Protestards on suicide watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
holy bump
>>853264
Don't you mean "justify", I mean you can always go to Rome to find "proof" of the Vatican
>>853264
good video desu
>>853324
>>853316
I just quoted the title of the video, either way there is no reason to be so autistic about it
>my delusion > your delusion
oh wow, top notch discourse
>>853264
So what are we to think about Peter's reluctance to share a meal with gentile Christians for not following Jewish traditions?
At which point in the video is the papacy "proven? I watched the first 10 minutes and it was all circlejerking over how much Peter is mentioned in the NT.
DAGON HAT WHORE OF BABYLON LMAO CHECKMATE PAPIST
Okay, now i watched a bit more, and at 13:42 the narrator just blatantly cherrypicks quotes from the bible. He even misquotes a sentence "God chose my mouth" in order to fit his ideas. The entire idea that the comparison between David and Peter supports the Papacy is also ludicrous, because David was really King and Peter was not.
Opinion discarded.
>>853372
>>853381
And again at 15:19 he quotes Peter as saying "God chose my mouth" holy fuck, i am triggered, Peter never said that! Pic related, me right now.
>>853339
according to post modernists this is what all discourse equates to
>>853402
nah.
>>853384
>say something retarded devoid of any meaninfgul argument
>complain that somebody calls you out for it
At 16:27, the narrator says this:
>"God chose Peter to be the rock and foundation of the church, the one with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but his successors the future popes, would complete the expansion or growth of God's temple the church as new converts continued to enter the body of christ throughout history"
Now, could any of our resident Catholicucks point me to WHERE this is written in the bible?
If not, maybe this guy is just talking out of his ass.
>>853381
>David was really King and Peter was not.
He explains that though. He explains that Jesus is the King but by giving they keys to Peter, he makes him his vicar. The Pope is called the vicar of Christ for a reason, you know.
>Okay, now i watched a bit more, and at 13:42 the narrator just blatantly cherrypicks quotes from the bible
Well he is supposed to use only the Bible to convince protestards. It's not cherrypicking because he explains the similarities in the original greek text of the septuagint and NT. The similarities are too many to call it cherrypicking. Also the quotes are quite numerous.
>>853425
>>853420
Matthew 16:19
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, who passes down the keys to his successors. Pretty simple.
>>853425
>Jesus is the King
How do Catholicucks explain this quote, i wonder?
>Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
>>853420
Matthew 16?
>>853433
Where in the bible is the handing over of the keys to the successor described?
Never
Clever of you, as the person the video, to mingle authentic bible quotes with things that you made up yourself, though.
Donation of Constantine tier proof.
>>853438
That quote is not to be found in Matthew 16. The pope is not mentioned there, in fact not in the entire bible.
>>853440
>Where in the bible is the handing over of the keys to the successor described?
Are you retarded?
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
>>853435
Are you really this dense? Honest question
>>853449
>Are you retarded?
Is this the power of catholicuck argumentation?
Seriosuly though, nowhere in those quotes does it say that Peter's successors are given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
>>853455
>Are you really this dense?
I can feel myself converting to catholicism already, it must be these ad hominem arguments.
>>853462
>Seriosuly though, nowhere in those quotes does it say that Peter's successors are given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
So you admit the keys were given to Peter but the Church stopped existing with his death? Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
>I can feel myself converting to catholicism already, it must be these ad hominem arguments.
Try to ask more intelligent questions next time, and nodoby will call you dense
Church of Rome has a strong tradition. Pope Martin was a Marty himself but changed the doctrine later on, Orthodoxy is the only Christianity that stayed true.
Hopefully they will mend he mistakes they made and come back to the True Church.
>>853480
>So you admit the keys were given to Peter
Jesus said that, yes
>but the Church stopped existing with his death?
Depends what you mean by "the church". Obviously christianity didn't stop existing after Peter died, as there are many christians even today. What i'm saying is that the papacy has no legitimacy from the bible. Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter, but never is there anywhere in the bible mentioned any kind of papist succession. I'm just stating the facts.
>Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Retarded, dense and stupid, three more titles bestowed upon me by our resident catholicucks, always spreading love and tolerance in the name of their beautiful religion.
If you really want to know what Jesus was all about then read the new testament. The catholic church is always trying to convince you that they are the harbingers of the message of Jesus, but what about Jesus' own words?
John 18:36
>Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
If the Pope were truely the vicar of Jesus, then what is he doing sitting on a throne in this world? The pope is a ruler of this world, unlike Jesus who was Not of this world!
Matthew 16:18
>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
When Jesus said this, he clearly meant that he would build his christian "church" upon Peter the apostle, that by the words of Peter his teachings would spread throughout the world.
I know it sounds weird to you if you come from a catholic background, and it might be hard to accept that you've been lied to by the system. I don't call myself catholic, or protestant, or any of that, but what i am interested in, and what i think you are also interested in, is to know the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the end, if you wanna walk around in cool robes in stone basilicas, eat cookies and pray to Mary, I'm cool with that. But that's not what Jesus preached.
>>853412
Le fantasy book says so is an intelligent argument apparently
>>853484
>never is there anywhere in the bible mentioned any kind of papist succession
1. Hades, the place of the dead, is not allowed to prevail against the Church.
2. Peter is a mortal.
3. The Church is to outlive Peter.
1. Peter is given the keys.
2. The Church is to outlive Peter.
3. Somebody other than Peter will inherit the keys from Peter.
1. Peter is given the keys.
2. Peter is only one of the Twelve Apostles who founded several Patriarchates.
3. The Patriarchate founded by Peter is ruled by the inheritor of the keys.
The antiroman argument should leave Scripture alone (pun not intended) and try to disprove that Peter is the founder of the Patriarchate of Rome.
And the Bible proves Christianity wrong, what's your point?
>>853635
Imposing human rationalizations upon the divine plan, can lead to many mistakes.
Apostolic Succession was created as a way to standardize and keep consistency, but that was a decision of the Church, not something God or Christ laid down.
In the first century church there are many independent congregations,"Apostolic Succession" is not indicated in scripture and was not recognized by the first Christian churches.
>>853328
>Emperor Constantine, the first pope
Dropped immediately.
This is nothing but historical revisionist trash, and it will always be
>>853331
I'm not being autistic, "The Bible proves the Papacy" just sounds dumb
>>853566
How's high school treating you?
I remember an actual biblical historian said it would be extremely doubtful that if the position of Pope existed in the 1st century Peter ever was one. His reasoning is this
Paul's letters are directed at Christians in Rome. In it he talks a great deal about the state of Christianity in the region. Further more he is supposed to be writing to influential Christians. However in not one does mention Peter by name or the office of Pope. You'd figure in all that time he is writing about Christianity in Rome he would mention who the allegedly supreme leader of the city's religion was.
>>853847
How's having a low IQ treating you
Catholic church as we know it was started by Emperor Constantine
Roman Catholicism is eclectic in terms that it clearly adopted pagan customs , idolatry and imagery (Mary worship being just one example)
Bible says don't pray to the dead (as Jesus conquered death itself)
Yet Catholics pray to many dead 'saints' as well
the list goes on...
I also doubt Peters church had mob connections, guilty of child kidnapping/rape and covering it up, supporting the Nazis during their hey-day, etc)
It's pretty obvious that something is wrong here and people need to ask JESUS for guidance on the matter, not the pope as we're all apostles(followers) of Christ and NO ONE ELSE.
Praise Jesus
Praise Jesus
>>855058
>Bible says don't pray to the dead
2 Maccabees 12
43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. 44 If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them. 45 In his firm and devout conviction that all of God's faithful people would receive a wonderful reward, Judas made provision for a sin offering to set free from their sin those who had died.
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
>>855067
Judging from what I'm reading this is Judas praying FOR the dead in order to raise them through faith , which Jesus told his disciples to do (As God still has ultimate decision as to what happens to a dead person soul) Judas wasn't praying TO the dead for guidance (as do people who pray to dead saints for some sort of spiritual 'intercession' , true intercession in the spiritual ONLY comes through Jesus Christ (John 14:6-6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.")
Isaiah 8:19 also states this quite clearly (among other verses) with : 19 And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?
You cannot put any other 'middle-man' in front of Jesus , yes people can pray to Jesus FOR YOU but a dead person can't pray for you as they're not living anymore
>>853264
Typical papist lies.
Peter had the keys to heaven, and opened heaven to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost, and to the gentiles when he saw the house of Cornelius was obviously saved, being born again Chrsistians, and doing born again Christian things.
That is what Peter meant when he told the council at Jerusalem that he was chosen to spread the gospel to the gentiles. Past tense. Already done.
Acts 15
And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
This happened here, in Acts 10:
hen Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
Petros is not the petra.
The keys of heaven have been used, once each, to the Jew, and to the Gentile. In other words, to everyone.
Papacy is the most vile type of paganism known to mankind.
>>853350
You got it backwards. Peter was happy to eat with the Gentiles, until Judaizing James and John and the highbrow folks from Jerusalem came calling; then he suddenly reverted to being kosher and not eating with Gentiles.
Paul called him out on it, and bitched slapped him down in front of everyone.
More evidence nobody treated Peter as the "leader" or "foundation" of anything on his own.
>>853361
Exactly. Pagan through and through.
>>853420
They lie about what the rock is, obviously.
Peter just said "you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." That is the foundation of the church.
That's the petra, the rock. A feminine word.
Peter is Petros, a man's name, and a masculine word.
The Greek makes it painfully obvious the Petros is not the petra; that Peter is not the foundation of anything. Nobody treated Peter like a leader; nobody treated Peter like he was Jesus.
Because they had the Holy Spirit, and the papacy does not.
>>853433
Show me in the bible where anything gets handed down to Peter's successor.
That should be pretty simple.
>>853480
The keys were used. They were one time usage. Heaven was opened to the Jews at Pentecost, and to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house.
>>853551
Cultists usually require some pretty strong deprogramming; not sure we can give it to them here.
>>853635
"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means that anyone saved escapes hell. Really simple concept of salvation. You're born into a position leading to hell, but are saved out of it, and the gates of hell cannot contain you. This is not some ridiculous church cavalry charge into hell, breaking down the gates. This is dead people becoming living people.
Peter used the keys. Twice. Exactly the maximum number of times those keys could be used. Jew Key, and Gentile Key. Heaven is opened.
The keys are used, not material, and not passed down to anyone. The thought that a successor could let people into heaven, or not, is anathema.
You are correct to say Peter was never a pope, never the bishop of Rome, and the only connection between Peter and Rome is convict and executioner. If that.
>>853882
Especially as he has laundry lists of names in most of his letters to say Hi! to.
>>855058
This.
>>855067
>2 Maccabees 12
Bible.
Pick one.
>>855138
That book is not in the bible; it is not holy writ.
>>855277
Exactly. The RCC runs its deal like an earthly monarchy.
The last emperors were called Pontifex Maximus, as were the first popes.
Peter was one of 12; the emperor is singluar.
The pope is singular.
>>855270
>Protestants claim to follow the Bible as God's Word
>take random books out whenever they feel like it
Sure thing, bud.
>>855300
You can't take out what was never in.
>>855335
kek
Is that broke ass Jesus talking to broke ass Peter I see there?
>>855352
>All Christians for over a thousand years know that a book was God-breathed
>some random German guy in the 1500s gets mad that it doesn't agree with what he says and rants against it
>hurr it's not in the Bible
Really just sickening. Putting Man over God like no other.
>>855363
24,000 manuscripts in a half dozen languages dating back to the early second century say you're full of shit.
>>855374
Every manuscript of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) from the 1st century BC onward includes it. And considering that the language used in the New Testament when talking about Jesus's fulfilment of prophecies is directly taken from the Septuagint, it's apparent that the apostles accepted it as canonical.
The only one full of shit is you.
>>855400
The OT cuts off at Malachi. I don't care what papists put in their canon, and I don't care what the Greeks translated. That's their business.
>>855400
Actually, ZERO authors of the bible quote anything written in between Malachi and Matthew.
ZERO.
>>855440
I do care, which is why I do not allow satan's books to be called part of the bible.
>>855354
It's the Coptic Pope. A pope that the Eastern Orthoxy is fine with whereas they aren't with the Roman one since the Catholic pope has worldwide range rather than just in one diocese which they find less than savory.
>>855263
>"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means that anyone saved escapes hell.
That means the Church of Peter is required for salvation.
Doesn't sound too antipapist.
>Peter used the keys. Twice. Exactly the maximum number of times those keys could be used. Jew Key, and Gentile Key. Heaven is opened.
>The keys are used
>not passed down to anyone.
Where is it in the scriptures, I was replying to a post about it, I need arguments from the scriptures.
And wouldn't Paul be the apostle to the Gentiles?
>never the bishop of Rome
That needs to be proven. Because all I have is Paul not mentioning Peter in the Epistle to the Romans.
>>853264
This one is better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faIB-sOBDKk
>>855573
The Church of Peter would be powerless against anything.
Being born again is required for salvation.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, but not exclusively to the Gentiles. After the council of Jerusalem, it was clear that James and Paul did not see things the same way, and James dismissed Paul rather condescendingly, telling him that he didn't care what Paul taught the Gentiles.
James was, and remained, a Judaizer.
The claim "Peter was the bishop of Rome" would require substantiation. There is none.
>>855622
I can't really watch videos here. I post inbetween work assignments. Can you summarize?
>>855671
He goes in depth about the location used by Jesus, the necessity to look at the words from the perspective of a 1st century Palestinian rather than someone from the 21st century American cultural background.
i.e Jesus is speaking to a 1st century Judean audience and was raised in said culture and the meaning of his words come from that. This is reflected in how he speaks about the keys, which in 1st century Judea were considered to be part of a royal office and the words used by Jesus are mirroring David's own so he makes it even more explicit that it's indicative of a royal office that's noted for it's successive nature.
>>855671
he's a complete nutjob. he's ranting about Peter being "the rock".
>>853264
Why aren't we allowed to burn protestants on the stake again?
>>855747
pic related
>>855701
It's Jesus' royal office. He's a descendant of King David, and will take that throne.
That doesn't mean anyone He met gets to keep it warm for Him.
>>855737
It's kind of a play on words, as Peter was the least rock-like person before the Resurrection. Always dashing about, always opening mouth, inserting foot, the one who stepped out of the boat to walk on the water, but also the only one to deny Jesus three times. Reading Mark, the account from Peter's recollections, it's suddenly this, and immediately that, and right away this happened, then then quickly this other thing.
Jesus is the actual rock. Jesus is the rock Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar about, that is set to smash the empires of man. Jesus is the rock, the cornerstone, the chief cornerstone, the stumbling block to the Jews.
>>855747
Come at me bro.
>>855770
>It's Jesus' royal office.
No. Jesus isn't the royal steward of Israel which I'm referring to, Jesus is the King.
>>855788
Correct, and there is no royal steward.
>>855816
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267367?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
If Jesus lives, why does he need a stand-in?
>>855816
Wrong. I am the Royal Steward. See Apoc. Jacob 3:25-27.
>>855785
I hope you like the smell of sulphur.
>>855825
This is a retarded question
Jesus doesn't "need" anything
He can choose to do something however he wants however, regardless of your fee fees about it
>>855821
Yeah, rich men had stewards. I'm not aware of any royal steward.
>0 Bible results for “royal steward.”
>>855825
He does not. Neither is He unrepresented, as the catholic say, since He sent the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to His disciples, and the Holy Spirit has been here ever since, uniting the real church into one body, with Jesus as the head.
>>855846
Right next to the word trinity
>>855827
Again, not in the bible, so not holy, so not infallible, so likely written by liars.
There's a reason you don't mix the holy with the unholy. It doesn't make the unholy better.
>>855833
I hate it, and your posts reek of it.
>>855842
It's a question that exposes the cult of Catholicism to its core.
>>855853
I said the word trinity is in the bible? You sure, m8?
>>855865
Oh I'm sorry I meant it's right next to the word incarnation
>>855842
Thanks for the non-answer. Unless you're a moron, you know I didn't use the word "need" in regards to His well-being, but in order for His plan of salvation to come into fruition. Or are you suggesting Jesus didn't "need" to die on the cross to save us? I'm guessing that's a no, so, if you can, could you provide an answer with actual substance?
>>855870
Next time ask a question of substance that isn't just you looking for justification for personal eisegesis in interpreting scripture then
>>855898
> just you looking for justification for personal eisegesis in interpreting scripture then.
I'm not, I'm perfectly open to any refutations if they exist. If you cannot provide any, why are you responding?
>>855898
Nice FUCKING meme you fucking SPERGLORD FAGSHIT. Holy FUCK it pisses me off when some unoriginal, retarded assholish dickweed decides it would just be FUCKING HILARIOUS to post the SAME. OVERUSED. JOKE. What do you even fucking hope to gain out of this? Karma? Well you're certainly getting that, cause it seems like a lot of other inbred shitface fucking retarded autistic fuckshits are thinking you're just FUCKING HILARIOUS and that this joke HASN'T BEEN MADE A BILLION FUCKING TIMES. FUCK you.
>>855866
I wonder if "trinity" is right next to the word "bible" in the bible.
>>855920
Not him, but... wut?
>>855920
You seem perturbed.
>>853264
The big Easter LARP is coming up soon, isn't it?
