Hello all was a respectful discussion debate from a live open mic debate challenge to refute Sola Scriptura in which a Roman Catholic joined my live open mic stream challenge stream attempting to prove Peter as the first Pope and Peter's Papal supremacy authority over the Christian Church. The Bible does not teach Peter was the first Pope or Peter has the supremacy Papal authority over the Christian Church in leadership. What do you guys think? Where does the Bible teach Peter is the first Pope in authority in leadership over the Christian Church? Does this refute Sola Scriptura? Share your thoughts. PLEASE LIKE THIS VIDEO, SUBSCRIBE, AND SHARE COMMENTS BELOW. Thank you for watching, Lord bless. Kelly
Make sure you fully explain any verses you drop; you are running too soon. Also, when you teach, watch how you treat others. You have been less than cordial and are moving away from the purpose of a teacher.
Peter doesn’t consider himself over the other apostles ( I pet 5:1) “Peter says “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: He considers himself an elder among the other elders.
St. Peter was humble, certainly. He wouldn’t let Cornelius worship him (Acts 10). He opened the decision-making in the Apostle Council in Acts 15, but let St. James finish it. But, Lord Jesus wanted St. Peter to lead His Church (Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17). Please realize though that the RCC doesn’t “own” St. Peter. Their Scriptural problem is NOT that St. Peter held primacy (because he did), but that nowhere does it explicitly stare he could transfer this primacy to another individual.
@@donthephoneman7084 Peter being humble does not mean he was not entrusted to feed and to tend the sheep. Jesus also asked him to strengthen his brothers, the other apostles.
@@justthink8952 This still doesn’t say Peter had authority over the other apostles. For example Paul had to publicly rebuke Peter Gal 2:11-13 “But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy..
As an exmuslim - I keep seeing Catholics attempting to stretch verses beyond their intended meaning. It reminds me of lots of discussions between muslim sects.
Matthew 17:24-27, the temple tax was a customary levy paid by adult Jewish males for the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was generally expected that every adult Jewish male, including religious teachers and their disciples, would pay this tax. When the tax collectors approached Peter, they questioned whether Jesus, as a religious teacher, would pay the tax, implying that this was a matter of obligation and respect for religious authority.Context on Teachers Paying the Tax:Religious Obligation: The payment of the temple tax was seen as a duty for all Jewish men, including religious teachers, which underscored their participation in the religious and communal life of Israel.Jesus’ Teaching Moment: Jesus uses this situation to teach Peter about the distinction between earthly and divine authority, explaining that as the Son of God, He is technically exempt from the tax, just as royal children are exempt from taxes in their own kingdom. However, to avoid causing unnecessary offense, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the tax for both of them.Supporting Peter as the Leader:Delegation and Responsibility: By instructing Peter to handle the payment of the tax, Jesus is entrusting Peter with a responsibility that signifies leadership. Peter's actions on behalf of both Jesus and himself symbolize his role as a representative of the group, foreshadowing his future leadership of the apostles.Miraculous Provision: The miracle of the coin found in the fish’s mouth further solidifies Peter’s connection with Jesus’ divine mission. This miracle underscores Peter’s unique role among the disciples, as he is directly involved in this display of divine power.Affirmation of Authority: This event highlights Peter’s growing authority and his close association with Jesus. Jesus’s decision to involve Peter in the payment of the tax subtly affirms Peter’s position as the one who would later lead the apostles, as seen in other passages where Peter is often singled out or given special tasks by Jesus.
St John Chrysostom (c. 349-407 AD) (Right around the time the NT was canonized) Here a direct reference to the temple tax, in Homily 58 on Matthew, "For He (Jesus) saith, 'Lest we should offend them, go thou and pay the half-shekel.' For neither was it right to despise them that waited on the temple; neither again was it right to make a parade of the miracle. For He neither sent Judas who had the bag, nor did He bring out the money that was in it, but He sends forth the chief of the apostles." (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 58 on Matthew)
The evidence for the church, and the description, the duties, the signs, and the marks of the church all are detailed in the Scriptures. Thus the church itself is dependent upon the testimony of Scripture. This renders impossible Rome’s claim that the reliability of Scripture depends upon the testimony of the Roman church. If the Roman church is to be considered infallible, this claim can only be established by the testimony of the Scriptures, because it is the Scriptures which tell us about the church. Since Scripture does not support Rome’s claim of infallibility, the claim must be denied and rejected. They like to say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, by means of some Council. If that were true, then what were the N.T. Scriptures prior to that Council? Was the truth “not truth” before the Council? Was that which we now call “inspired” and “the written word of God” only rendered as such by the Council’s issuance of a formalized list of those books which the various churches had already received and were reading aloud? Did the Council have a “magic wand” to wave over some base, common books which had been bereft of authoritativeness, so as to transform them suddenly into authoritative Holy Scripture? From where could the Council even derive its authority to convene and discuss matters, if not from the Scripture? For it is in Scripture that we all read about the precedential example set by the Apostles at Jerusalem! If we are to believe the infallibility of the Scripture merely on the church’s authority, then that faith can be but a human faith, because it is founded on nothing better than the authority of men. Likewise, if we are to believe the infallibility of the church, then our faith in the church is a human faith founded upon mere human authority. When the Apostles spoke to people, they backed up what they were saying with Scripture. They always appealed to Scripture as their authority. When Peter got up to speak on the day of Pentecost he did not say, “You men of Judea and Jerusalem, I have been appointed pope of the church, and by the authority vested in me I tell you that you must join the Catholic Church.” No, instead Peter cited many O.T. Scriptures to show them their need to believe in Jesus as Messiah. He supported everything with Scripture. This is the example we should follow today.
This alone destroys Catholicism. Their congregation building church goes against scriptures. It is built on the solid rock of a man named Peter. This is from the direct doctrine of the catechism. If the building church is built on a man foundation; I think we have the right to get out of it. The scriptures say Humans who confess ( like Peter ) that Jesus is the son of the Living God & who are the stones ( like Peter) built upon the rock (Jesus); the gates of Hades shall not prevail. Further reading; We are the living stones built upon the cornerstone Jesus Christ. Further we are built on the foundation of the apostles( not just one apostle ) and prophets and Jesus Himself. Conclusion; 100% God did not built a building church or an institution and named it catholic. The scriptures are the real proof that shows Catholicism doctrines are a deception for the real church to follow. Shalom . The LORD be with all.
@@justthink8952 Let's just read the Scriptures as it is. Matthew 16:19 NASB2020 [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” What is this key ? It is the key of the kingdom of heaven. The scripture is very clear. It is not the key to a building institution called catholic. It is the key to the kingdom of heaven. And we can see in acts what exactly the key meant. Peter visited Cornelius. To open the kingdom of God to the gentiles. It is not an authority. Don't mistake the key for authority. When a servant has the key to my house ; does it mean He has authority over my house ? No. I just gave him access but the authority is still on me. It's my house. He used the key to clean my house; to keep things in order etc. That's all. So it's the kingdom of God. (Not some man made building institution).
@@justthink8952 We can discuss about it. Let's read the Scriptures together. Matthew 16:19 NASB2020 [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” What are these keys? ......of the kingdom of heaven. If you are referring to the keys for building a catholic building church then I think you are directly violating the word of God. It specifically mentioned keys to the kingdom of heaven. Is the catholic system the kingdom of heaven of God ? Or a men inventions?
The disciples are named in PAIRS in Mat 10, in chronological order. The kai(and) between "Andrew the brother of him" and "James(Jacob)" is a variation and is either a mistake in some ms or distinguishing the rest of the pairs from the first pair (such as First Simon AND Andrew and (then) James and John; Phillip and Bartholomew etc). There is no kai between the other pairs. Translations that place "and" between the pairs are incorrect, making it sound as if they are listed individually and not in pairs. The first Simon AND Andrew; (no "and" here, or implying "and then") James AND John; (no "and" here) Phillip AND Bartholomew; (no "and" here) etc Grammatically Simon and Andrew are equally protos (first), which means it is a chronological list and not a ranking.
What nonsense! First off, there is NO manuscript variability in Matthew 10:2. Secondly, the word και (“and”) IS used between ALL the other pairs, NOT just between Simon and Andrew, and James and John. Also, regarding it being chronological… we know from John’s Gospel, Andrew and (probably) John were the very first two disciples (John 1:40). Why is Andrew mentioned as Simon Peter’s brother, btw? Doesn’t that prove something special about Simon Peter? The next verse, Andrew finds his brother. The next verse, Lord Jesus (the “Rock” or PETRAS of 1 Corinthians 10:4) names Simon Peter (PETROS). We know from Matthew 16:18, the Church will be built on this PETRAS. And, Matthew 10:2 is obviously not the only verse that shows a distinction suggesting primacy to St. Peter. His name is used 155 times in the NT. His name is used way more than the names of ALL the other disciples combined. Post-Resurrection, the Angel tells the women to “tell his disciples AND Peter” to go to Galilee to see the risen Lord (Mark 16:7). Lord Jesus Himself gives St. Peter primacy over the other disciples (the “lambs”) and the members of the Church (the “sheep”) in John 21:15-17. But… why don’t we non-RCC Christians realize we don’t need to “throw St. Peter under the bus” because of our disagreements with certain men in Rome? The RCC doesn’t “own” St. Peter. Their Scriptural problem, as far as I can tell, is that nowhere is it taught that St. Peter could transfer his UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL role of authority over other members of the Church to a separate individual. THAT’S their problem. Let’s leave St. Peter out of it.
What some people don't consider, too, is that there are 2 apostles named Simon and 2 named James. If you have 2 friends with the same name, do you assign nicknames? I know my friends do. So, would it make sense to nickname them right? Simon Peter was the first called, so he's first. This list is essentially the order in which they were called - nothing else to read into it. And that's why the Magisterium fails as a source of truth in a lot of instances of doctrine and dogmas. Matthew 16:18 is another example of a passage read into far too much, to the point of mental gymnastics. Jesus wasn't appointing Simon Peter the pope there.
Matthew 17:24-27, the temple tax was a customary levy paid by adult Jewish males for the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was generally expected that every adult Jewish male, including religious teachers and their disciples, would pay this tax. When the tax collectors approached Peter, they questioned whether Jesus, as a religious teacher, would pay the tax, implying that this was a matter of obligation and respect for religious authority.Context on Teachers Paying the Tax:Religious Obligation: The payment of the temple tax was seen as a duty for all Jewish men, including religious teachers, which underscored their participation in the religious and communal life of Israel.Jesus’ Teaching Moment: Jesus uses this situation to teach Peter about the distinction between earthly and divine authority, explaining that as the Son of God, He is technically exempt from the tax, just as royal children are exempt from taxes in their own kingdom. However, to avoid causing unnecessary offense, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the tax for both of them.Supporting Peter as the Leader:Delegation and Responsibility: By instructing Peter to handle the payment of the tax, Jesus is entrusting Peter with a responsibility that signifies leadership. Peter's actions on behalf of both Jesus and himself symbolize his role as a representative of the group, foreshadowing his future leadership of the apostles.Miraculous Provision: The miracle of the coin found in the fish’s mouth further solidifies Peter’s connection with Jesus’ divine mission. This miracle underscores Peter’s unique role among the disciples, as he is directly involved in this display of divine power.Affirmation of Authority: This event highlights Peter’s growing authority and his close association with Jesus. Jesus’s decision to involve Peter in the payment of the tax subtly affirms Peter’s position as the one who would later lead the apostles, as seen in other passages where Peter is often singled out or given special tasks by Jesus.
@@AppalachianPaisano as usual such a superficial understanding and committing the typical protestant error applying our modem day context to scripture Try read early church
@@AppalachianPaisano You think Jesus renamed James and John to "Sons of Thunder" or was that a nickname? There are times in the bible when people are renamed or nicknamed. Interestingly, often a name change can be the opposite of someone's situation or personality trait. For instance, Abram the fatherless is renamed by God to Abraham, the father of a nation. Simon the Rock faltered in his faith when trying to walk on water. He also denied Christ 3 times. Hardly the actions of a rock. And, speaking of the Sons of Thunder, they were pretty silent - their mom had to take the initiative to ask on their behalf if they could be seated at Jesus' left and right in heaven's throne room. Simon the Rock and Simon the Zealot. They couldn't possibly have name descriptors to tell them apart from each other, could they? Come on now!
Will the president be considered no more as president if another member presided over a meeting? Certainly not. So, when James presided over the council of Jerusalem, it does not mean Peter's leadership was taken away. Whether Peter presided over a meeting or not, Peter was always the leader
If Kelly Powers is honest, he must first accept what the Gospels teach about Peter. The Gospels teach the primacy of Peter. It is from this primacy that gradually the notion of papacy arises. Don't look for papacy right in the Gospels which you will not find. But the primacy of Peter is right there which is the seed from which the office of the papacy developed. So Kelly Powers, if you are honest, you must judge the primacy of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and other letters of the New Testament in the light of the Gospels and not vice versa. The Gospels are damn clear about the primacy of Peter, and whether he exercised the same primacy in the rest of the New Testament is secondary for various reasons. It is possible that Paul had little understanding of the primacy of Peter as the Gospels were not yet written. In the Acts, till chapter 15, the primacy of Peter cannot be missed by an honest person. Luke concentrates on Paul in the second part of his Acts which does not mean that Peter lost his primacy.
Peter wasn’t even the principal leader of the church in Jerusalem. James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader in the book of Acts. In fact in Acts 16, James is the one that showed the authority to make the decision final to not burden the gentiles with circumcision and keeping the law of Moses. Peter and Paul stated their case and testified about how gentiles were being saved. James sided with them and made the final decision.
One thing catholic hold over us protestants is church history. They always point to it. To be fair, it's a an argument we as protestants have to deal with. Any chance you can go over this? Also, I bought Gavins new book about protestant in light of church history.
All 12 disciples became apostles, not popes. Peter was the spokeperson for the others. In acts 5,29 all 12 said 'we need to obey God rather than men'. In matthew 23,9 Jesus says to believers 'call no one father'.
Sola scriptura destroys itself. You don't need a Catholic to tell you that. But if you insist. Sola scriptura means that "scripture is the SOLE infallible rule of faith." Nothing, other than scripture, is infallible. Well, this presents quite a problem. What happens when two non-Catholics disagree on the interpretation of scripture? How do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to? One might argue that you could share secondary and tertiary passages of scripture to support your primary stance, but if they disagree on secondary and tertiary interpretations, you've now just made the problem worse. Next, you might appeal to a pastor, church elder, or council to rectify the issue. However, if you truly believe scripture is the SOLE infallible rule of faith, then any answers derived by the pastor, church elder, or council need to be considered fallible. And we are no closer to reconciling the issue. Basically, the self-defeating nature of sola scriptura can be captured in a single question: "What's the point in having an infallible book, if everyone who interprets it is going to do so fallibly?"
I believe what Kelly is doing is setting up a straw man argument, he wants somebody to find explicitly where it says Peter is the head of all the church. It doesn't necessarily follow that it has to be so explicit but it can be taught implicitly for instance John 20 the Lord told him to feed my lambs and feed my sheep, how many did he say? All of them. He also asked Peter do you love me more than these? he tells him 3 times to feed my lambs and feed my lambs sheep. In Acts 15 Peter takes a predominant role along with James . So what Kelly is doing is making a straw man argument like I said earlier you can say it in many ways it doesn't have to be explicitly. Matthew 16 is × ref with Isaiah 22. Kelly you really need to study
Hey brother Kelly. Not sure if this is of any important but I've found it interesting. The upcoming president of the community of christ (RLDS) is going to be a woman. Stassi Cramm is her name.
Matthew 17:24-27, the temple tax was a customary levy paid by adult Jewish males for the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was generally expected that every adult Jewish male, including religious teachers and their disciples, would pay this tax. When the tax collectors approached Peter, they questioned whether Jesus, as a religious teacher, would pay the tax, implying that this was a matter of obligation and respect for religious authority.Context on Teachers Paying the Tax:Religious Obligation: The payment of the temple tax was seen as a duty for all Jewish men, including religious teachers, which underscored their participation in the religious and communal life of Israel. Jesus’ Teaching Moment: Jesus uses this situation to teach Peter about the distinction between earthly and divine authority, explaining that as the Son of God, He is technically exempt from the tax, just as royal children are exempt from taxes in their own kingdom. However, to avoid causing unnecessary offense, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the tax for both of them.Supporting Peter as the Leader: Delegation and Responsibility: By instructing Peter to handle the payment of the tax, Jesus is entrusting Peter with a responsibility that signifies leadership. Peter's actions on behalf of both Jesus and himself symbolize his role as a representative of the group, foreshadowing his future leadership of the apostles.Miraculous Provision: The miracle of the coin found in the fish’s mouth further solidifies Peter’s connection with Jesus’ divine mission. This miracle underscores Peter’s unique role among the disciples, as he is directly involved in this display of divine power. Affirmation of Authority: This event highlights Peter’s growing authority and his close association with Jesus. Jesus’s decision to involve Peter in the payment of the tax subtly affirms Peter’s position as the one who would later lead the apostles, as seen in other passages where Peter is often singled out or given special tasks by Jesus.
So according to your logic Peter has authority over Jesus, and Judas can be considered the head of the church since he was put in a leadership position of finances. Nonsense
Seeing the Catholics respond is so interesting. Trying so hard to make certain verses say SOMETHING those verses DON’T. Yes Peter is called, a main leader, but NOT THEE leader in authority over the Christian church. I’m just amazed the lengths these Catholics go to to attempt to to defend the unbiblical teachings of Catholicism that Peter has papal supremacy authority over the church when this is NOT taught by Jesus or any of the apostles INCLUDING Peter!
Just out of curiosity, has your You Tube channel ever "converted" any RC to see the errors of their ways? I'm an ex-Catholic and have been debating these arrogant people for 45+ years in forums that preceded the internet to no vail. I finally have decided to stop debating and just chide them for their arrogance and stupidity. No sense for me to cast pearls before the swine and just keep them in those said pearls in their satchel until the time comes when those pearls will be used on the right person(s) and for the right purpose. Mormons and JW's are more receptive to the truth.
@@DashRiprock-m3b I have debated 13 Catholics and all have run away within four days. I may have gotten two of them to reconsider their life choices. Ultimately, we can't convert anyone; that is the office of the Holy Spirit. Chiding is a reflection of bad character so why would you do that? God will execute punishment on them on judgment day so they aren't getting away with anything.
@@nightshade99 Chiding is another way of laying on a guilt trip. Something the Catholics like to do ad nauseum, I know, my mom was the best at it. There's an old saying, maybe you have heard it, "Jews are born in guilt, Catholics are raised in it."
@@DashRiprock-m3b Are you praying that the Holy Spirit will soften their hearts and help them become receptive to the truth? Don't despair, because we are called to sow seeds and we trust God to do the harvesting (leading them to living faith). The Holy Spirit might, years later, bring to their minds something they heard you say from Scripture, and they might be convicted of their need to trust in Christ. Do not become weary in well-doing (2 Thess 3:13). 😊 Peace.
Hello all was a respectful discussion debate from a live open mic debate challenge to refute Sola Scriptura in which a Roman Catholic joined my live open mic stream challenge stream attempting to prove Peter as the first Pope and Peter's Papal supremacy authority over the Christian Church. The Bible does not teach Peter was the first Pope or Peter has the supremacy Papal authority over the Christian Church in leadership.
What do you guys think? Where does the Bible teach Peter is the first Pope in authority in leadership over the Christian Church? Does this refute Sola Scriptura? Share your thoughts.
PLEASE LIKE THIS VIDEO, SUBSCRIBE, AND SHARE COMMENTS BELOW.
Thank you for watching, Lord bless.
Kelly
Make sure you fully explain any verses you drop; you are running too soon.
Also, when you teach, watch how you treat others. You have been less than cordial and are moving away from the purpose of a teacher.
Apostles are Jesus elected his chosen . This makes the apostles in a special position
Peter doesn’t consider himself over the other apostles ( I pet 5:1) “Peter says “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: He considers himself an elder among the other elders.
St. Peter was humble, certainly. He wouldn’t let Cornelius worship him (Acts 10). He opened the decision-making in the Apostle Council in Acts 15, but let St. James finish it. But, Lord Jesus wanted St. Peter to lead His Church (Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17). Please realize though that the RCC doesn’t “own” St. Peter. Their Scriptural problem is NOT that St. Peter held primacy (because he did), but that nowhere does it explicitly stare he could transfer this primacy to another individual.
@@donthephoneman7084 Peter being humble does not mean he was not entrusted to feed and to tend the sheep. Jesus also asked him to strengthen his brothers, the other apostles.
@@justthink8952 This still doesn’t say Peter had authority over the other apostles. For example Paul had to publicly rebuke Peter Gal 2:11-13 “But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy..
They grasp at every weak straw they can find to prove their malarkey. And it doesn't bother em. I couldn't do it.
As an exmuslim - I keep seeing Catholics attempting to stretch verses beyond their intended meaning. It reminds me of lots of discussions between muslim sects.
Matthew 17:24-27, the temple tax was a customary levy paid by adult Jewish males for the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was generally expected that every adult Jewish male, including religious teachers and their disciples, would pay this tax. When the tax collectors approached Peter, they questioned whether Jesus, as a religious teacher, would pay the tax, implying that this was a matter of obligation and respect for religious authority.Context on Teachers Paying the Tax:Religious Obligation: The payment of the temple tax was seen as a duty for all Jewish men, including religious teachers, which underscored their participation in the religious and communal life of Israel.Jesus’ Teaching Moment: Jesus uses this situation to teach Peter about the distinction between earthly and divine authority, explaining that as the Son of God, He is technically exempt from the tax, just as royal children are exempt from taxes in their own kingdom. However, to avoid causing unnecessary offense, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the tax for both of them.Supporting Peter as the Leader:Delegation and Responsibility: By instructing Peter to handle the payment of the tax, Jesus is entrusting Peter with a responsibility that signifies leadership. Peter's actions on behalf of both Jesus and himself symbolize his role as a representative of the group, foreshadowing his future leadership of the apostles.Miraculous Provision: The miracle of the coin found in the fish’s mouth further solidifies Peter’s connection with Jesus’ divine mission. This miracle underscores Peter’s unique role among the disciples, as he is directly involved in this display of divine power.Affirmation of Authority: This event highlights Peter’s growing authority and his close association with Jesus. Jesus’s decision to involve Peter in the payment of the tax subtly affirms Peter’s position as the one who would later lead the apostles, as seen in other passages where Peter is often singled out or given special tasks by Jesus.
@@DUZCO10 and yet, Peter hasn’t bothered to make such an important proclamation known in either of his letters. You still needed to extrapolate.
@DUZCO10 nope what you did eisegesis twisting that text to fit your narrative, wow, swing and a miss.
St John Chrysostom (c. 349-407 AD)
(Right around the time the NT was canonized)
Here a direct reference to the temple tax, in Homily 58 on Matthew,
"For He (Jesus) saith, 'Lest we should offend them, go thou and pay the half-shekel.' For neither was it right to despise them that waited on the temple; neither again was it right to make a parade of the miracle. For He neither sent Judas who had the bag, nor did He bring out the money that was in it, but He sends forth the chief of the apostles." (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 58 on Matthew)
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics interesting you have no arguments other than to ignorantly dismiss that which with you personally do not agree with
The evidence for the church, and the description, the duties, the signs, and the marks of the church all are detailed in the Scriptures. Thus the church itself is dependent upon the testimony of Scripture. This renders impossible Rome’s claim that the reliability of Scripture depends upon the testimony of the Roman church.
If the Roman church is to be considered infallible, this claim can only be established by the testimony of the Scriptures, because it is the Scriptures which tell us about the church. Since Scripture does not support Rome’s claim of infallibility, the claim must be denied and rejected.
They like to say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, by means of some Council. If that were true, then what were the N.T. Scriptures prior to that Council? Was the truth “not truth” before the Council? Was that which we now call “inspired” and “the written word of God” only rendered as such by the Council’s issuance of a formalized list of those books which the various churches had already received and were reading aloud? Did the Council have a “magic wand” to wave over some base, common books which had been bereft of authoritativeness, so as to transform them suddenly into authoritative Holy Scripture?
From where could the Council even derive its authority to convene and discuss matters, if not from the Scripture? For it is in Scripture that we all read about the precedential example set by the Apostles at Jerusalem!
If we are to believe the infallibility of the Scripture merely on the church’s authority, then that faith can be but a human faith, because it is founded on nothing better than the authority of men.
Likewise, if we are to believe the infallibility of the church, then our faith in the church is a human faith founded upon mere human authority.
When the Apostles spoke to people, they backed up what they were saying with Scripture. They always appealed to Scripture as their authority. When Peter got up to speak on the day of Pentecost he did not say, “You men of Judea and Jerusalem, I have been appointed pope of the church, and by the authority vested in me I tell you that you must join the Catholic Church.” No, instead Peter cited many O.T. Scriptures to show them their need to believe in Jesus as Messiah. He supported everything with Scripture. This is the example we should follow today.
We just covered that.
This alone destroys Catholicism.
Their congregation building church goes against scriptures. It is built on the solid rock of a man named Peter. This is from the direct doctrine of the catechism. If the building church is built on a man foundation; I think we have the right to get out of it.
The scriptures say Humans who confess ( like Peter ) that Jesus is the son of the Living God & who are the stones ( like Peter) built upon the rock (Jesus); the gates of Hades shall not prevail.
Further reading;
We are the living stones built upon the cornerstone Jesus Christ.
Further we are built on the foundation of the apostles( not just one apostle ) and prophets and Jesus Himself.
Conclusion; 100% God did not built a building church or an institution and named it catholic. The scriptures are the real proof that shows Catholicism doctrines are a deception for the real church to follow.
Shalom .
The LORD be with all.
@@rishanborrymbai1104 amen
Jesus gave the keys to Peter to feed the sheep and to tend the sheep.
@@justthink8952 Let's just read the Scriptures as it is.
Matthew 16:19 NASB2020
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
What is this key ? It is the key of the kingdom of heaven.
The scripture is very clear. It is not the key to a building institution called catholic. It is the key to the kingdom of heaven.
And we can see in acts what exactly the key meant. Peter visited Cornelius. To open the kingdom of God to the gentiles.
It is not an authority. Don't mistake the key for authority.
When a servant has the key to my house ; does it mean He has authority over my house ? No. I just gave him access but the authority is still on me. It's my house. He used the key to clean my house; to keep things in order etc. That's all. So it's the kingdom of God. (Not some man made building institution).
@@justthink8952 We can discuss about it. Let's read the Scriptures together.
Matthew 16:19 NASB2020
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
What are these keys? ......of the kingdom of heaven.
If you are referring to the keys for building a catholic building church then I think you are directly violating the word of God. It specifically mentioned keys to the kingdom of heaven. Is the catholic system the kingdom of heaven of God ? Or a men inventions?
@@justthink8952 I tried replying twice but it does not show here 🤔
The disciples are named in PAIRS in Mat 10, in chronological order. The kai(and) between "Andrew the brother of him" and "James(Jacob)" is a variation and is either a mistake in some ms or distinguishing the rest of the pairs from the first pair (such as First Simon AND Andrew and (then) James and John; Phillip and Bartholomew etc). There is no kai between the other pairs. Translations that place "and" between the pairs are incorrect, making it sound as if they are listed individually and not in pairs.
The first Simon AND Andrew; (no "and" here, or implying "and then") James AND John; (no "and" here) Phillip AND Bartholomew; (no "and" here) etc Grammatically Simon and Andrew are equally protos (first), which means it is a chronological list and not a ranking.
What nonsense!
First off, there is NO manuscript variability in Matthew 10:2.
Secondly, the word και (“and”) IS used between ALL the other pairs, NOT just between Simon and Andrew, and James and John.
Also, regarding it being chronological… we know from John’s Gospel, Andrew and (probably) John were the very first two disciples (John 1:40). Why is Andrew mentioned as Simon Peter’s brother, btw? Doesn’t that prove something special about Simon Peter? The next verse, Andrew finds his brother. The next verse, Lord Jesus (the “Rock” or PETRAS of 1 Corinthians 10:4) names Simon Peter (PETROS). We know from Matthew 16:18, the Church will be built on this PETRAS.
And, Matthew 10:2 is obviously not the only verse that shows a distinction suggesting primacy to St. Peter. His name is used 155 times in the NT. His name is used way more than the names of ALL the other disciples combined.
Post-Resurrection, the Angel tells the women to “tell his disciples AND Peter” to go to Galilee to see the risen Lord (Mark 16:7). Lord Jesus Himself gives St. Peter primacy over the other disciples (the “lambs”) and the members of the Church (the “sheep”) in John 21:15-17.
But… why don’t we non-RCC Christians realize we don’t need to “throw St. Peter under the bus” because of our disagreements with certain men in Rome? The RCC doesn’t “own” St. Peter. Their Scriptural problem, as far as I can tell, is that nowhere is it taught that St. Peter could transfer his UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL role of authority over other members of the Church to a separate individual.
THAT’S their problem. Let’s leave St. Peter out of it.
What some people don't consider, too, is that there are 2 apostles named Simon and 2 named James. If you have 2 friends with the same name, do you assign nicknames? I know my friends do. So, would it make sense to nickname them right? Simon Peter was the first called, so he's first. This list is essentially the order in which they were called - nothing else to read into it. And that's why the Magisterium fails as a source of truth in a lot of instances of doctrine and dogmas. Matthew 16:18 is another example of a passage read into far too much, to the point of mental gymnastics. Jesus wasn't appointing Simon Peter the pope there.
Matthew 17:24-27, the temple tax was a customary levy paid by adult Jewish males for the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was generally expected that every adult Jewish male, including religious teachers and their disciples, would pay this tax. When the tax collectors approached Peter, they questioned whether Jesus, as a religious teacher, would pay the tax, implying that this was a matter of obligation and respect for religious authority.Context on Teachers Paying the Tax:Religious Obligation: The payment of the temple tax was seen as a duty for all Jewish men, including religious teachers, which underscored their participation in the religious and communal life of Israel.Jesus’ Teaching Moment: Jesus uses this situation to teach Peter about the distinction between earthly and divine authority, explaining that as the Son of God, He is technically exempt from the tax, just as royal children are exempt from taxes in their own kingdom. However, to avoid causing unnecessary offense, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the tax for both of them.Supporting Peter as the Leader:Delegation and Responsibility: By instructing Peter to handle the payment of the tax, Jesus is entrusting Peter with a responsibility that signifies leadership. Peter's actions on behalf of both Jesus and himself symbolize his role as a representative of the group, foreshadowing his future leadership of the apostles.Miraculous Provision: The miracle of the coin found in the fish’s mouth further solidifies Peter’s connection with Jesus’ divine mission. This miracle underscores Peter’s unique role among the disciples, as he is directly involved in this display of divine power.Affirmation of Authority: This event highlights Peter’s growing authority and his close association with Jesus. Jesus’s decision to involve Peter in the payment of the tax subtly affirms Peter’s position as the one who would later lead the apostles, as seen in other passages where Peter is often singled out or given special tasks by Jesus.
Right, because that's why name changes were always made in the Scripture.
@@AppalachianPaisano as usual such a superficial understanding and committing the typical protestant error applying our modem day context to scripture
Try read early church
@@AppalachianPaisano You think Jesus renamed James and John to "Sons of Thunder" or was that a nickname? There are times in the bible when people are renamed or nicknamed. Interestingly, often a name change can be the opposite of someone's situation or personality trait. For instance, Abram the fatherless is renamed by God to Abraham, the father of a nation. Simon the Rock faltered in his faith when trying to walk on water. He also denied Christ 3 times. Hardly the actions of a rock. And, speaking of the Sons of Thunder, they were pretty silent - their mom had to take the initiative to ask on their behalf if they could be seated at Jesus' left and right in heaven's throne room. Simon the Rock and Simon the Zealot. They couldn't possibly have name descriptors to tell them apart from each other, could they? Come on now!
@@ToeTag1968 1. Subtly attacking a strawman about what we believe the papacy to be.
2. No one had ever held to your interpretation.
Will the president be considered no more as president if another member presided over a meeting? Certainly not.
So, when James presided over the council of Jerusalem, it does not mean Peter's leadership was taken away. Whether Peter presided over a meeting or not, Peter was always the leader
If Kelly Powers is honest, he must first accept what the Gospels teach about Peter. The Gospels teach the primacy of Peter. It is from this primacy that gradually the notion of papacy arises. Don't look for papacy right in the Gospels which you will not find. But the primacy of Peter is right there which is the seed from which the office of the papacy developed.
So Kelly Powers, if you are honest, you must judge the primacy of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and other letters of the New Testament in the light of the Gospels and not vice versa. The Gospels are damn clear about the primacy of Peter, and whether he exercised the same primacy in the rest of the New Testament is secondary for various reasons. It is possible that Paul had little understanding of the primacy of Peter as the Gospels were not yet written. In the Acts, till chapter 15, the primacy of Peter cannot be missed by an honest person. Luke concentrates on Paul in the second part of his Acts which does not mean that Peter lost his primacy.
Peter wasn’t even the principal leader of the church in Jerusalem. James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader in the book of Acts. In fact in Acts 16, James is the one that showed the authority to make the decision final to not burden the gentiles with circumcision and keeping the law of Moses. Peter and Paul stated their case and testified about how gentiles were being saved. James sided with them and made the final decision.
One thing catholic hold over us protestants is church history. They always point to it. To be fair, it's a an argument we as protestants have to deal with. Any chance you can go over this? Also, I bought Gavins new book about protestant in light of church history.
All 12 disciples became apostles, not popes. Peter was the spokeperson for the others. In acts 5,29 all 12 said 'we need to obey God rather than men'. In matthew 23,9 Jesus says to believers 'call no one father'.
@@Daviddaze
Paul was a father to Timothy, and Onesimus too
Sola scriptura destroys itself. You don't need a Catholic to tell you that. But if you insist.
Sola scriptura means that "scripture is the SOLE infallible rule of faith." Nothing, other than scripture, is infallible. Well, this presents quite a problem.
What happens when two non-Catholics disagree on the interpretation of scripture? How do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to? One might argue that you could share secondary and tertiary passages of scripture to support your primary stance, but if they disagree on secondary and tertiary interpretations, you've now just made the problem worse. Next, you might appeal to a pastor, church elder, or council to rectify the issue. However, if you truly believe scripture is the SOLE infallible rule of faith, then any answers derived by the pastor, church elder, or council need to be considered fallible. And we are no closer to reconciling the issue. Basically, the self-defeating nature of sola scriptura can be captured in a single question:
"What's the point in having an infallible book, if everyone who interprets it is going to do so fallibly?"
I believe what Kelly is doing is setting up a straw man argument, he wants somebody to find explicitly where it says Peter is the head of all the church. It doesn't necessarily follow that it has to be so explicit but it can be taught implicitly for instance John 20 the Lord told him to feed my lambs and feed my sheep, how many did he say? All of them. He also asked Peter do you love me more than these? he tells him 3 times to feed my lambs and feed my lambs sheep. In Acts 15 Peter takes a predominant role along with James . So what Kelly is doing is making a straw man argument like I said earlier you can say it in many ways it doesn't have to be explicitly. Matthew 16 is × ref with Isaiah 22. Kelly you really need to study
Correct.
Hey brother Kelly. Not sure if this is of any important but I've found it interesting. The upcoming president of the community of christ (RLDS) is going to be a woman. Stassi Cramm is her name.
wow, I will have to look into that.
Matthew 17:24-27, the temple tax was a customary levy paid by adult Jewish males for the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was generally expected that every adult Jewish male, including religious teachers and their disciples, would pay this tax. When the tax collectors approached Peter, they questioned whether Jesus, as a religious teacher, would pay the tax, implying that this was a matter of obligation and respect for religious authority.Context on Teachers Paying the Tax:Religious Obligation: The payment of the temple tax was seen as a duty for all Jewish men, including religious teachers, which underscored their participation in the religious and communal life of Israel.
Jesus’ Teaching Moment: Jesus uses this situation to teach Peter about the distinction between earthly and divine authority, explaining that as the Son of God, He is technically exempt from the tax, just as royal children are exempt from taxes in their own kingdom. However, to avoid causing unnecessary offense, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the tax for both of them.Supporting Peter as the Leader:
Delegation and Responsibility: By instructing Peter to handle the payment of the tax, Jesus is entrusting Peter with a responsibility that signifies leadership. Peter's actions on behalf of both Jesus and himself symbolize his role as a representative of the group, foreshadowing his future leadership of the apostles.Miraculous Provision: The miracle of the coin found in the fish’s mouth further solidifies Peter’s connection with Jesus’ divine mission. This miracle underscores Peter’s unique role among the disciples, as he is directly involved in this display of divine power.
Affirmation of Authority: This event highlights Peter’s growing authority and his close association with Jesus. Jesus’s decision to involve Peter in the payment of the tax subtly affirms Peter’s position as the one who would later lead the apostles, as seen in other passages where Peter is often singled out or given special tasks by Jesus.
Wow just wow, swing and a miss.
So according to your logic Peter has authority over Jesus, and Judas can be considered the head of the church since he was put in a leadership position of finances. Nonsense
@@bhaveaniceday5392 your interpretation is nonsense
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics I can’t help but notice your snark is pretty consistent trait.
@@DUZCO10 I agree, your interpretation is nonsense
Seeing the Catholics respond is so interesting. Trying so hard to make certain verses say SOMETHING those verses DON’T. Yes Peter is called, a main leader, but NOT THEE leader in authority over the Christian church. I’m just amazed the lengths these Catholics go to to attempt to to defend the unbiblical teachings of Catholicism that Peter has papal supremacy authority over the church when this is NOT taught by Jesus or any of the apostles INCLUDING Peter!
Just out of curiosity, has your You Tube channel ever "converted" any RC to see the errors of their ways? I'm an ex-Catholic and have been debating these arrogant people for 45+ years in forums that preceded the internet to no vail. I finally have decided to stop debating and just chide them for their arrogance and stupidity. No sense for me to cast pearls before the swine and just keep them in those said pearls in their satchel until the time comes when those pearls will be used on the right person(s) and for the right purpose. Mormons and JW's are more receptive to the truth.
@@DashRiprock-m3b I have debated 13 Catholics and all have run away within four days. I may have gotten two of them to reconsider their life choices. Ultimately, we can't convert anyone; that is the office of the Holy Spirit.
Chiding is a reflection of bad character so why would you do that? God will execute punishment on them on judgment day so they aren't getting away with anything.
@@nightshade99 Chiding is another way of laying on a guilt trip. Something the Catholics like to do ad nauseum, I know, my mom was the best at it. There's an old saying, maybe you have heard it, "Jews are born in guilt, Catholics are raised in it."
@@DashRiprock-m3b Are you praying that the Holy Spirit will soften their hearts and help them become receptive to the truth? Don't despair, because we are called to sow seeds and we trust God to do the harvesting (leading them to living faith). The Holy Spirit might, years later, bring to their minds something they heard you say from Scripture, and they might be convicted of their need to trust in Christ. Do not become weary in well-doing (2 Thess 3:13). 😊 Peace.
@@nightshade99I am a Catholic. And I would like to have a discussion.
What do you understand by the keys Jesus gave to Peter?
Lol, if Peter was the 1st pope then Paul was the 1st Protestant..
Dang, really got those Catholics there!
That’s funny but true, since Paul didn’t teach Peter was Papal authority and even rebuked the first Pope! Wow 😮
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics exactly.. I'm being sarcastic but that was my thought
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics As if that's how Catholic theology works.
@Norffcchippy 😅🤪 not really just being sarcastic..