payment of the Temple tax as a signal of Peter's close connection with Jesus.
Peter is not the visible head of the Church without Jesus assisting him. They are united in a special way.
You don't actually need one strange verse - the Church is built on the rock of St Peter (Mt. 16:18). And the house built on rock cannot fall (Mt. 7:24-25). In other words, the Gospel of Matthew clearly elucidates that after Christ built his Church, it has stood since then undamaged.
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock." (Mt. 7:24-25)
The rock of St Peter? Or the rock of what Peter had just declared about Christ?
Actually, im quite curious about this.
I can accept quite easily the Peter was the foundation. But i have a hard time seeing that translate to the vat 1 and 2 catholic church of today. Is there any way to connect the twain?
@@timothym2241if memory serves correctly I think the Church Fathers said it’s both Peter and his confession. Can’t have one without the other.
God Bless
The CC is built on a rock whilst Protestantism is built on quick sand.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 I'll do my best. First of all, St Peter isn't mentioned only in the Gospels, but in the writings of the early Church Fathers: St Clement I of Rome and St Ignatius. St Iranaeus wrote in the 2nd century AD of "Peter and Paul who in Rome preached the Gospel and founded the Church" (Adversus haereses, III). The Council of Ephesus in the 5th century referred to St Peter in a similar way.
Now, I could continue through the following centuries to illustrate the same point - namely that this "house built on rock" has been able to survive all the storms of the past two millenia.
I want to stress that to my mind, doubts surrounding the validity of papacy are among the main obstacles that keep Catholic and Protestant denominations apart, wounding the Body of Christ.
Peter put on a pretense and Paul had to call him out.
Peter had no leadership role as there are no leaders among True Christians. Matthew 23:8-10. Neither Priests of any kind.
The papacy is fine, but it was ALWAYS honorary. Papal supremacy and infallibility is the problem we run into. It’s just not practiced in the first millennium at all and not taught in the Bible so we have absolutely 0 reason to believe it.
Not only that but I was just reading through the early church fathers, or rather quotes of them on Catholic Answers, and ALL the early church writings say that the church in Rome was founded by Peter AND Paul. They don't distinguish one over another. Here is such an excerpt from Iraneaus:
_“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."
The early church seems to put Paul on the same pedestal as Peter.
@@blusheep2 The flaw I see in that argument is that Jesus himself changed changed Peter‘s name from Simon, and to Peter alone he gave the “keys of the kingdom”.
As we know in the Judaic kingdom, the significance of “the keys of the kingdom”, we see that Christ was leaving his authority on Earth to Peter alone. Hope this helps - God bless.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra I can understand why people are convinced that the exchange between Peter and Jesus singled out Peter in a special way. The argument isn't just scriptural though when presented by the Catholic Church. We are told that the church fathers saw Peter in such a light, but looking at the best examples Catholic Answers could produce, the church of Rome is attributed to both Paul and Peter. This is very important because it negates the very message the Catholics are trying to make.
So the earliest church fathers do not see Peter as the vicar of Christ. Founder and First Pope of the Roman Church.
That takes us back to the famous discussion in Matthew. What is actually going on here. It does seem that scripture holds Peter up in a way that the other apostles are rarely held up. We see more interactions between him and Jesus then the others and that carries through all the gospels. He is also the one in Acts who first realizes through a vision that the Gentiles are meant to be a part of whats happening.
So the keys are interesting because no one knows what it means to be given the keys. Its all speculation. The best we can do is see that carrying the keys connects to the power to bind and loose. The problem is that in chapter 18 of the same book Jesus gives the power to bind and loose to all the apostles. This then looks like chapter 16 was certainly specific to Peter but Jesus makes it clear in the end that all the apostles carried such power.
The other thing to consider about the verse is that even if this is specifically about Peter in some special role, it doesn't explain what that role will be or what it will look like.
Certainly the "rock" is not talking about Peter because the author makes a point to use two different words for rock. Peter is Petros meaning "a small or detached stone," while the second "rock" is Petra, meaning "bedrock or a huge rock." Petra is often used for God in the Septuagint.
This of course carries over to the church fathers because unlike what the Catholic Church will tell you. A survey done by some French Roman Catholics of early church fathers stretching into the 800s found that
17 believed the rock referred to Peter.
16 believed the rock was Christ
8 believed the rock was the apostles
44 believed that the rock was the confession.
I think at a minimum this shows that the verse isn't that clear.
God Bless.
@@blusheep2Not so: There was always a Head Bishop (Pope). And it’s traceable all the way back to Peter.
The blessed virgin Mary, begs to differ. She has a firmed, the Catholic Church has primacy many times. Consider her appearances at Lourdes and Fatima. ❤
Is the number 7 not a holy number?.
Seven: Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify completeness. At times it has reference to bringing a work toward completion. Or it can refer to the complete cycle of things as established or allowed by God. By completing his work toward the earth in six creative days and resting on the seventh day, Jehovah set the pattern for the whole Sabbath arrangement, from the seven-day week to the Jubilee year that followed the seven-times-seven-year cycle. (Ex 20:10; Le 25:2, 6, 8) The Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Booths were each seven days long. (Ex 34:18; Le 23:34) Seven appears often in connection with the Levitical rules for offerings (Le 4:6; 16:14, 19; Nu 28:11) and for cleansings.-Le 14:7, 8, 16, 27, 51; 2Ki 5:10.
Mt. 23:8-10 Many scriptures can be twisted, sometimes with good intentions, but some are to plain to deny
Paul would be contradicting Jesus in 1 Corinthians 4:15 if we were to take your literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9. What Jesus really meant is "...that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the Catholic faith and seek followers for his opinions." (Catholic Answers "How can we respond to the 'call no man father' question?")
Yep you definitely twisted that one if you literally think Jesus was teaching to never call anyone father or teacher.
God Bless
Well, protestants twist this one constantly.. 🤷🏻♀️
It is amazing how scripture can be twisted to support anything. Nothing in that passage or any other passage points to anything papal, what we just saw was eisegesis.
You are so obsessed with relating Peter uniquely to Jesus because of your made up narrative of the former being your pope (Jesus did not install any pope among the 12) Even Paul himself had to admonish him because of his unstable character, wrong teaching and example.
Does anyone doubt Peter's role as chief apostle and earthly head of the church after Christ ascends?
I am pretty sure the objection to the papacy is that Linus was not his successor as chief apostle. Peter was chief apostle long before he was Bishop of Rome (if he did in fact serve that role) and so it is strange to suppose that his successor as bishop also succeeded him in the much more significant role as chief apostle.
IME A lot of Prots will try to mimic Orthodox rhetoric until it becomes obvious they're losing, then they usually switch to something akin to "well that doesn't matter because it was only for when the Apostles were alive, and once they died it ended"
St Irenaeus and Tertullian (2nd and 3rd centuries) spoke about the Popes as successors of St Peter
@@historicalsongarchive to be convincing, it should have come from Peter himself, or at least another apostle. Followers of the popes a century or two later are obviously going to back the popes as his successors. Rome managed to fill the power vacuum when the apostles died without calling replacements (which was the only official method of succession recorded by the apostles/ Bible. See the calling of Barnabas). At least in the West, in the East it was the patriarchs/ eastern bishops collectively that filled the void. None of them were actual apostles though.
For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews.
- Galatians 2:8
And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I’m not exaggerating-just telling the truth.
- 1 Timothy 2:7
🤷🏻♀️ Yup. Catholics agree❣️
@4065
Amen.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
- Matthew 12:37
Matthew 16: 16-18 is quite crystal clear certain that Christ has designed and designated St. Peter , aka, Shimon Bar Jonah , to be the first Pope of Christ 's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, both Latin ( Roman) and Eastern ( Oriental) Rites, Full Stop. Point Blank and.🇺🇲🇺🇸❤️❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐⛪📖🙏‼️
Its not clear because there are two objects in the passage: Peter or the confession of Christ, and there are actually two different words for rock in the line, "You are Peter(rock) and upon this (rock) I will build my church. Since two different words for rock are used, it suggests that the author was making a distinction between Peter and the foundation that the church will be built upon.
That being said there are many passages that seem to place Peter in a unique spot in the 12 and so its possible that the verse has a double meaning. The rock of Christ AND the rock of Peter.
The problem that Protestants have is that this verse says nothing about succession, infallibility questions, the protection from error of successors that come hundreds if not thousands of years later, or that the church wasn't also founded upon the other apostles who did their own church planting in various parts of the world.
No problem. The CC is built on a man. Its black history makes that obvious.
Fish, Nets, Rocks all parables suggesting primacy of Peter that can only transfer to the City of Rome. Begs the question what was Christ suggesting when he called Peter Satan? What Special Role was he taking on when without ambiguity, riddle or word play Christ called him that?
Of course he didn’t mean Peter was actually Satan he was referring to his lack of faith being bad and of Satan just as when he referred to the Rock just 114 words and four verses prior referred to Peter’s strength of faith as being good and of God. Proof texting and quote mining and worse prioritizing Scripture to validate a particular claim is at the beginnings of every heresy ever uttered.
you shot yourself in the foot with this
Pope Peter was exposed by Paul for his hypocrisy in Galatians 2:11-21 Then in Acts 15 we see that it was James and not Peter who headed up the Jerusalem Council as the head spokesperson of the Church.
Your comment implies, very incorrectly, that because Peter himself made mistakes, that he could not be a leader. The Church *never* supports the notion that the Popes, of which Peter is the first, are inerrant. In fact, your verse (in addition to Peter's own denial of Christ in the events to the Crucifixion) show how Peter was just as human as any of his successors or fellow Apostles. But Jesus, after the Resurrection, shows the means and method for the Sacrament of Confession (The "Do you love me (Peter)/Yes, I do love you, Lord/Feed my sheep") with Peter to undo his sin. Peter was not appointed the leader of the Twelve (nor his successors) because they were perfect in any way. The Acts of the Apostles shows, in the Council of Jerusalem, how the Apostles (and, later, the bishops) would come to a consensus on an issue, with the Leader/Pope speaking to support or modify a decision. James being a leader for the meeting did not make him a leader of all the Church. Peter is among the most mentioned person in the New Testament because of his special appointment by both the Father and Son (Matt. 16:18). Apostles and bishops were recognized as offices; this was shown in Acts by the appointment of Matthias to fill the empty seat of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:20-26).
@@kspencerian Take a look down through the corridor of history and see all the Christian martyrs that were put to cruel deaths at the hands of Popery. Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs to get the full details. Popery has all sorts of evil underpinnings.
Well good for me @@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn well good for me then
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Sure doesn't seem like it.
Not even sure I want to watch this.
We (Christians) are all priests and we have a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Christ). There is no need for a vicar of Christ.
As long as that institutionalized system exists, as well as the traditions surrounding it, I don't see how this impasse changes - at least for me.
I'm an Alaskan native from a family of commercial fishermen, and spent 4 months a year for 4 years at it. We did purse seine, until some Corp crashed a super tanker there. Map reference: Prince William Sound. My hometown Cordova is on 🎉and east side and Valdez is on the north side.
We caught a school once. We're in a 46' boat and the net's 3/4 aboard, and several hundred feet are still out. There were so many fish that they were swimming over the cork line in places. Across the whole area inside the net, about 250' by 75', the whole area is the backs of salmon. Yes there was space between the fish.
There were 10s of thousands of salmon. We had the ring line aboard (the bottom of the net) and the boat kept leaning portside. There was no way to get the nets aboard, and we couldn't hold that many. In fact, there's so many fish other boats set their seine beside us for the ones we missed/jumped out. Is that picture in your mind? Perfect.
Now imagine you're in a 22' rowboat with a sail and you're 100' from shore. You have a couple hundred feet of net, but you've got 100' aboard. All of a sudden, there's 25,000 fish in your net. People in neighboring boats come to tow you close to shore and people are coming off the beach to get you And the fish.
That was FOOD for a starving people. Yes money, but food. Everyone won that day. The Israelis did share like that. Imagine Seeing it happen. A massive school of fish out of Nowhere. Like my fishing boat, they were nearly pulled down.
And look-- Because they worked for it, they were rewarded. By a visible act of direct Divine Intervention. Work, food, and some money for everybody there in that hour. I know how much space 300 salmon averaging 5lbs each, compared to a 22' skiff with an outboard motor. Thousands of fish for an occupied and starving people. There were probably 50 people that directly laid hands to help. There would've been a couple hundred people out on the shore. The Apostles spread the wealth. If each person got 10 fish, the Apostles were left with well over a thousand fish.
GRECO-ROMAN CHRISTIANITY OR JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY?
Given the fact that Jesus is not one of the many sons of Zeus, the god of the Greeks, and that the God of Abraham had never promised a Son to Israel but the Messiah (HaMashiak) which the Greek forgers and fiddlers translated as “Christos” as it is written:
"I will raise among them the Messiah(Christos)HaMashiak, a Prophet(Messenger) like you Moses, Him they must listen..."
Deut.18:15-19; Acts 3:17-24; Acts 7:1-30; Luke 24:25-27 and 44-47; Acts 17:1-3; John 4:24-25, Surah 3:81, etc.
So Messiah(Christ) is a Prophet in the likeness of Moses as Matthew proved it. Like Moses He stayed in Egypt. Like Moses He is Mediator of a New Covenant.
Considering that the Gospel that Paul proclaimed to the world mentions JESUS CHRIST SON OF GOD and not just JESUS.
Therefore, we can deduce that Trinity is a misunderstanding of the Pauline doxology of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”!
Because between Jesus Christ (HaMashiak) Son of God and Jesus Son of God... there is a great philosophical and legal difference if we take as a legal framework the TEN COMMANDMENTS and the social environment where Jesus was born!
Why did Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax with just one coin? The New Bible Dictionary comments: “It would appear that Jews frequently united to pay the Temple tax in pairs.” Additionally, any individual who wants to pay tax for just one person was liable for an agio, a fee changing money which could be as high as 8 percent. However, those who paid for two people at the same time were exempt from this charge. So even the is minor detail recorded by Matthew agrees with what is known about common practices in Jesus’ time.
Church Father Augustine wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ! In the fifth century he wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock” (Petra) was CHRIST!”
*_Church Father Augustine wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ! In the fifth century he wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock” (Petra) was CHRIST!”_*
just wanted to point out that this goes right along with Catholic teaching. We believe it is both Peter's confession and that Jesus changed His name to Rock. We also believe that Peter is the Rock because he is attached to Jesus who is the Rock.
That is why Augustine could also write that Peter and his successors are the leader of the Church...
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Why do you believe the letter you posted holds authority but this other letter doesn't?
God Bless
Dollinger was right. Catholicism post VI is nothing but obsession with the pope. Everything simply boils down to the pope. Are we baptized in the name of the Trinity or of the pope?
Who's the party obsessed...the party that always questions and attacks or the party that answers and defends?
@@chriswilson203What a dumb thing to say.
@@floridaman318 not as dumb as saying 'Are we baptized in the name of the Trinity or the pope?'. That would be like if I said are we baptized in the name of the Reformers or the name of the Trinity.
The four-drachma (or shekel) coin would be exactly enough to pay the temple tax (two-drachma coin) for two people. It is usually thought to be a Tyrian shekel.
You guys are reaching.
Jesus could have had the fish produce a two drachma coin, but intentionally produced a shekel.
@@thomasgrice8864 So you are assuming that since Christ produced a coin that covers for both men rather than producing two coins for each individual man this means Peter is Pope. That is a reach, wouldn't you say?
What if I were to say the same for John, the disciple that Jesus loved. Would you then make a similar claim that since this is a unique expression of Christ's love for one of His disciples, that John then must be linked with Jesus uniquely, even though Jesus clearly loved them all?
The same can be said about the keys of the kingdom, how that they are given to all of the disciples, not just Peter (Matthew 18:18).
MY argument is that there are just as many unique moments for other disciples, and yet the Catholic will not dare make the same claims that they do for Peter. They go into the tet with the notion that Peter is the first Pope and then try to find texts to fit it.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Do you honestly believe that Christ accidently had a 4 drachma coin? Why use two separate coins when one makes more sense. Why was Matthew 16:18, 'you', instead of 'ye'. What about the foreshadowing, which saw John the baptist as the new Moses and Peter as the new gatekeeper/high priest (on earth). Christians upheld this belief for 1500 years until Protestantism arrived. Should we keep with the traditions of Christians for 2000 years, or a 500 year old German sect, that almost immediately spilt between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and continues to split into 10s of thousands of denominations today despite the teaching of the Church being one. A sect that removed books from the Bible that Jesus himself quoted from? John isn't a great example for a Protestant either, as why would Mary go to John's house, instead of one of her other children, if she had other children, as per Jewish customs and traditions at the time.
@@thomasgrice8864 Firstly, the text of Matthew 18:18 reads, ’Verily I say unto YOU’ not ’ye.’ He is speaking to them all, regardless of the singular being used afterwards. He could be looking directly at John or Andrew or any of them and say the same words. Again, reaching.
And nothing you have put forth proves anything for the case of Peter being a pope. Not one single point you make says Peter was pope.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Why would he say "you". God doesn't make mistakes. Peter literally being call Rock, and being described as the rock Jesus would build his church on, and being charged with pastoring the flock of Christ. Jesus renamed him Peter (from the Greek for rock) and then told him that he would be the rock, the Church of Jesus would be build upon. The etymology of Peter is 'petra', a masculine of the word 'rock in Greek.
This kind of hyper-symbolism is what I've always hated about popular Christianity (both protestant and catholic), because it makes it way too easy to take a small thing and say it supports [unrelated preconceived idea] and pretend you've proven your point. When all you've really done is throw together a word salad to entrench your confirmation bias.
I find it sad that the theological community has even developed terms for this (exegesis vs eisegesis) yet 90% of theological leaders I see lean far to heavily on eisegesis.
The talk of Mathew 16:18 as authority by Jesus to bring about the papacy, let alone make it a permanent doctrine for the catholic church has no validity, for a number of reasons, #1- there is no verification of such in scripture, since there is no such thing as, "a catholic church!" #2- there is no verification other than Jesus being the true rock, #3- there is no verification for a high priest to succeed the temple high priest, but there is verification that after his death, Jesus became the royal high priest, as well as the living temple of God! There is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved than by Jesus Christ, #4- prophecies are not only verified, but also repeated, at times more than 3 times in the bible! Catholics need to read the bible and be born again, so they can discern what the Spirit has to say.. the best teacher is Jesus, and the best drink to wash down the manna from heaven is the Spirit of God!
Btw: why not John as 1st Pope? He was the youngest, stayed by Jesus through his trial, was at the crucifixion (didn't run off or hide), took Mary in wrote Revelation & outlived all the other Apostles. Peter was taken to Rome as a prisoner, like Paul, he didn't found that Church. He was a "fellow elder" by his own words. 🙄
If you read your bible, it was God who revealed to Simon important information about Jesus. Jesus, in turn, changed Simon's name to Peter and gave him the keys and the authority to bind and loosen.
The simple answer is that the other eleven apostles were not yet twenty years of age. (See Exodus 30:11-14) They each would have been between 13 and twenty. This scenario fits well with their individual call from Jesus to “follow me”. Young men, who were bar mitzvah anxiously waited for a rabbi to invite them to become a disciple. Jesus, as an itinerant preacher, was no exception to this practice. The idea the eleven were “super young” is ridiculous, as is the notion that they were in their thirties or forties, as films would suggest. Peter was over twenty and so needed to pay the tax, as did Jesus. Jesus’ ministry for three years was with a group that would appear like a high school youth group. But remember, young men in that day moved into the work force after their bar mitzvah. It would not have been out of the ordinary at all.
*_The simple answer is that the other eleven apostles were not yet twenty years of age. (See Exodus 30:11-14) They each would have been between 13 and twenty._*
Why does this response keep coming up? Honestly where did this come from and who made this up?
I mean no disrespect but so many people are claiming this should be common knowledge.
Let's look at Matthew.
Are we to honestly believe the guy that wasn't old enough to pay the tax was the guy they put in charge of collecting the taxes?
Also wanted to point out that the Gospel tells us that Matthew gave a great banquet in Jesus' honour in his own home. Most scholars take him being a tax collector along with this as evidence that he was more likely between the age of 25 to 30.
Think about it, even if Matthew was a teenage tax collector there is no way he would amass enough wealth to buy a home large enough and pay to feed Jesus his disciples and the many tax collectors and sinners that showed up. Matthew was a wealthy man, unless we are to believe he started being a tax collector at the age of 12 I honestly can't see it being possible that he was still under the age of 20.
*_Young men, who were bar mitzvah anxiously waited for a rabbi to invite them to become a disciple. Jesus, as an itinerant preacher, was no exception to this practice_*
Once again back to Matthew. He was a tax collector he already had a vocation he wasn't sitting around waiting for a rabbi. Sorry not seeing how this applies?
I honestly want to know does this line of thinking come from any ancient sources or is it a 21st century invention. Because this is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that anyone other than John was a teenager.
God Bless
@@Matt-1926 I think you make some good points. I haven't heard this objection before and therefore I hadn't heard an answer to this. The thing is, that I think it highlights the weakness of the connection. Its mere speculation. There could be a host of reasons. It could be that Jesus was just making a point to Peter. It could be that the others had already paid their taxes and Jesus was aware that Peter was the only one left to do so. Peter did seem to be separated from the others when approached by the tax men. Maybe they were grabbing people as they headed toward the building. Peter coming late hadn't been hit up yet. Do you see what I mean. There really isn't enough information in the story to use it as a proof text for Jesus's choice to make Peter a pope.
@@blusheep2 *_I think you make some good points._*
Thanks for the reply.
*_There could be a host of reasons. It could be that Jesus was just making a point to Peter._*
Actually, I think Jesus was making a point to Peter. Wanted to point out that this is just a video of a quick response to the verse. Joe goes into far more detail in his book with an entire chapter dedicated to the passage. You might want to get the book and read it. I thought it was enlightening. He goes into the meaning of the Greek words in the text that aren't translated well into English which give a deeper meaning to the verse. As well as to why Jesus stated Him and Peter are exempt from paying the tax pointing us to the OT which points out that only the Levitical priests were exempt from paying the tax.
Is there a different point you think Jesus is trying to make here? And how do you come to that conclusion?
*_It could be that the others had already paid their taxes and Jesus was aware that Peter was the only one left to do so_*
The only problem I can see with this line of thinking is we are told that Judas carried the money purse
John 12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.
So it's highly unlikely each disciple would have paid their own tax, most likely Judas would have paid for all 13.
Honestly, from what we know of the other scriptures the fact they only asked about Jesus tells us they were trying once again get Jesus on something and didn't really care about whether or not the disciples paid. Notice they didn't even ask Peter to pay when they approached him. There's definitly a deeper meaning going on here.
*_Peter did seem to be separated from the others when approached by the tax men_*
This is possible but it doesn't seem that way from the verse. It says "After THEY had arrived". Sure it is possible Peter might have been alone but it sure seems to me the other disciples were in a group at the time.
*_Maybe they were grabbing people as they headed toward the building. Peter coming late hadn't been hit up yet. Do you see what I mean._*
Not really because nowhere does it say Peter went into the building it actually says they approached Peter. It is more likely he was in the street. Also wanted to point out that it actually says Peter went home after this and spoke with Jesus.
*_There really isn't enough information in the story to use it as a proof text for Jesus's choice to make Peter a pope._*
Just wanted to point out that this isn't a proof text that Jesus made Peter the leader of the Apostles. This is more useful as evidence of the bond between Jesus and Peter.
I honestly was never taught that there is any one proof text making this claim. Even Matthew 16 isn't meant to stand on it's own. It's the overwhelming evidence pointing to Peter that all comes together to show us that he was appointed the leader by Jesus.
The primacy of Peter in the leadership of the Church was:
1. foreshadowed in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-24.
2. promised by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:15-19.
3. prayed for by Jesus Christ in Luke 22:31-32.
4. counseled by Jesus Christ in Luke 12:41-46.
4. confirmed by Jesus Christ in John 21:15-17.
5. lived out by Peter in the chapters 1 thru 12 and 15 in the Acts of the Apostles where he is involved in all the Church's important "firsts"
6. pointed out in the list of apostles in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, and Act 1:13, where Peter's name is listed first among the apostles.
7. Peter's name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).
The list really goes on and on, but there is one that opened my eyes the widest, but it is long. If you are interested I'll share it.
God Bless
@@Matt-1926 I guess I would have to read his book to see how he makes some of these connections. I don't see myself doing this for some time unless the subject becomes more interesting to me then it currently is. Right now I am reading a book by the NT scholar Walton, I have 3 of Dostoevsky's books waiting after that. I'm also reading the Book of Mormon, the Quran, less so 1 Maccabbees and I've begun to read the early church fathers. Lots of reading in front of me.
I'd be curious why he believes that the Greek enlightens us on the verse as well as why he tries to connect it to the Levitical Priesthood. The scripture does connect the church with the old Levitical Priesthood but not through Peter. In Hebrews it is Jesus that is our high Priest and Peter himself tells us: You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9). The idea being that we are now the temple of God. We are sacred space, and we are told to carry that sacred space to the world. We are the ones that minister the gospel to world as we go out and make disciples of all men. We are the priests.
I guess its possible that Judas would have paid for all the apostles which would have included Peter. Judas, on the other hand, hoarded his money and ultimately betrayed Jesus for money. He might not of paid anymore then he absolutely had to, but its not a bad argument against my suggestion.
_As well as to why Jesus stated Him and Peter are exempt from paying the tax pointing us to the OT_
I do have to take issue with this statement though because the verse doesn't say Peter was exempt. When Peter came in to collect the Jesus's tax, Jesus asks him about the sons of kings and if they pay the tax or if the common folk do. That is all about Jesus being the Son of God. Jesus, being the Son of God and sinless has no obligation to pay the tax. Remember the New Covenant had not yet come. Jesus had yet to die on the cross and rise again, ushering in the New Covenant. They were still under the Old Covenant and the only one that could be exempt for that tax would be someone like Jesus.
_This is possible but it doesn't seem that way from the verse. It says "After THEY had arrived". Sure it is possible Peter might have been alone but it sure seems to me the other disciples were in a group at the time._
This was interesting because I went back and reread the verse and realized, I likely got it backwards. The part that confused me was the fact that if Jesus was with the others and the others paid their taxes how could Jesus have been singled out. Would the revenue men count the shekels and say, "hey you gave us 12 half shekels but there are 13?" Something about that did seem off to me. After reading it, I think I understand.
It wasn't that Peter was away from the group, as you have said. Its that Jesus was away from the group. The group is with the tax men and Jesus walks off to the house, which elicits the question from the tax men about their teacher not paying the tax. The crux to this scenario, though is that it says that Jesus approached Peter "first." I was first thinking that Peter being asked this question ran off to Jesus to ask Him about it, but "first" would suggest that as Peter went to the house, so did the others, so that Jesus had to pick him out of a crowd to speak to him specifically.
I do love Greek though. I looked up a few of the words in Greek, since you had said earlier that the Greek might shed some light and what I found is that "first" in Greek doesn't mean first as in a line. It means, "to come before, to anticipate." So it means that Jesus came before Peter in anticipation. This of course makes sense when one reads what Jesus said. It totally, carries the meaning that Jesus spoke before Peter could speak.
Anyway, that actually preserves my suggestion. The group is approached to the revenue men for taxes but Jesus walks off. This elicits the question to Peter and Peter runs off to ask Jesus about it. He doesn't go with the group and Jesus anticipating the question pays for the taxes with the fish. He only pays for Peter because the rest are in the town and already making their payment.
The question only remains if Judas would have paid the tax in bulk or if he would hand out a half shekel to each of the apostles as they stood in line to have their names recorded.
_Also wanted to point out that it actually says Peter went home after this and spoke with Jesus._
I'm not contesting this point, but where does it say that? I've scanned through the next chapter and don't see this. In the story Jesus is in a house. Peter's mother's house is in capernaum and you can visit it today. It would be my guess that this is where they were meeting. I visited Capernaum last April and the house isn't more then a 100' or so from the water.
@@Matt-1926Lol, I accidentally hit the reply button before I was finished reading everything you wrote.
_Just wanted to point out that this isn't a proof text that Jesus made Peter the leader of the Apostles_
Yes, I understand that. The question is if it can even be used at all.
_This is more useful as evidence of the bond between Jesus and Peter._
It does that much better then the Pope thing.
_Even Matthew 16 isn't meant to stand on it's own._
But everyone rests their hat on it. Could the suggestion that Peter was chosen as first Pope even be made without this verse?
1. Isaiah 22:15-24: I can see why someone might make the connection but why would this be a prophecy of Peter and not Jesus. Jesus is said to hold the key of David in Revelation 3:7, Jesus is the throne of honor to his fathers house?
2. Maybe. There are questions about this verse and the church fathers lean away from this interpretation.
3. Peter is prayed for right before He denies Jesus three times. I'm not sure how this supports his authority.
4. One of the things I like about Peter is that he seems to be the inquisitive one. Hes the one always asking the deep questions. He wants to learn. He also knows his faults and really wants to serve Jesus, in spite of them. I think this is one of the reasons he gets so much attention in scripture. Nonetheless, the more I have been talking about this lately, the more I am convinced that there was something special about Peter. Mark was written as a recording of the stories Peter was telling, so we expect to find Peter prominant in that Gospel, but he also is very prominent in the other gospels written by other apostles. He is also the focus of Acts until Paul comes around and it switches to Him. In the letters, Paul is dominant and Peter writes little but that might be because Peter needed scribes to write for him and was therefore likely illiterate. You wouldn't expect someone that is illiterate to write much.
5. In Acts the power of the Jerusalem church appears to be shared and in the few verses we have on the matter, James seems dominant.
6. Maybe.
7. Ok.
If I was going to argue for Peter, I would say this.
#7. Peter is a central figure in gospels evidenced by him being referenced 170 times compared with 130 for the rest combined.
#2. In Matthew 16, it appears that Jesus is singling out Peter with a special call.
#3. To a lesser extent the fact that Peter is mentioned first in the list of apostles might be messaging by the authors.
#4. To an even lesser extent, Isaiah "may" be foreshadowing Peter, though it maybe foreshadowing Christ.
I would leave the others out because praying for someone before they fall or talking with someone specifically or paying the tax for someone says nothing about who they will become in the later church.
I think a better argument for #3, where Jesus prays for Peter, would be to ask the question why Satan was trying to sift Peter and no another apostle or all of the apostles. That is more interesting then the fact that Jesus was being protected by Christ.
As I've been studying this in more depth recently, I am moving in the direction that Peter was a powerful tool for Christ in His church. As a Protestant, we don't talk about Peter much and thats probably because we fear sounding like Catholics, lol. As a Protestant, I don't have a problem with Peter being chosen to be the head of the original church though I don't think that is what happened in history. My issue with the idea, is how that is extrapolated to mean that all the Popes have the same authority and hold the same keys, and are infallible, etc.
I have not heard all the arguments for Peter and so I would like to. So, if you have a longer argument for the Papacy then I would love to hear it so I can evaluate all arguments for it.
The catholic argument for "Peter is pope" is so weak.
It certainly appears that Peter was the spokesperson, perhaps even the "leader" of the Apostles.
That in no way equates to Peter being appointed to a position that is never otherwise mentioned in scripture.
Such an important position, to be God's appointed infallible representative on earth with the role of leading and correcting God's Church on earth until such time as The Lord returns.
Yet that position is never alluded to by God in the OT and likewise, never alluded to by Jesus in the NT.
Maybe they just forgot!
How many other popes did Jesus allegedly appoint?
I think you are misunderstanding the teaching. Jesus appointed a man to an office. Jesus appointed Peter to the office of His prime minister. The job of the prime minister in the book of Kings was to lead in the absence of the King. Well at the present time until the second coming the King Jesus is physically absent from the earth. Also, if you read the Kings it tells us that the office stands and when the office holder dies he is replaced.
So Jesus appointed and office with the full intention that it would always have an office holder.
Hope this helps,
God Bless
what @matt1926 said, **PLUS** before Peter was appointed, Jesus told the people they must **STILL** listen to those in the seat, even though MOSES had DIED centuries earlier **AND** even despite their personal corruption!! Jesus established A **NEW** covenant therefore, like his forefathers Jacob and Joshua 'poured oil over a witness **STONE** , the Living Stone of Peter for the Living New Covenant! Totally scriptural and Jesus **FULFILLED** EVERY WORD of OT !!!!
@@Matt-1926 well that is his view, as the questioner states it’s not shared by those outside the Roman Catholic Church.
You’re kind of sidestepping my question which is essentially where is the support in scripture for Apostolic Succession. Even if Jesus appointed Peter as Pope, he didn’t appoint the next one or today’s.
@@jaybee1570 Thanks for the response.
*_well that is his view, as the questioner states it’s not shared by those outside the Roman Catholic Church._*
OK fair enough. Not seeing how this is really evidence of anything though? Is the fact that it is not being shared outside of Catholic belief somehow how evidence?
Couldn't we use this line of thinking for objecting to anything taught in Christianity that isn't shared within every single aspect of all Christian circles?
My first thought on that would be the atheists would have a field day with that one.
*_You’re kind of sidestepping my question which is essentially where is the support in scripture for Apostolic Succession._*
I do apologize, I did not realize that this is the question you were asking.
I think the best Biblical evidence for Apostolic secession comes from
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Here Paul is instructing Timothy that it is his duty to entrust the teachings of the faith to faithful men who will be able to teach others all that Paul taught him. Nowhere does Paul ever teach that anyone can pick up a Bible and proclaim they have the authority to teach.
Here we see that Paul (an apostle) is making Timothy his successor with the authority to teach. We also see that Paul gives Timothy the authority to choose faithful men and give them the authority to teach all that Paul taught Timothy.
Finally, it is only logical that one of the things Timothy would have taught these faithful men is 2 Timothy 2. Which means Timothy would have instructed these men, appointed by him, to go out and appoint other men.
Maybe you read this verse differently but I honestly can't see anyway around Paul teaching Apostolic succession/authority to teach here.
Other verses of scripture are:
Acts 1:20-26, where we see the apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s suicide. Showing the Peter, guided by the holy spirit, stated "His office let another take". That was my point in the first reply. The Bible calls their position an office that remains filled.
2 Timothy 1:6 and 1Timothy 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands, meaning it's not something one can self appoint themselves to.
Another good one is 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others.
In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.
*_Even if Jesus appointed Peter as Pope, he didn’t appoint the next one or today’s._*
Well like I said Jesus appointed an office which He fully intended to remain filled. Just honestly think and pray about Jesus words....
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Notice Jesus commands the Apostles to make disciples by teaching ALL nations. Well Jesus knew how many nations there are and knew full well no one would be getting to America until the 1500's. So if he wasn't talking through the Apostles to the next ones, who will be taking their places, then who the heck was He talking to that is still alive today and made it to all the nations?
Also notice Jesus said I am with you to the close of the age. Jesus is talking about the second coming here. If Jesus is going to be with those whom He commanded to teach all nations until the close of the age then where are these people Jesus is speaking of here, since you claim it is not the successors of the Apostles?
Sure you might not agree as most protestants don't. But how is your disagreement in interpretation evidence that we are wrong?
I would be interested in hearing how you guys interpret these verses because I honestly can't see how you can get around Apostolic succession, both logically and Biblically.
God Bless
Curiously, the image of the fish represented the primitive Christians!
Peter was a great Apostle and had a great deal to teach us, however even Peter himself stated if you want deeper understandings of doctrine you need to get the Pauline epistles. Paul was by far the most intelligent, most prepared individual for the ministry of all the Apostles. It was Paul that opposed Peter to his face when he started becoming legalistic, conforming to the whims of the Jews. Peter was also wrong when he suggested they cast lots to replace Judas with Mathias. You never heard of that man again. It was Jesus alone that selects Apostles. The Rock has always been Jesus Christ. Not Peter.
Wrong on replacing Judas?
Where's that in Scripture.
Also being rebuked isn't an indictment
@@iggyantioch you should become more familiar with your Bible. You find this in acts 1:26. The lot cast fell to Matthias. You never hear from this man again. Jesus alone selects an Apostle. Just as Jesus is the rock the church is built upon. Not Peter. You should take a close look at Revelation. In chapter 17. It gives a detailed description of what awaits Rome ( the city sitting on 7 hills) drunk on the blood of the saints. Rome is guilty of at least 9 million murders ,starting from 400ad to this very day. Did you ever wonder why so many people fled Europe seeking religious freedom? I can assure you Rome hates our constitutional republic. It protects us from religious tyranny.
@@jeffmusselwhite9631
Oh I see
Dave Hunt enthusiast
Conspiracy.
Still waiting on scripture proof of The error of Mathias
Oh and get your hills right.
Those hills are not where the Vatican is located Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.
Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about-pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well as, or better than, Rome during the Christian centuries.
Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City-the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered-and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.
Wishful thinking 🤔
@@jeffmusselwhite9631 Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city “known as Babylon.” This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is “Babylon the Great.”
The phrase “Babylon the great” (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as “the great city” seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to “the great city.” That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses “will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified [emphasis added].”
“The great city” is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called “Sodom” in the Old Testament (see Isa. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1-3, 46-56). We also know Jerusalem is the “the great city” of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was “where [the] Lord was crucified.”
Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one “great city” (“the great city”), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts-Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.
Wow, I never saw it that way!
Peter was married. So, why can't Pope's marry if your "first pope" had a wife?
Matthew 8:14, "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever."
The apostle Paul (who increased in notoriety in the latter part of Acts as Peter diminished, and wrote more scripture than any other apostle) defines forbidding to marry as a doctrine of devils,
1 Timothy 4:1-5, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
The CC is sex obsessed.
I'm not sure association's are a good way to argue, all the more when crossing from different Gospels. That's how Protestants see Jesus 'I Am' statements in the Gospel of John and conclude Bread of Life is symbolic since Door, Living Water, Good Shepherd etc are symbolic.
I think a better explanation why Jesus only paid for himself and Peter is because of Exodus 30:14-15. Only Jews 20 years and above were required to pay tax.
*_I think a better explanation why Jesus only paid for himself and Peter is because of Exodus 30:14-15. Only Jews 20 years and above were required to pay tax._*
But how do you know everyone but Peter was a teenager?
The fact that we know Matthew was already a tax collector when he was called makes it highly unlikely he would have been under 20.
You don't honestly believe they had the guy who was to young to pay taxes actually being the one to collect the taxes do you?
Just food for thought,
God Bless
"Only Jews 20 years and above were required to pay tax" which insinuates that the apostles were all under age 20 except for Peter. That right there is eisegesis and not supported by Scripture or tradition.
@@Ronny423 did you read my exodus reference?
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn we are not arguing about Peter's unique role but about using this text to support.
Conversely, Protestants amass lots of references about God as a Rock in their attempt to debunk Peter as the Rock. It's silly and not respecting the context of Matt 16:18-19. Similarly we shouldn't employ this kind of argument
@@Matt-1926 We cannot read our modern context that we begin working only when we 20 something. Remember they got married as teenagers.
We also make that kind of inferences eg when Jesus gives the Blessed Mother to the Beloved disciple, we infer that Jesus didn't have any other siblings.
It makes a lot of sense in a Middle Eastern-Asian society that respects age that Peter was slightly older than the rest, hence his leadership
Pardon! Mais, il me semble qu’on s’écarte du texte biblique! Il est question de l’impôt du Temple : « ton maître paie-t-il les didrachmes?- si! » on est à Capharnaüm, non à Rome. Bon à savoir, le Fils , fils de Dieu, comme un fils de roi, ne paie pas d’impôts, à plus forte raison celui de Temple, puisque le Temple Lui appartient ! Mais Il paie l’impôt pour Lui et Pierre, les 4 drachmes de la bouche du poisson! Pour ne pas scandaliser. Note de la Bible orthodoxe pour l’étude. Mais, je retiens l’amitié du Christ pour son disciple Pierre.
huhu is there a free copy of "pope peter" online?
No but if you call into catholic answers the next time Joe is on and ask a question about Peter being the Pope I bet there is an almost 100% chance Cy will send you the book for free.
God Bless
John Calvin isn't the greatest example of a protestant even though calvanism has spread like a virus. Your interpretation is a stretch. His word states that the Holy Spirit will teach us all we need and that Jesus dwells in the heart and minds of His followers. Peter denied christ 3 times whereas John and Mary stayed. Yes Peter was the first and deemed the rock but catholicism puts too much emphasis on works, man's interpretation, and sacraments to keep them "Holy and pure." Both calvanism and catholicism promote living in sin because we just can't help it... just confess to another man, go through the motions and you're saved. The theology of evangelism or holiness, is exactly that. Biblical through and through with the emphasis being in Christ and his indwelling nature that resides in those that choose Him and walk with Him daily, not just on Sundays.
Sacraments are essential for receiving grace esp Baptism Jn 3:5 and Acts 2 38-39 and the real presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17. Generally, Protestantism does not have altars so no sacrificial worship as commanded by Jesus, therefore no “church” but more like a synagogue with prayer and teaching
@@geoffjs I don't live by a verse or two. I take the entire Bible into consideration, especially the words of Christ. He made it very clear, we can't earn grace for it is a gift from God. Communion is to remember Him and a metaphor for what He has done. Nowhere does it say that we must go through the religious motions in order to be saved! Works do not equal salvation. It is only by Faith that we can be pleasing to Him. Jesus called out the religious hypocrites and lukewarm Christians. The word of God says we cannot inherit the kingdom without holiness! Christ said be perfect as I am perfect. Perfected by His love and Grace (indwelling of Holy Spirit). So you all can put emphasis on works and sacraments but according to His word, it's about repentance. "If you choose to be my disciple, deny yourself, pickup your cross and follow me." Not, come to church on Sundays, go through the motions, receive the "sacraments," and be saved. I suggest reading the book of Luke and John. The people are what make a church not an "altar." You're also incorrect, Protestant churches do in fact have altars. Cherry picking a couple verses from Paul do not equal the gospel. The entire word of God must be read, digested, and applied. God made it clear that He wants a right relationship with us. In revelation, Christ rejected the religious hypocrites and they did all the things that you mention.... works!
The Pope of Antioch?
You know, the Bible mentions Peter's name 195 times compared to the nearest disciple John 29 times!! How is that not pointing to the important of Peter in Jesus's ministry on earth???😂😂😂
👍
If it was so important then how come
No single verse says peter is the pope
.papacy comes after 300Ad
We build on christ not peter
He never suffered crucified died buried rose again for anyone.
Rome is nowhere prophesied or stated as seat of xtianity
Is.he even infallible
We all represent christ on earth not pope for gods sake
Those are created by men
Constantine was first bishop hence pope of rome.
Muslims ask you where is a verse where jesus said i am god.....None...but you teach that jesus us god
Now where is that clear verse that peter was a pope and papacy is christs teaching.
Let us follow christ stop defending empty traditions which dont lead to life after here with christ
more vague references by the roman catholic church to peter being the first "pope". just like the rock that the church will be built on, actually in greek means part of the bedrock of the church. FACTS: 1. peter, himself said he was just another elder in the church. 2 peter was not the head of the church in jerusalem, james was. 3. there is no evidence peter was ever in rome. 4. there is no connection between peter, and the 1st roman catholic "pope", gregory 1 in the 6th century. the roman catholic church tried to splice the connection by the bishops of rome, but this does not hold up, because the bishops of rome had no real authority over any other bishops, and there is no clear evidence peter was ever in rome.
Its not that object to the papacy, nor do I deny that the catholic pope sits on the "seat of Cephas" just as the Pharisees did really sit on the "seat of Moses" and Jesus gave them real legitimate authority!!
But what I must OBJECT to is treating the words and traditions of the pope or council of bishops as EQUAL to the Word of God!
Just as in the example given to us, the traditions of the Pharisees were NOT equal to the Word of God! Despite sitting on the Seat of Moses!
Likewise, the traditions of the pope and the bishops do NOT equal the Word of God!
Now what about Peter? Cephas?
I do NOT deny that Peter was the rock of the church (although this commission had much more to do with Peter's revelation of Jesus' true identity as the Christ but I digress).
YES, even Peter the rock of the church denied Christ three times!
YES, even after receiving the Holy Spirit and YES even on matters of doctrines of the faith, Peter the rock fell into ERRORS and needed to be publically corrected by Paul!
God gave us these teachings for a reason.
YES even Paul's teachings were checked against Holy Scripture!
YES we are commanded to TEST every one and every teaching against the Word of God! Even ANGELS!!
So YES the pope sits on the seat of Cephas and the church has real authority.
But NO the pope is NOT INFALLIBLE! Only God is perfect and infallible! Only the Word of God is perfect and infallible!
Whoever claims to have speech equal to the Word of God in its perfect infallibility is a BLASPHEMER
No Catholic believes the Pope has equal speech to the Word of God. Papal Infallability is a narrow and negative gift. The last 200 years it has only been used 2 times.
Peter told his followers "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." The catholic cburch never listened to Peter. He was never a pope.
I am still not hearing how this legitimizes the papacy. It legitimizes the role and significance of Peter being the leader of the Apostles, if you interpret it like that, but not the papacy. Could it be another reference to give Cesar what is Cesar's? Mat 22:17. The same Hebrew word for the tax is used in Mat 17:24-27. So again, I do not see how this legitimizes the papacy.
It is just like Mat 16:18 "Upon this rock I will build my church." is what people point to, stating that upon Peter, Jesus will build his church. That is a bad misinterpretation as Peter's name translates to Stands on the Rock... So what rock ("petra" in Hebrew) is it? It is Peter(Simon)'s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, as evident by what Jesus said in Mat 16:17 "flesh or blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven."
Most Catholics who read the bible stop being Catholics
Sincerely,
Former Roman Catholic
*_I am still not hearing how this legitimizes the papacy._*
just wanted to point out that I don't believe this claim is being made. All Joe is presenting is one more verse as evidence here.
*_It legitimizes the role and significance of Peter being the leader of the Apostles, if you interpret it like that, but not the papacy._*
Just curious what's the difference between Peter being the leader and Peter being the Pope?
Pope is just a title that we use to signify Jesus' prime minister the visible leader until Jesus returns?
*_That is a bad misinterpretation as Peter's name translates to Stands on the Rock_*
I'll be honest I have never heard that interpretation before? Where did you get that from? The Greek word for stands is stah'-o which is nowhere to be found in the verse?
*_So what rock ("petra" in Hebrew) is it?_*
Petra is a Greek word, why are you pointing to the Hebrew? Also Jesus spoke Aramaic so He would have actually changed Simone's name to Cephas.
*_It is Peter(Simon)'s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, as evident by what Jesus said in Mat _**_16:17_**_ "flesh or blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven."_*
Actually we agree with this. We say it is both because you can't have one without the other.
*_Most Catholics who read the bible stop being Catholics_*
The more I read the more it makes me Catholic.
I'm talking to a guy right now that has to ignore so many of the Bible verses I ask him about that I'm pretty sure he is down to about 2 books of the New Testament.
Sure at the end of the day we might not agree on interpretation, but do you actually have any real evidence that proves the Catholic position wrong?
God Bless
Do you understand the significance of the words, “I give you the keys of the kingdom“? To any first century Jew, this would monumental.
In the Judaic kingdom, if a king was going to be away for a period of time, he gave the “keys of the kingdom” to his chosen steward. That meant that, until the King’s return, the steward was in charge of the kingdom.
Every first century Jew in earshot knew exactly how significant this was.
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn yes, very common among protestant: they read scripture through the lenses of modern America.
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Good metaphor 👍🏼
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Wow - That is a great argument! I had no idea how few days are recorded in the New Testament! Thank you so much for sharing your Cliff Notes analogy!!!
1st among equals is a special role.
Loads of self made words and rules in the catholic and orthodox organizations instead of understanding and doing exactly what the Bible says. The true believers in Christ are called The Body Of Christ which IS the only description in the Bible, with Lord Jesus as Head - not 'church', as church is originally a replacement word for an assembly of believers. But the word church had become a word for "original true (catholic) believers" and for an institute or organization called the catholic church, erected by….. I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the catholic church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Mark 6 : 3 "Is this not the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? And are not HIS SISTERS here with us?” Matthew 13 : 55-56 "Is this not the Carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And HIS BROTHERS JAMES, JOSES, SIMON, AND JUDAS? AND HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth - how can a sinful man be te replacer of Christ on earth? That is blasphemy ! Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine (306 - 337 AD) who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible in printed form to the common people: they were persecuted by Rome and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. The pope, cardinals and bishops wear a Mitre - which odd head dress comes from the old pagan Rome priests representing a FISH BEAK god (I suggest you search for that). Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
All the false religion and sect use the same way : take a verse out of context and make a doctrine.
So much verses Can contredict this ! You need herméneutic
Matthew 17:24 talks about THEY. Namely, Jesus and his many apostles.
Verse 27:Take that and give it to them for me and you.”
The YOU is a plural. Meaning for all those present.
The very fact that Popes, Archbishops, Cardinals, Priests and other titular garbed individuals exist, proves that these religions have nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity.
Jesus forbade the appointment of such among his disciples.
(Matthew 23:8-10) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
I don't believe you are correct that "you" is plural. From Strongs: "the personal pronoun of the second person singular; thou". There are other spellings for the plural.
Why are you offended that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, gave him the keys, and the authority to bind and loosen.
@@blusheep2 : Yes! That could be the case. Because the question was "“Does YOUR TEACHER not pay the two drachmas tax?”
The apostles, being Jews would have paid it as was their custom.
Then Jesus asked Peter: "Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? " Verse 25.
Then Jesus asks Peter if taxes are taken from members of the King's family or others.
When 'Peter' said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free. Verse 26
The Temple was God's and Jesus was a member of God's family, he being a son.
Then Jesus said to Peter, find the coin and : "Take that and give it to them for me and you.” Verse 27.
It would seem that it was only Jesus and Peter who was alongside Jesus, who hadn't paid the tax.
My mistake. Sorry!
However using this incident to make some case for Peter being the Head of the Church is rather extreme and a groping in the dark.
Ephesians 5:23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CONGREGATION (aka the Church), he being a savior of this body.
@@georgepierson4920 : Why would I take offence about Jesus entrusting Peter with the keys to the Kingdom. The keys, three in number, were used by Peter to help Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles become members of the anointed Christian Congregation.
Peter never had any Head role within the Congregation.
Colossians 1:18 and 'Jesus' is the head of the body, the congregation (aka the Church).
@@blusheep2 I'll see your "you" and raise you one "u".
THE QUR'AN IS A CHRISTIAN TEXT AND JESUS IS MUHAMMAD AS MUHAMMAD IN THE QUR'AN BEING A EUPHEMISM FOR MESSIAH(CHRIST)HaMASHIAK.
The Qur'an properly read appears to be a Christian text calling for the return to the authority of the first apostolic Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-32 in rejection of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.
So the only way to pull the rug from under the obscurantists'feet even defeat Jihadism is to reject the categorization Christianity versus Islam and affirm instead Nazareans versus Islam. Nazarean being anybody following the teachings of Paul which of course permeate the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople.
Islam is a reaction to the West attempt to hijack Christianity or the Gospel and use it to overrun the globe.
And the Prince rejected by the Arabian builders became the cornerstone and this is the Lord doing !
More in:
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-30 and the partition of Christianity in two Apostolic Traditions: Circumcised(Muslims) vs. Uncircumcised(Paul's Nazareans or Catholics...
If you ask me, you suggestions are a bit 'fishy'.
Great.
Stop misrepresenting Scripture! Re-read John; the net was dragged to shore by the boat; Peter didn't "singlehandedly" drag the net in or even go back out to help! That is NOT exegesis! The way you interpolate & twist the text to support your dogma is truly amazing & offensive to us who take Bible seriously. 🤨
These guys must have aced their creative writing class with this style of eisegesis but fail at exegesis. It is crafty to insert so much into a written account that is just not there and then try to convince someone that there is an unbroken line of succession that somehow props up the claims but don’t look at the clear revelation in scripture to find understanding.
Galatians 1:6-12 CSB
[6] I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - [7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!
LIke all other stretches.....this one fails to reach just as the others. Thats a high office to be strangely ambiguous about. It shouldn't be a puzzle. That is how eisegesis works out usually though. Gotta pound those puzzle pieces into place with a hammer to make them fit.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my This is a very nice list.
When it was time for me to take my lackluster minimal Christianity more seriously I first went to some Evangelical church since that is what my mother was. Than to some Orthodox churches and than finally the local Catholic churches.
I never really considered Protestant churches as an option. So it was between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I prayed to God for guidance. So I went to both Catholic and Orthodox churches for a while.
One day I went to an Orthodox church and the door was closed.
Whereas I could always walk into Catholic churches if I wanted to.
That and Fatima and that Orthodox like to talk about hierarchy and order and somehow always stop short in answering wher authority in Gods Church on earth lies.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my If you want to get technical we can go back to the beginning of the church . Let's see.....the lay people heard the apostles letters and scripture by word of mouth on The Lords Day. (Sunday) .....at the time of the reformation the RCC wasn't doing that....they forbade it, did everything in Latin except.for about 4 special messages a year. Learning the scriptures and faith in your own native tongue was revived (yes...revived) by John Wycliffe , Morning Star of the reformation. That was a protestant idea, the earliest church did not have icons or Venerate Saints or Mary (protestant again) , they confessed sins to each other and to the lord ( protestant practice still) , they did not partake in a system of paying for temporal punishment just like today's Protestants do not 🤔 hmmmmm....... i'm seeing a pattern here. I mean.....we rebelled against the clergy for being corrupt as hell, took the Bible from them translated it into almost every language on earth without their permission and paid for it on blood (fulfilling the great commission Command) and heavily evangelized the world with this. Do you have a Bible in your house? On your phone? Does it have chapters and verses? That is ALL of the Protestants! Weather you like it or not.....we are also the church. It is VERY obvious brother. Our history is the same.
Peter "the Pope"? uh sorry. fair question here.. how is Peter, a first century man, Jewish to boot, the leader of a gentile Roman religion that begins in the 4th century (325 ad/ce is the 4th century) at the council of Nicea? I was raised Catholic. There is far more about roman catholicism that isn't Biblically grounded than what is.
If you read Scripture it states that Paul had to correct Peter because it seems Peter was insisting that only Jews could convert to Christianity. So Peter was not a gentile Roman, he was in fact Jewish until his conversion. Scripture when listing the Apostles by name always list Peters name first, another way of demonstrating Peters precedence and demonstrates how the gospel authors held Peter in special esteem. Jesus telling Peter that he bequeathed authority to him is also another example of Peters exalted role in the church.
Christianity is a Gentile Roman religion that started in the 4th century? You were never a Catholic.
@@seamusweber8298 *_If you read Scripture it states that Paul had to correct Peter because it seems Peter was insisting that only Jews could convert to Christianity._*
Actually if you read Scripture you will see Peter actually at with the Gentiles it wasn't until certain men came from James that Peter drew back and separated himself.
Sure this was scandalous but the claim that it was because Peter was insisting that only Jews could convert is no where in the text.
Also wanted to point out that Paul did the very same thing that he accused Peter of doing, thus making himself a hypocrite.
Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
This happened one chapter after the council ruled that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. Paul (doing exactly what Peter did) feared what Jews would say that they were preaching to goes and cuts off poor Timothy's foreskin. OUCH.
All I am pointing out is no one is perfect. But to claim Paul rebuked Peter because he refused to allow Gentiles to convert is nonsense.
Hope this helps,
God Bless
Hello
Hi
That's not the right way to interpret this passage. You need mental gymnastics to make this passage fit a narrative that is not substantiated by the Bible.
@evanjatkinson, well, this passage it's obviously not known by being the pillar that establishes the papacy! Look, when all you can do is to speculate about the so called "special treatment " of Peter is a desperate way to substantiate this unbiblical position.
Peter spoke in tongues. Acts 2.
Does your Pope speak in tongues?
If Peter was the first Pope & he spoke in tongues.
How many Pope's do you know that spoke or speak in tongues.
If none, then I don't think Peter was a Pope.
It can't be in 2 milleniums not one Pope spoke in tongues.
Something wrong Somewhere.
tongues mean other languages, not mumbo jumbo like the modern montanists think. I am no papist but most popes have known and do know a ton of the most prominent languages of the world.
@@dlingfasin6826 Are you saying you can learn tongues from the Holy Spirit?
It is not tongues if you can speak the Language.
Yes it can help you edify the church if you can translate the spoken word for the church.
But to say you speak in tongues cause you know the language, ha, it's not from the Holy Spirit.
That's like saying I speak in tongues as in Hebrew Jehovah Shalom is God our Peace. 🙄🙏
@@tknciliba4743 i want you to realise that the new testament wasnt originally written in english but in greek. The greek word for tounges is the same word and has the same meaning as ''languages'' when we use it in modern english. It doesnt mean that they spoke in these ''tounges'' modern montanists do.
In acts we see the apostles talking in these LANGUAGES and the people from different countries and cultures understood them.
@@dlingfasin6826 Please have some Coffee. I totally agree that tongues are languages.
Tongues from the Holy Spirit is something you do not understand on your own knowledge, not studied. But you speak it.
Acts 20_day of Pentecost.
I totally agree with you there are tongues of man & tongues of Spirit.
I am talking about the tongues of the Spirit.
I know someone who had a private audience with Pope John Paul II, and in prayer, he overheard him praying in tongues, though quietly, since others were in the room.
I don't understand how we get from "pay for both of us" to "Peter is the Pope and the Bishops of Rome will inherit his authority."
Alone, perhaps not. But with all the other verses, that point to Peter as the head of the apostles, it merely reinforces the historical Christian claim.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra That still doesn't answer a single thing about how we get to the idea of the Bishops of Rome inheriting his authority. I'm constantly having Catholics send me "evidence" and it's always super weak stuff like "Ignatius was very complimentary of the Roman church in his epistle to them, that means that the Roman bishop is in charge of the Church somehow. Nevermind any questions about why a guy from Antioch is giving instructions to Rome instead of just letting the Pope handle it."
@@chrisdoe2659 I suppose part of it is common sense: immediately, after the death of Peter, the apostle, we have an unbroken line of popes to this very day. As a pope is a head bishop of all the bishop, we similarly have an unbroken line of Bishop traced all the way back to the apostles.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra Why do you suppose that most scholars disagree with the idea of an unbroken line of Popes in the ante-nicene period and instead think that Rome was run by a council of presbyters after Peter's death?
Desperate times call for desperate measures I believe is apt.
Keep working on justifying the pope.
Grammatically this one verse you talk about does not support the papacy at all. It supports His confession.
The key aspect of the coin story is not about Peter (or the other 11), but about Jesus. It aligns with the Parables of the Kingdom, and is about the Kingdom's provision for those that take refuge under the fruit of the seed that's planted.
Even as allegory, that's desperately strained
Now, that’s truly a stretch!
None of the passages mentioned supports the papacy. That is totally reading into the texts what is not there. All of the texts mentioned, centered around the house of Israel at the time, not Gentiles. Gentiles did not come on the scene until 3.5 years after Jesus death, with the Cornelius household. Peter only shared the gospel with the Cornelius household, then Paul took it from there as far as sharing the gospel with the Gentiles. Peter was still only an apostle to the Jews, or circumcised, Galatians 2:7. He was one of the 12 to judge the 12 tribes of Israel, Matthew 19. This idea of him being a pope, does not fit the biblical narrative at all.
@@chezjowy8596 Here we go again, another baseless comment. I don't belong to a denomination. The tax that was being talked about here, was a religious tax for the temple. It was a tax equivalent to two days of wages. The one who asked if they pay the tax, made a connection between Peter and Jesus. But Peter and Jesus were not walking together, since Peter answered when they asked about their teacher also paying the tax. When they arrived in the house, Jesus knew Peters thoughts. The purpose of the coin was not to offend them, if they don't pay even though they were exempt. Peter was also the oldest, so it would make sense they would ask him instead of the other apostles. I do consider Peter to be chief of the apostles btw, but he never was a pope, this was not the role given to Peter by Jesus. He was an apostle to the Jews, and an elder. Never a bishop, nor pope, let alone even stepped foot in Rome as a pope.
@@chezjowy8596 I simply pointed out what was going on in the passage. The passage says nothing about papacy, nor infallibility, nor succession. Simply pointing out what is going on in the passage, is not weak, it is simply pointing out what went on. Lol.
@@soteriology400 St. Peter died in Rome...where he was crucified upside down. Nails in his feet driven so tight they had to cut them off to get his body down! Interesting note, just lately his tomb was opened and they found his bones had ossified turning to STONE...backing up the name Jesus gave him! I do not know of any King in any kingdom who does the day to day work; he has a Prime Minister (or some such position) to do that! That is what the Pope does! The position tracks back to Eliakim in the OT who carried the keys of the kingdom--the prime minister- just as Peter does. Hope this helps.....God bless
@@soteriology400
The English word "bishop" is translated from the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos). The noun ἐπίσκοπος literally means "one who watches over," an overseer. In the New Testament, the ἐπίσκοπος was essentially synonymous with the "elder," or Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros).
At 1peter 5:1 he says he is a fellow elder/bishop and "exhorts" other elders/bishops in the Christian communities to shepherd the flock of God as overseers, or taking oversight, v2
If "the church that is at Babylon" at 1 Peter 5:13 is Rome, which is highly likely, then you have Peter at the church that is at Rome claiming to be a πρεσβύτερος (elder) and therefore, a ἐπίσκοπος (bishop)
@@duhdims There are two different Greek words, one is translated as "overseer" which later was translated as "bishop" after there was no separation between the state and the church. There is another Greek word for elder. You are being dishonest when you blend the two together like that.
1 Peter 5:13 was not using apocalyptic literature nor was a metaphor being used (unlike revelation, John was using apocalyptic literature, which Babylon was the old Jerusalem, the harlot who committed spiritual fornification with their husband, Christ when they cried out "crucify Him, we have no king but Caesar!"). It was literally Babylon. There were two Babylon's on the map at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter to those 5 churches. Since he was an apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:7), he was actually writing to the Jewish Christians in those 5 churches or areas. They knew instantly which Babylon Peter was referring too (Peter did not need to state which Babylon, and only wrote the word "Babylon" as a way to protect them). They knew it wasn't the one in Iraq, due to their 70 year captivity in the past. They knew it was Egypt, and Egypt to the Jewish people at the time (Matthew 2) was considered the safe place at the time. Peter was referring to Babylon Egypt. Egypt spoke Aramaic at the time, which is the common language Peter was familiar with. Rome spoke Greek and Latin, which languages Peter did not even know since he was uneducated (Acts 4:13). Peter wrote to them they were scattered (scattered from Jerusalem, whom were the stick of Joseph, Hellenized Jews). This was a subtle way of telling them, it was time for their gathering (Peter wrote this immediately after the lawless one was revealed, per 2 Thessalonians 2, August 14, AD66 was the day the lawless one was revealed). The reason why Peter could not spell it out, was due to the fact they had to leave quietly for their gathering, so the Gentiles would not follow them with the Neronic persecution that was going on at the time. So where were they to go? Where Peter was, in Babylon Egypt. When you look at the topography of Babylon Egypt, the logistics were perfect. It had many water channels funneling to Babylon Egypt, where Peter was. If you look at the most western water channel, this is where Mark was, whom Peter mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13. This was a strategic spot by Mark, since this particular water channel would have been the safest water channel, since it was the furthest away from the Roman navy. Peter would have escorted them to Petra, not Pella (this was a lie, by Eusebius, all to make it appear more believable Peter was in Rome, making it appear John 21 no longer applied, Peter feeding the house of Israel, in Jerusalem). When looking at the topography, we see the earth split per revelation 12, just south west of Petra), When looking at Pella, we do not see the split, nor does Pella have a history of flooding, Petra does). So when the stick of Judah fled the temple (on the afternoon of April 10, AD70), they went to Petra, not Pella. It would make no sense for them to flee to another dangerous area out of another, since the Roman Army traveled through Pella, and besides, it was burned down in AD66 by the Roman army). This was all a lie by Eusebius to centralize power around Rome, the claim Peter was in Rome. The Basilica was built to fool people, who are not familiar enough with their bibles (authors intent, many know scripture, but not with authors intent). Eusebius was not able to modify scripture, because there were too many copies around the known world at the time. But he was able to destroy, modify and rewrite church history (to again, centralize power around Rome). This is partly why Constantine liked Eusebius so much. If one was to do this today, it would be too difficult to get away with it and pretty much impossible.
Jesus was unconcerned with taxes until Peter showed how bothered he was with it. HE relieved Peter s conscience when he did not take the ministry funds but relieved Peter s conscience with the money from the fish. Scripture is clear that we should obey the law and pray for our leaders in government. I Timothy 2:1-3
You should read and study your bible. Believers in Christ, are no more under the law. For Christ is the end of the law for those who believe. Romans 10:4 And nobody will be saved by the works of the law. Galatians 2:16
@@donaldgodin3491 thank you, I do and have for 40 years but not too proud to admit I haven’t finished learning through the Holy Spirit. Salvation is through faith alone in Jesus Christ and by repentance and acceptance of the blood He shed to cover my sins.
@@deborahcarter3300 Read Paul's gospel, by which we are saved, and there is no repentance mentioned. See 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. See John 3:16 also. No repentance mentioned. Also, Romans 10: 9,10. no repentance. Ephesians 2:8,9...no repentance mentioned.
Salvation is by grace through faith alone.
@donaldgodin3491 there are so many times in the Old Testament of the Hebrews repentance causing God to turn His face back to them and bringing deliverance.
Roman's 6:2 says "so shall we continue in sin that grace my abound?" To which Paul says "God forbid"
Luke 24:7 says, "and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations beginning in Jerusalem'
Acts 17:30-31 God now commands all men everywhere to repent because He has appointed a day on which HE will judge the world"
To repent is to turn around, turn away from sin and turn to the Lord
@@deborahcarter3300 We are not under the Old Covenant. We are under a new Covenant. Romans 6;2 does not says we will stop to sin! It says that we should not sin because we are under grace! It's not the same thing at all
To repent means a change of mind. It does not mean to stop to sin. For example, do you know that God Himself repented, in the Old Testament? Exodus 32:14
Do you think that God had commit sins? Surely not! God changed His mind about the evil he had planned to do to His people.
Nobody can turn away from sin. We will always sin in this body. That's why Christ died for all our sins; past, present, and future. About this, apostle Paul wrote in Romans 7:19-21, and I quote:
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
So, that idea of turning away (repent)from sin by our own power, is not biblical by any means.