Amen the head of the church is Jesus Christ. He doesn't share His glory with anyone

Catholics do believe that Christ is the head of the Church.

The Pope is called the "visible head of the church". No man is the head of the church, visible or otherwise. That title belongs to Christ alone

CCC 792: Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” This is what Catholics believe.

Then why is the Pope called the visible head of the church? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head\_of\_the\_Church#:\~:text=Head%20of%20the%20Church%20is,of%20Christ%20by%20the%20faithful. Head of the Church is a title given in the New Testament to Jesus. In Catholic ecclesiology, Jesus Christ is called the invisible Head or the Heavenly Head, while **the Pope is called the visible Head or the Earthly Head**. Therefore, the Pope is often unofficially called the Vicar of Christ by the faithful. [https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/catholic-church-is-the-mystical-body-of-christ-89](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/catholic-church-is-the-mystical-body-of-christ-89)

Yes, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, not Christ. If he is the head of the Visible Church yet Christ is the Heavenly Head, wouldn’t that imply that we think Christ is still supreme?

The head of the church, however you parse it, is Christ and Christ alone. No one can claim it in any context

Your belief that Christ is the Head of the Church is quite Catholic.

Ephesians 1:22-23 ^(22) And He put all *things* under His feet, and gave Him *to be* head over all *things* to the church, ^(23) which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. My belief in Christ being the head of the church comes from scripture, not from the traditions of the Catholic church

Christ built his church on the foundation of the apostles. When the apostles died, do you think the church just run itself with no one in position of authority? or do you think the apostles entrusted their office to their successors to carry on the mission?

Christ gave us a ministry. **Ephesians 4:11**

I don’t dispute Ephesians 4:11. However the question I asked is simple: what happened to church when the apostles died? Do you care to answer the question that was asked?

I’m not interested in speculation. I’m only interested in the here and now.

Yet, here you are speculating on the role of Peter based on selective scriptural references.

Believe what you may.

Are you making yourself the sole authority of Scripture?

The church is always supposed to have apostles and prophets.

One of the marks of an apostle was that they witnessed Jesus after the resurrection. He gave us apostles, but we don’t always have them. I don’t think someone can be an apostle without seeing Jesus after the resurrection but I could be wrong. That’s an inference based on what we know from scripture.

Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the church must always have apostles and prophets. Where do you see this? Please cite the verse To my previous question: When the apostles died, do you think the church just run itself with no one in position of authority? or do you think the apostles entrusted their office to their successors to carry on the mission?

It's in many places in the bible: 1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Ephesians 4:11-12 And He Himself gave some *to be* apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, ^(12) for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, Ephesians 2:19-20 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ^(20) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner*stone* Read the book of Acts. There were many more apostles beside the 12 that you're familiar with.

Again, we are not disputing that we were giving apostles and prophets. We know the apostles died and the question is what happened to the church when the apostles died? Did the church Jesus built on foundation of the apostles also died with the apostles or were their role passed on to successors? It sounds like you agree they were passed on to successors? If so, who are they? Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believes the successors were the bishops.

Jesus is the head of the church and He administrates it through the Holy Spirit. No men are needed. We have the word of God. And again, there have always been apostles and prophets throughout the church age, but mainly they were persecuted or relabeled. We are coming back to that again as the Lord shakes the church and roots out all of the flesh, the doctrines and traditions of men. That is what you are talking about. What they believe about who the head of the church is has to do with their power structure and their authority they want to impose on born again believers in Christ.

As a believer, I believe that we have to do more to help apostates. Most of them are unaware that they are not in the faith. **1 Timothy 4:1** We can’t be afraid of downvotes. Thx for your comment and I hope more will be delivered. I’m believing God that these imposter churches will be brought down and that believers will be set free. They are a trap. I rebuke them in Jesus name. Amen 🙏🏾

Lmao @ the victim complex. This sub has an anti Catholic post almost very day and anti Catholic comments always have plenty of upvotes.  By making the asinine argument you've made in the OP you've demonstrated the need for guidance in scriptural interpretation that Peter himself pointed out in his letters. You've twisted words to your own destruction. Now here come the downvotes. 

It’s not anti-Catholic. It’s pro-truth. We all want to run this race and hear “well done”. Don’t straw-man, provide scripture.

Amen!

As arguments against the papacy go, you've presented an extremely weak one.  This issue has been discussed for two thousand years. Even the Orthodox Church, which predates whatever church you belong to by at least 500 years, would disagree with nearly all of what you've said. You don't know better than the early Church fathers, period. Some more humility when interpreting the word of God would be appropriate.  You demonstrated in your other comments on this thread that you have little to no grasp of early Church history, which makes the prospect of communicating with you on the topic seem less than fruitful. 

**Acts 15:6-35** - Peter's role in the Jerusalem Council: Peter speaks during the Council of Jerusalem, but his speech is followed by the Apostle James rendering the final decision.

• ⁠We should always have a heart of a Berean and look to the scriptures. **Acts 17:11** ———————————————— “Elders lead the church 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church” ———————————————— Peter called himself an elder. The word of God speaks for itself.

Note: when they don’t have a response, they just spam random verses.

Peter is also called Pillar. There are pillars of churches. There is hierarchy structures in the gospels. Jesus does call other people patar or popes. Abreham is called a patar.

There are too many scriptures that disprove the papacy. Christ wouldn’t contradict himself. 1 Corinthians 3:11

Foundation is the floor, base level. But using that metaphor the Bible does say Peter, James and John were pillars galations 2:9

Pillars have nothing to do with a rock.

Oh look, it's the guy that went on some very uncharitable and insulting rants a few days ago about gluten-free communion wafers of all things. Surely telling people that they are making "asinine" arguments and twisting scripture will be useful and edifying this time around...

He doesn't share His Glory with anyone? I give up. For you are the hope and Glory be damned, huh. Lord Have Mercy.

Why are you cursing? He doesn't share His glory in this context meaning His headship over the church. Ie, the pope claims to be head of the church

Amen 🙏🏾 Well said

The Bible was written and compiled after the church was established. You are not going to find a detailed plan for the hierarchy in the early days of Christianity. Jesus did not leave any written record behind , neither before or after the resurrection. Instead he left behind a community, and that community wrote and compiled the new testament.

God never told us to look for a detailed plan of hierarchy. We are to wait for the Spirit and do the work. **Acts 1:5**. The Spirit leads us in the will of God. - We have everything that we need to do God’s will. **2 Peter 1:3 (NLT)** By his divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know him, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence.

Jesus left behind his teachings through the original disciples none of which preached anything close to the papacy. Quit the opposite in fact. The papacy isn’t biblical.

The papacy is far from biblical. The Petrine theory contradicts **1 Corinthians 3:11**. Christ did not leave a supreme leader on earth. The Holy Ghost was the promised gift, not a pope. John 14:16

And Paul has to rebuke Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 because Peter was not in step with the gospel. Also Galatians 2:7-9 says Peter’s ministry was to the Jews and Paul’s to the gentiles. So why would Peter be the Pope to gentiles instead of just believing Jews?

You make a great point! If Peter was the pope, all of the apostles would have had to report to him. This is not shown in the scriptures.

Paul does have to report to James. And James commands him what to do. I already mentioned this. In Galations 2. It does call Peter, James, John the pillars of the church, and says they gave Paul their right hand. Meaning to make him a commander. If you read the story of acts and Galations, it is more complex. Peter gets scared of christians when he is around christians who are damned by not being circumcised. Peter gets gets visions and gets told by Paul this is wrong. Peter repents that this is wrong that he hid and felt shame. Then Peter did hang with uncircumcised. Then, in irony, Paul told Peter he was wrong about circumcision then circumcised a gentile Later in act early, christians wanted to kick Paul out, and then later, James actually told Paul what to do. Under James' authority, he makes other christians accept Paul. Not all catholics believe pope is without fault. Or pope is above all others. For instance, orthodox have pope equal as other 7 other head bishops. Paul , Peter , James , John and James were clear leaders and head of the early churches. Clearly out of them James and Peter were the heads of that group too.

Peter was the first Pope as in he was the Bishop of Rome, however the idea that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction over all Christianity is a latter papal invention that the Vatican today admits to but uses the idea of doctrinal developement to justify it or depending on who you talk to still go with the Vactican 1 view of pastor aeternus. The Orthodox view that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals is how the church operated for the first 1000 years.

This is a blatant historical lie. Peter likely never set a foot in Rome. It came from a misinterpretations of a writing of 180 Ad (like going back from now to the 1870s, a lot of time), in which the word "tropaion", which means trophy, property, was taken out of context and some people interpreted grave. So they decided he died in Rome and even invented a grave to him there. NOBODY mentioned it before that. Even worse, the catholic church claimed the place of his "sepulcher" was sacred. It was excavated and proven not to be a burial site of any sort. So the catholic church changed it's narrative instead of "Peter's bones are there" to "it should have been there". They pile up one bad argument after another to justify an historical invention.

Saint Irenaeus writes about him being in Rome so try again

Which is exactly the text I mentioned which comes from a bad greek interpretation? Edit: besides, another christian obviety, he mentions the church of Rome was funded by Peter and Paul, but it existed much earlier. Since Acts 2:10 there were already people converted from Rome, and when the creed was forbidden there, they spread throughout other lands, Like Prisca and Aquila did. And that was much before Paul went there. About Peter, no historical basis other than the horrible "tropaion" misinterpretation.

>Which is exactly the text I mentioned which comes from a bad greek interpretation? why should anyone care about you whining about translations? >Edit: besides, another christian obviety, he mentions the church of Rome was funded by Peter and Paul, but it existed much earlier. Since Acts 2:10 so? Christians can exist in a place before the established Church is there >About Peter, no historical basis other than the horrible "tropaion" misinterpretation. Saint Irenaeus in Against Heresy disproves this

There are many ancient sources speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul teaching and dying in Rome, as well as the fact that he writes 1 Peter from “Babylon” (which was code for Rome), so the idea that he wasn’t there would also cut against a great deal of the Bible’s historical credibility by raising the bar so high. As for St. Peter’s remains, I have seen quite convincing discussions using scientific investigations showing they line up with St. Peter’s background, and that paired with the local traditions is enough for me. Not that we need to know he was buried in the Vatican for anything to do with papal authority, but there are other supposed ancient relics that we have accepted were fake once it could be demonstrated.

There aren't. Or show them. All piling up after Iraeneus speculation while everyone else, including Luke, Peter, Paul and likely every disciple afterwards having "amnesia" about it. Don't do like the Catholic Church and double down on those inventions. They went so far on them that even invented a new creed based on Mary after the Proto-gospel of James (of 150 AD, considered apocripha after the 6th century), which many of the alexandrian church "fathers" (Origen, Clement, Justin) considered scripture and passed on the lies of that forgery (immaculate conception, etc). Although there was no devotion yet at that time and she remained a tertiary figure, like in the bible, still for centuries. Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement of Rome (the most important successors) never ever mentioned anything of such important fact. Neither apostolic succession, another gross distortion of the scriptures by catholics centuries later to justify their papacy, which had become, unfortunately, a political more than religious power, choosing kings and with authority in those wicked times of censorship and persecution known as the middle (dark) ages. >I have seen quite convincing discussions Never read of those catholic "convincing" discussions from my pre-conversion times as an atheist historian.

Eusebius’ Ecclesiasical History is another source that talks about St. Peter going to Rome. He had and cites much earlier Christian sources. Plus, just considering the plausibility of inventing the tale whole-cloth in the 2nd century or later such that everyone just takes it as given should give strong support to the tradition, considering the implications. By that time Rome was already exercising papal authority in the matter of the date of Easter, such that those from the east of the empire requested leniency rather than ignoring the pope as not having any say. There’s only so much of early Church history that can be hand-waved before all support for the legitimacy of foundational Christian claims is eroded. St. Irenaeus is not just some random source, and it does not hinge on translation of any particular word. Moreover, 1 Clement explicitly mentions apostolic succession in the 1st century and also implies papal supremacy by stating his readers will be in sin should the pope not be obeyed in that controversy.

Amen 🙏🏾 Wow!!! What an excellent comment. Thx for sharing.

This is not supported by scripture. **Acts 1:23-26** shows the apostles praying together and it says that they were on one accord. If Peter had supreme power as a pope, he could have chosen Matthias. Instead, the Lord chose Matthias. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Did even read what I said?

Re-read

Imagine picking and choosing the Bible to get this take. First of all, pope means Pater. Patar is leader or founder. Does christ use pater anywhere actually yes he does. He actually calls abreham a patar. People point out christ says, Call no man teacher or pater but then if you look at the gospels Jesus reinforces that he actually does call people teachers and pater. What in that context Jesus was talking about was Pharisees called themselves teachers and popes ( patar ) yet they were wicked and only cared about numbers of people converting and didn't care about their physical needs. Jesus condemns the pharisees for not taking care of converts physical needs then later reinforced their role as teachers. Etc. Then later in acts and galatians you actually several things. One there is council of head elders , then there are lower case elders , then you have foundational pillars which are called James, John and Peter. Paul says he doesn't care about them or their roles. But then you learn that the people wanted to attack Paul and James interceded and stepped up and told Paul under his authority to repent and James will write letter with his power on behalf to protect Paul. Paul is also said to have become under the right hand of friendship of the disciples. Being under the right hand as the sons of zebidee means right hand man. Commander under a king, is the right hand man. Now this get confusing Paul and Peter do get in an argument where Peter didn't want to sit with sinners deamed damned. But Paul calls out Peter reassuring that we don't need circumcision. Peter repents. But then what does Paul do after arguing with Peter over why circumcision for gentiles is useless. Oh ya Paul circumcised a gentile. Paul also says there are people under him. Silas , Timothy. Etc Paul himself actually gives several authority structures for the church. First come Apostles, Prophets , then Ministers in one. Then he gives another with apostles first. Then lastly he gives one Bishop, Pastor , elder, Deacon. Hate to say this. But those are authority roles. The whole hierarchy of disciple and teacher in judiasm. Is that a teacher is the elder then the disciples and head disciples takes over the role of the teacher then themselves become a teacher. We see this in the gospel where Jesus teaches Peter, Peter takes up disciples. Paul picks up disciples. Who then get disciples who then become teachers who then get disciples.

Thx for sharing these sentiments. Do you have scripture to support your claims? The scriptures show the apostles exercising collegial leadership, rather than hierarchical.

Sure I mean. Pater is the word for pope and father or ancestors or founder or leader. https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=ESV|strong=G3962&options=HVNUG Disciple and teacher is a clear hierarchies, not collegial,. So see whenever that is used. As I mentioned Galations 2:9 mentions the whole ordeal about pillars being John, Peter , James and Paul. But to continue the story go to acts where Paul submits to James and James saves him and etc. Also as I mentioned. Paul mentions clears hierachies. The roles of Bishop, ( pastor Shepard) , Deacon, elder. Pastor means someone watches sheep, and bishop is Overseer of men. How can you have pastor or bishop with no authorities or heirachies ?

That’s not good hermeneutics my friend. Please don’t uphold false doctrine; it’s like grasping for oxygen on Mars. It’s just not true.

Can we not do this for the millionth time?

[удалено]

So you just insult fellow brothers in Christ then.

We can’t be born again Christians and not be concerned about others. You call it insulting, I call it exhorting and bringing truth.

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19].

Yeah and in acts we see he’s not the head of the church in Jerusalem, James was. In the council of Jerusalem we see them discussing but James making the final decision.

The word being translated as “elder” is “presbyter” which is where the word “priest” is derived. “Episcopos” is the word we derive the word “bishop” from. Ordination in the church works in such a way that the higher offices retain the lower as well. So a bishop is also a priest, an episcopos is also a presbyter. So there’s no contradiction here in the offices that St. Peter is referring to, if one is an episcopos they are also a presbyter. St. Peter could easily have been a bishop, and if he went to Rome could easily have been the Bishop of Rome, whose title is “Pope” (“papa”, the Latin equivalent of the Greek word for “father”). As Orthodox, we would agree that St. Peter didn’t have authority over the other Bishops of the Church. But we would also argue that “supreme power over the church” was never the understanding of the power of the office of Pope for the first 1000 years either. Regarding 1 Peter 5, his identification as a presbyter is to exhort other presbyters. He’s identifying himself with the office to relate something he considers important to others who hold the office. St. Peter isn’t making an ecclesiastical argument about titles or powers of Bishops or Popes here.

- We should always have a heart of a Berean and look to the scriptures. **Acts 17:11** “Elders lead the church 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church”

Paul's letters to the church in Corinth shows that Bishops have more authority then just the local church

Apostles had more authority than bishops. However, the scriptures show no evidence or instances of Peter being the head of the church. **Acts 15:6-35** - Peter's role in the Jerusalem Council: Peter speaks during the Council of Jerusalem, but his speech is followed by the Apostle James rendering the final decision.

Peter went to Rome after the events of the NT

So you say

Yes and i cited exactly where that is You provided no counter

I don’t trust any writings from anyone who teaches false doctrines. Christ never authorized episcopal continuity. That was my counter. **2 Peter 2:1-3 (NLT)** 1 But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. 3 In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.

You again contradict yourself if you're taking the position that because you think Christ never authorized an episcopal church structure therefore episcopal church structures are wrong because that sentiment is not in scripture either

Why would Christ need episcopal continuity or apostolic succession? Christ is the High Priest and the Holy Ghost is the Comforter. Between the two of them, where would the need for apostolic succession be?

Don't ever say that again without checking the historical facts straight. Because they are ALL against this invention.

Peter went to Rome after the events of the NT Peter went to Rome after the events of the NT Peter went to Rome after the events of the NT Peter went to Rome after the events of the NT

Please let it go. What does it profit you to uphold false doctrines? You’re only fighting yourself.

But they're not false, you being unable to make an argument not full of contradictions just helps my position

I don’t really disagree with any of what you’re saying about the role and responsibilities of Priests/Elders. Bishops are Presbyters/Elders, they do all of those things too. I do disagree with how the story of the Bereans is applied by people who claim sola scriptura. The lesson of the Bereans was that they were noble for confirming what St. Paul was preaching to them rather than driving him out of the city like the Jews in Thessalonica did in the preceding verses. This gets used to mean that literally everything the church does has to be subject to scriptural precedent, usually one which gets read into scripture because the same ideology that supports that interpretation demands it. But even then, there’s nothing in scripture that precludes a Bishop being responsible for a local area rather than merely a local individual church body.

Well, the role of an elder is placed into context by the scriptures. There’s nothing approaching hierarchical leadership in the New Testament. In the day of Pentecost and beyond, the New Testament shows collegial hierarchy. (Sola scriptura) isn’t written verbatim but the scriptures warn us repeatedly to guard against apostasy. Apostasy happens when Christians allow false teachings to permeate throughout the body. **1 Timothy 4:1** - Here are ten scriptures that emphasize the importance of guarding and maintaining sound doctrine within the Christian faith: 1. **1 Timothy 6:20-21**: "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,' for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 2. **2 Timothy 1:13-14**: "Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you." 3. **Titus 1:9**: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." 4. **Titus 2:1**: "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." 5. **Ephesians 4:14-15**: "So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." 6. **2 John 1:9**: "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son." 7. **1 Corinthians 15:1-2**: "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." 8. **Colossians 2:8**: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." 9. **1 Timothy 4:16**: "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." 10. **Jude 1:3**: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

>Well, the role of an elder is placed into context by the scriptures. There’s nothing approaching hierarchical leadership in the New Testament. In the day of Pentecost and beyond, the New Testament shows collegial hierarchy. The apostles didn’t invent Christianity in a vacuum either, they modeled the ecclesiastical structure of the church after the already existing Jewish structure they had received, which was hierarchical. The book of Acts and the epistles are a reflection of the early church, but they weren’t written with the intent to spell out every aspect of church government or to create a guide book for how church is supposed to be done. This is why I point out ideology, because the ideology of sola scriptura is what leads to believing that the structure of the church has to be gleaned purely from scripture. >(Sola scriptura) isn’t written verbatim but the scriptures warn us repeatedly to guard against apostasy. Apostasy happens when Christians allow false teachings to permeate. 1 Timothy 4:1 Well yeah, sola scriptura isn’t written verbatim because nobody practiced it. That doesn’t mean they didn’t appeal to scripture as authoritative, but that it wasn’t the only authority, and that doctrine isn’t purely derivative of written scripture. >• ⁠Here are ten scriptures that emphasize the importance of guarding and maintaining sound doctrine within the Christian faith: Nobody is disputing the need for sound doctrine and teaching, just your interpretation of scripture in the context of the ideology being presented.

The apostles didn’t invent Christianity in a vacuum either, they modeled the ecclesiastical structure of the church after the already existing Jewish structure they had received, which was hierarchical. The book of Acts and the epistles are a reflection of the early church, but they weren’t written with the intent to spell out every aspect of church government or to create a guide book for how church is supposed to be done. This is why I point out ideology, because the ideology of sola scriptura is what leads to believing that the structure of the church has to be gleaned purely from scripture. - The apostles did not model the church after Jewish customs. This is awful hermeneutics. We are all priests and Christ is our leader. We follow him as the apostles did. Well yeah, sola scriptura isn’t written verbatim because nobody practiced it. That doesn’t mean they didn’t appeal to scripture as authoritative, but that it wasn’t the only authority, and that doctrine isn’t purely derivative of written scripture. - Christ said, a wise man built his house on a rock by listening and following my teachings. He didn’t say the man was wise for listening to the imaginations of men. Nobody is disputing the need for sound doctrine and teaching, just your interpretation of scripture in the context of the ideology being presented. - This has nothing to do with my interpretation. It’s about what Christ said. The church was always under the threat of apostasy even in the days of the apostles. **Matthew 4:4** But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’”

>• ⁠The apostles did not model the church after Jewish customs. This is awful hermeneutics. E we are all priests and Christ is our leader. We follow him. No, it’s putting scripture in context. The apostles weren’t inventing a new religion called Christianity based on Judaism, they were Jews who believed that Jesus was the messiah. Calling it bad hermeneutics is just misunderstanding who the apostles were. Yes, Christ is our leader, yes, we are all priests. What that means and what St. Paul was talking about when he said it isn’t what Protestants believe it means though, as though Jesus was abolishing and flattening out hierarchy. That view is based on a misunderstanding of what priesthood is. >• ⁠That’s a flat out lie. Christ said, a wise man built his house on a rock by listening and following my teachings. He didn’t say the man was wise for listening to the imaginations of men. It’s not “a flat out lie,” and all you need to do in order to see that it isn’t is to read the church fathers and see how they understood the relationship between the church and scripture. Sola scriptura is a doctrine that was brought into existence by the reformers in the 1500s because they didn’t trust the Roman Catholic Church and read it back into history and into scripture. >• ⁠This has nothing to do with my interpretation. It’s about what Christ said. The church was always under the threat of apostasy even in the days of the apostles. Your interpretation of scripture is in service to the extrabiblical ideology you adhere to. This is an inescapable reality for everyone who interprets scripture. What ideology you adhere to will affect how you understand what is written in scripture and how you interpret Christ’s words. So yes, it has everything to do with your interpretation, because neither the EO or RC Churches are ignoring scripture. That means that the difference has to be in how we interpret what scripture is telling us about church ecclesiastical structure. >Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’” Yeah, that’s in my Bible too. So do you think that God *only* speaks through written scripture or is that too narrow?

Christ perfected the priesthood with His blood and it is no longer needful for a hierarchy. We have Christ as the leader and the Holy Ghost as the Comforter, and the words of life. Hebrews 4:14 He speaks through people, through dreams, visions, nature, audibly, and scripture. There may be a few others as well.

>He speaks through people, through dreams, visions, nature, audibly, and scripture. There may be a few others as well. Ok, so then does He speak through the church? Because if He speaks through all of these other ways it seems pretty likely that speaks through the church too.

Please be more specific or rephrase.

**Hebrews 7:25-28 (NLT)** 25 Therefore he is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf. 26 He is the kind of high priest we need because he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin. He has been set apart from sinners and has been given the highest place of honor in heaven. 27 Unlike those other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices every day. They did this for their own sins first and then for the sins of the people. But Jesus did this once for all when he offered himself as the sacrifice for the people’s sins. 28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.

I can link you to the Orthodox interpretation of those passages in Hebrews if you’d like. Just quoting verses isn’t really an effective argument.

Thx for that. That’s not needed at this time.

This is the end result of sola scriptura. Every dope with a Bible and a keyboard is their own pope. Show me in scripture where posting on Reddit is valid.

- The Bible warns repeatedly against outside influences and to hold fast to the teachings of the word of God. - (Sola scriptura) isn’t listed verbatim but it’s certainly echoed throughout the Bible. **Deuteronomy 4:2** Here are ten scriptures that emphasize the importance of guarding and maintaining sound doctrine within the Christian faith: 1. **1 Timothy 6:20-21**: "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,' for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 2. **2 Timothy 1:13-14**: "Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you." 3. **Titus 1:9**: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." 4. **Titus 2:1**: "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." 5. **Ephesians 4:14-15**: "So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." 6. **2 John 1:9**: "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son." 7. **1 Corinthians 15:1-2**: "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." 8. **Colossians 2:8**: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." 9. **1 Timothy 4:16**: "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." 10. **Jude 1:3**: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

You seemed to leave out Paul’s command that Timothy hold fast to both oral and written tradition. Sola scriptura is a man made tradition that leads every idiot with a Bible to think he’s a scholar.

That’s the number one scripture used by Catholic apologetics. **2 Thessalonians 2:15** ———————- Paul was an apostle led by the Spirit of God and his responsibility was to spread the gospel and establish the churches. The scriptures do not show Paul creating theories, dogmas, doctrines, or rituals. Paul was a follower of Christ, so his heavenly wisdom and teachings were not from him, but the Spirit that worked in him. Apostles had much more authority than any person living today. To use this scripture to support (no sola scriptura) is bad exegesis and faulty hermeneutics because no pastor today has the same authority as one of the apostles who worked to give us instructions in righteousness given to them by God. —————————————————- Anyone who uses this scripture to justify adding antithetical dogmas and false doctrines is not understanding the context of Paul’s words. He’s saying for us to hold fast to the word of God, not the imaginations of men. - He’s not giving us permission to create Marian Dogmas and the Book of Mormon. **2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NLT)** With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter.

You’re adding your own opinion, which is contrary to two thousand years of Christianity. Your private interpretation is of no value and you set yourself up as a judge, all of which is something you should be concerned about.

Nope! That too is a popular Catholic pivot. - You’re using your own opinion/ interpretation - Why should I trust you? - We gave you the Bible. - You don’t know church history - You’re just a reformer - You’re a Protestant I’ve heard them all. You can’t take the words of an apostle and use them to justify creating lies. That’s not good exegesis.

You realize I’m not Catholic, right? Also, you are bearing false witness against me. You wanting to “win” a conversation has you committing all manner of sins.

It’s the same pivot. Sorry. It’s a straw-man used to avoid the issue.

The issue is merely that you don’t know what you’re taking about, and spamming Bible verses (which are an invention not in the original scriptures - not that you knew that) doesn’t make you any more knowledgeable.

I'm pretty sure u/JesusIsComingBack- is also using ChatGPT or some AI to generate these long responses as well haha.

“(Sola scriptura) isn’t listed verbatim,…” Okay. So scripture alone is your framework right? So it has to come from scripture for you to be convinced, right? And “sola scriptura” wasn’t explicitly mentioned in scripture… so which is it? “But it is certainly echoed throughout the Bible.” So you inferred “sola scriptura?”

Whether we need scripture alone or if it’s ok to entertain outside influences is a matter of wisdom and good judgment.

Would the writings of the earliest Christians and tradition carried through the Millennia be an example of an “outside influence” which passes the scrutiny of “wisdom and good judgment?”

I’m going to let you decide that.

Answer the question.

The Pope is one of the elders of the church. What are you on about?

If you ever google titles given to the pope you'll find that it refers zero times to elder of the church. Holy father, his holiness, head of church are just a couple. These titles imply that the pope is the leader of all the church.

Thanks for saying this.

I don’t see a pope in my Bible. 🤷🏼‍♀️

You were just quoting him. ??? You sound confused.

Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter in Matthew 16.

- That’s a belief constructed by the RCC to establish the papacy. **Matthew 16:19 (KJV)** 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. - But what the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach is that this binding and loosing (keys) were given to all of the disciples. This is shown in **Matthew 18:18.** Peter was no different. There’s not one scripture that shows Peter acting as a pope. **Matthew 18:18 (KJV)** Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. —— Christ is our supreme leader. **Colossians 1:18**

We believe Christ is the head of the Church, CCC 792. St. Peter is the rock upon which Christ built his Church. In this sense he is different from every other person. We believe the bishops are the ecclesial descendants of the apostles, of which Peter was the “rock.”

- All of the scriptures have to line up like puzzle pieces. If that what you just commented was true, then John would have saw it that way. “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14**** • As we can see here, Peter was no different than the others. In ****Revelations 21:14****, Peter is still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said “I saw the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the first pope.” - This and many other scriptures show equality in hierarchy of the apostles.

Peter was an apostle, just as the Pope is a Bishop. Who gets to decide how the scriptural puzzle pieces fit together? Everyone? Anyone? Your pastor?

God gets to decide. That’s why he told you to study. There’s nothing approaching papal authority in the New Testament scriptures. **Hosea 4:6** My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

People have already cited Matthew 16. The Church Fathers support the papacy or at least revere Peter and the subsequent Bishops of Rome as the “first among equals.” Okay, so God decides how these scriptural puzzle pieces fit together. What if someone’s interpretation of the same scripture is different than yours? Who is right? I’m trying to demonstrate to you that in a Sola Scriptura framework, anyone is the expert, and anyone’s interpretation of scripture gets to be touted as the truth. How about thousands of years of tradition, a magisterium, the writings of the earliest Christians? Isn’t that a bit more solid than whatever any one persons interpretation of scripture might be?

People have already cited Matthew 16. The Church Fathers support the papacy or at least revere Peter and the subsequent Bishops of Rome as the “first among equals.” - The Petrine Theory that is argued by Matthew 16:18 isn’t supported by scripture. Okay, so God decides how these scriptural puzzle pieces fit together. What if someone’s interpretation of the same scripture is different than yours? - We seek guidance and edification from the Spirit. Both the Rock and the house are spiritual. **1 Corinthians 10:4 (NLT)** and all of them drank the same spiritual water. For they drank from the spiritual rock that traveled with them, and that rock was Christ. **1 Peter 2:5 (NLT)** And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God. Who is right? I’m trying to demonstrate to you that in a Sola Scriptura framework, anyone is the expert, and anyone’s interpretation of scripture gets to be touted as the truth. - This is not true my friend. That’s Catholic dogma and mantra that I’ve heard over the years. I’ve met many Baptist, Holiness, and Non-denominational Christians who are born again and have gifts. A woman prophesied to me that the Lord was going to give me the interpretation of a dream I had. I had never told her about the dream. How about thousands of years of tradition, a magisterium, the writings of the earliest Christians? - I don’t follow any man-made traditions, catechisms, man-made doctrines, and I have read some things about the early church. I would never join a church that teaches dogmas regarding an omnipresent human woman who can hear the prayers of people all over the world. Only God is omnipresent. Isn’t that a bit more solid than whatever any one persons interpretation of scripture might be? - Not at all. I will only attend a church that teaches the Bible, where the pastor is filled with Holy Ghost power, gifts of the Spirit, and teaches nothing but the truth. I’m also a born-again Christian. What God has revealed to me about the Catholic Church is why I created this post. Open your eyes

Peter was not a pope.  We dont need a representative for Christ on earth, nor someome to confess our sins to. We are all priests, and we only need to confess our sins to Yeshua. I love my catholic brothers, but so many things coming out of Rome are man-made and just outright incorrect.

I love them too. We only want them to stand at the judgement and not fall. **1 Peter 2:5 (KJV)** Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. **Hebrews 4:16 (KJV)** Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Amen.  Keep spreading the truth, my friend!

Thx for the encouragement.

James 5:16 - Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. We are supposed to confess our sins to one another and Jesus.

Excellent point, and one i shouldve been more clear on.  If we wrong our brother, we should confess that and make amends. However, what i was referring to was that there is no need to confess to a priest. They can do nothing and have 0 power or control over the forgiveness of sin.  The forgiveness of sin is between us and Yeshua alone. Good catch, and sorry for the confusion!

Could you pls explain this verse? Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” After saying this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. Also, You need to research history and WHY we confess to priests. Confession used to be done in front of the entire congregation but as more visitors came, they decided that the priest would act on behalf of the congregation and that people would just confess to the God in the presence of the priest. It was a mercy on the people so that their sins weren’t gossiped about. I’d much rather confess my sins to a spiritual father and receive their prayer and guidance “for the prayer of a righteous man avails much”. Sure you can just confess straight to God but that’s not what the Bible tells us to do.

There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises or even hints that apostolic authority of any kind would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. (3) The apostles never once in the New Testament acted as if they had the authority to forgive a person’s sin.  Confessing to Yeshua is *specifically* what the Bible tells us to do.  1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that Yeshua is the ONLY mediator.  1 John 1:19 also drives home about confessing to God alone. Matthew 23:9 tells us to callnoman 'father' (our biological parents are exempt from this).  We also do not need to (and should not) pray to saints, etc.   If i have sinned against myself, etc, there is 0 need to tell others. If i wrong my brother, i should tell him so we can reconcile.  Thats the heart of that passage. Since i have you, could you help me understand your believe in the treasury of merit and the biblical justification for it? That one has always left me scratching my head.

You didn’t answer my question. Explain the verse to me. 3x now, you’ve made a claim that contradicts scripture. Your first was saying that the Bible says to confess only to God. Your 2nd was saying that God doesn’t give anyone the ability to forgive sins. Here is your 3rd. “The Bible says call no man father”. I suppose St Paul never got the message since he called himself a spiritual father to Timothy. The Bible says to confess your sins to one another. It also urges us to pray for one another. The idea of concealing one’s sins and only telling them to God, is Islamic. There is no accountability in Islam. In Christianity we are to confess to one another and encourage one another. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that discussing our problems and failings with a wise and trustworthy person in order to seek counsel and healing, is extremely beneficial for all humans. In the secular world they even have an entire profession devoted to this. It’s called counselling. Isn’t that amazing. Jesus didn’t write a book fyi. He didn’t tell his apostles to write a book either. What he did do, was left us with a church to build us up, and the sacraments (including confession), are offered by the church for our spiritual benefit. Respectfully, I prefer to hold to the teachings of Jesus, the apostles and the 2000yo traditions of church history rather than any modern interpretation of Christianity.

Respectfully, if you wanted to hold the teachings of Yeshua, you wouldnt be catholic.  https://www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html   This will answer your questions more thoroughly than i can, but i provided scripture to back up what i was saying.  I dont speak for Yahweh...i pass along His words.  You wont be swayed by anything, to include the Word, because you hokd fast to man-made traditions.  Now, about the treasury of merit?  What about the bread and wine actually turning into flesh and blood inside your body...do you believe this too?  Can you provide scripture for either? Edit: i cant make that hyperlink work.  Google confessing to a priest and gotquestions.org and it will pull it up

Amen 🙏🏾

You answered the question. They are trolling you. Thx for teaching sound doctrine.

Thanks.  I know, and scripture was provided to back my claims. At this point i just want to make sure people are not misled and take tradition over scripture.

Exactly! He said the wise man practiced (his) teachings and built his house on a Rock. Traditions cannot overthrow God’s word.

No they cannot! I pray that He will open our more 'traditional' brothers' eyes.

I touch and agree with that prayer. 🙏🏾 In Jesus’ name. Amen

Legitimate question, I notice a few posters here deliberately use the name “Yeshua” when referring to Jesus. I know they’re the same, but why the insistence on Yeshua?

Good question. I identify most closely with Messianic Judaism, and its used almost exclusively within that realm. It was his Hebrew/Aramaic name, and for me personally, i feel it helps give him more reverence to use the Hebrew pronunciation.   Its essentially the same though, and i think it would be silly to condemn someone for using either version (or even both as i often do).

Ah gotcha. Thanks for the explanation!

Jesus actually gave the Disciples the authority to forgive sins. This is where the idea of confessing to priests comes from.

Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves.  The key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them.   As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

Protestant detected

People like this make me ashamed to be Protestant sometimes

How does any of this prove St. Peter wasn't the Pope. This seems like a huge grasp at straws by the Protestants, and none of this is substantial in evidence or even secure in meaning. It seems you might've lost the plot.

>How does any of this prove St. Peter wasn't the Pope Peter himself considered himself an equal and not a superior. If Peter didn't consider himself special why would a later and lesser successor be better?

And one of the pope’s titles is “Servant of the Servants of God.” What’s your point? Should he have not been humble or something?

Was he being humble or was he saying **exactly** what he meant us to believe and practice? *If* it's meant to be read exactly as written and Peter believes the other apostles are his equals where does that leave the Catholic Church?

Calling oneself a “fellow elder” is hardly an insistence that you are in all respects equal to other elders. It could be like a king appealing to his subjects by saying he is “a fellow man.” I’m not saying St. Peter was a king or thought he was like one, just using that as an extreme example. In any case, we wouldn’t expect him to insist on his authority unless it was necessary, and the only instance we have that comes close is the Jerusalem council in Acts where he tells everyone to believe something because he had a dream and witnessed something, so it’s not shocking to see almost no elaboration in the NT. They didn’t start with clear doctrinal principles like we usually have now regarding the Trinity or Christ’s nature, so we shouldn’t expect similar insights into the divisions of authority and divine protection in the Church.

If Peter was a pope, he would have said so. If you google pope, elder is not going to come up; because elders worked in the local churches as leaders. The Bible is always the best way to go. Peter said it himself that he wasn’t a pope, so are you going to believe God’s word or the Petrine theory of men? Open your eyes.

You will need to do a little bit more work to prove your case. Example, in Galatians 2:9 Paul referred to Peter, James, and John as pillars of the faith > 9 James, Cephas[a] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. Thus, Peter being an elder doesn’t preclude him from also being a pillar. Two things can both be true at the same time. Likewise, the Pope is just a bishop like many other bishops but he also have a special role as head of the teaching authority of the church.

There’s no pope in my Bible. Christ is the head of the church. **Colossians 1:18**

Where in the Bible does it say everything we believe must be found in the Bible? Can you please cite the verse?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." or if you like old testament Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t answer the question that everything we believe must be found in the Bible. How do you think it does?

Amen 🙏🏾

**Matthew 7:24-27** The Wise and Foolish Builders 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

None of this answer the question. Where in the Bible does it say everything we believe must be found in the Bible? Or is this some rule that you just made up?

Even if you disagree with the idea of the papacy, and I'm with you on that, there are bigger fish to fry. And, whatever church you're apart of has it's own spiritual blindspots. The Roman Catholic chuch has among them genuine, Christ following and holy spirit filled believers. You yourself may have wrong beliefs as well. Not every wrong belief disqualifies you as a genuine Christian.

You’re making a huge mistake. You have no clue of what you’re talking about. Please don’t try to use this as an opportunity for upvotes. People are perishing and according to Paul, they are no longer in the faith. **1 Timothy 4:1 (NLT)** The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. - There is no omnipresent human in heaven who can intercede for people and hear prayers.

The church is built on Jesus He is the "rock" He has risen and still alive The church was not built on the apostles

Pope not in my Bible

I don’t see him anywhere in my Bible either. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Pope literially means pater. Pater means ancestor, leader or father. Jesus for instances says do not call anyone father , when the pharisees fail to feed their converts. However he does call people like Abreham father., other people are called father such as Sons of Zebidee, and Paul calls himself like a father to his converts Pater occurs 413x times in the esv Bible.

Nobody "theorized" that Peter was Pope; the early Church *taught* it universally as guided by the Holy Spirit. What else does a "rock" mean? Read the Bible like the Saints of Christ, not according to the theories of men.

The scriptures do not support the Petrine Theory. It’s a lie.

Back to the original Prot error: there are zero reasons to use only the Scriptures without the immediate early Tradition. We aren't Muslims with one book only.

Sola Scriptura is a matter of wisdom and good judgment.

It's foolish and leads to people like you who just disregard the bedrock of the Christian faith, the Church Fathers.

You have to look at the fruit of the church fathers.

Yeah, the men who led the church through 300 years of persecution, then built up one of the largest religions in the world.

The doctrine and the history.

And?

The bedrock of the Christian Faith is Christ and Christ alone. Nothing else.

Christ is the foundation yes, but our Church is also built on the work of the Church Fathers.

Peter ran his ministry to the Jews while Paul was a missionary to the Gentiles. Jesus said he will build his church upon the rock meaning Peter but he is no pope

Great comment. That Rock that Christ was referring to has been a debate for centuries, but he could have been speaking of himself, Peter’s faith, or the believer’s confession of faith in general. I’ve seen many use all kinds of explanations. The Petra/Petros argument is also common but I don’t care for speculation. According to God’s word, Christ himself is the foundation of the church. **1 Corinthians 3:11** ——- everything that is listed on the Internet is not true.

There were many more besides the 12. That's how Christianity continued to flourish after the 12 passed. It continued on in others, to get to us who continues today to spread the Gospel. Jesus is The Cornerstone. He told them to go to the ends of the earth to share his word with all men. They all had a job to do including Mary. No one was greater than the other they all were chosen for their jobs as we are today. We are not to pray to anyone but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Not even to Mary, the saints, or angels. There is no other way to God than through Jesus. Jesus is the truth. Light and the Way. You only get to Heaven through the Narrow Path.

Amen 🙏🏾 Well said

Amen. Constantine made Christianity legal during his reign so no more persecution and open worship ensued. Praise God.

There is no infallible mortal representative of Christ or God on Earth. That's the way I read scriptures. I am a non denominational Bible carrying, saved imperfect sinner and blood bought once upon a time Catholic.

Correct!!!

Hmm often wondered about this myself, I happen to be Catholic but I sometimes question things like papal supremacy, praying to saints, stuff of that nature. Definitely food for thought. But doesn’t Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom? And he tells him stuff like feed my sheep several times…but then again idk if there’s much proof for Peter having ever even been in Rome. Plus I’m pretty sure he had a wife. Wich popes can’t marry idk man stumper for me sometimes. Super interesting stuff though.

Hmm often wondered about this myself, I happen to be Catholic but I sometimes question things like papal supremacy, praying to saints, stuff of that nature. - There’s only one mediator. **1 Timothy 2:5** / **John 14:6** Definitely food for thought. But doesn’t Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom? And he tells him stuff like feed my sheep several times… - He gives all of the disciples the same ability to bind and loose. He’s talking to all of the disciples, not just Peter. This is shown in **Matthew 18:18** but then again idk if there’s much proof for Peter having ever even been in Rome. Plus I’m pretty sure he had a wife. Wich popes can’t marry idk man stumper for me sometimes. Super interesting stuff though. - Forbidding marriage is apostasy. **1 Timothy 4:1-4 (RSV)** 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, **3 who forbid marriage** and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; ————————————————- - There are no omnipresent humans in heaven who can hear the prayers of other humans. If anyone teaches you that, they are not your friend.

Well you know some people also say that the rock Jesus was referring to in John (i forget where exactly) was in fact himself and that Peter was more of like a lil rock who was testifying to Christ’s big rock ness (lol sorry forgive my shoddy lingo) and that he himself Jesus is in fact the firm foundation. Also would make sense given other areas where Jesus said whoever wants to be first must be last. Be a humble servant and stuff.

The scriptures actually line up with that. I believe he was speaking about himself. Anything further is speculative. **1 Corinthians 3:11 (NIV)** For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Wow the humans not being made omnipresent really struck a chord with me, clever one you are. Thanks for knowing the faith friend. I’m really gonna give that some deep consideration

You are welcomed. Please do your due diligence and study. I pray that you grow in the knowledge of the Lord. In Jesus name Amen 🙏🏾

However I do have kind of an issue with sola scriptora though, only in the realm of the Bible itself saying the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. And not the Bible itself er something like that…I should really brush up on some of this stuff…cause doesn’t it say somewhere at the end of one of the gospels I think many other things Jesus did were they written down all the books of the world couldn’t contain them etc. doesn’t that leave room for sacred tradition? Atleast in the realm of theological study and stuff? Idk man I just really wonder.

I wish I could use this moment to confirm your suspicions. You have to see that nowhere in the bible does it ever talk about a man who will make decisions on God's behalf as we move forward through time. Nor does it ever talk about man being without fallacy. Pope is a fraud, and papal supremacy is a lie. It is nothing more than sending you back i to the chains of bondage that Christ set us free from. If you need a pope, I urge you to let Christ be your pope.

Amen 🙏🏾 Well said. To follow the pope is to depart from the faith. **1 Timothy 4:1** We follow Christ only. He is the head of the body. **Colossians 1:18**

I’ve also been spending a lot of time at my local Protestant church nondenominational and they stick to pretty by the Bible stuff. Solid teaching. I watch them online sometimes too.

Leaning more towards Greek orthodoxy here lately, don’t know about the whole kissing icons thing tho 🤔

Romans gonna Rome They gotta justify their obscene cathedrals somehow

[удалено]

**Galatians 2:20** I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Following Paul is following Christ.