An interesting take on history alright, so if peter did not go to Rome and become the first bishop there, where was he all this time, did he just go back to fishing in the sea of Galilee.
Peter has very strong ties to the church in Antioch. Antioch was one of the leading Sees, with Rome and Alexandria, before being eclipsed by Constantinople and then converted in the Muslim conquests.
@@SylvesterReport if that is the case, which it very well could be, then the church in Antioch was not very good in spreading the word with a apostle like Peter in there midst, is there any writing anywhere that says Peter was preaching the teaching's of Jesus anywhere else, other than Rome
@@michaelmcist I believe in Paul's letters he mentions Peter being in Antioch but I don't have the references handy. You could try a keyword search for Antioch on his letters on Biblegateway.com
Peter died in Rome! He was crucified upside down in what are the main doors to Saint Peter’s Bascilica. His body is buried under the High Altar in the Bascilica. In 1952, a group of forensic scientists studied the remains of Saint Peter and concluded that Saint Peter was in fact buried in Saint Peter’s Basilica as as the Catholic Church as stated.
So I'm no Biblical scholar, but you're saying this advantage of succession began in 366 AD. Naturally, since Christianity was now legal in Rome. Well a quick Wikipedia search on St. Peter references from multiple texts written way before 366, which mention Peter's death IN ROME, and Peter's own epistle welcoming the citizens of "Babylon", and "Babylon" was code for Rome back then. Sooooooo I'm not convinced by this "Peter was never in Rome" position.
All the stories of Peter in Rome are apocryphal, as Demacopoulos points out in his book. And just for reference, Demacopolous teaches at a Catholic university. Peter's 'own epistle' is also apocryphal and Peter would have been an illiterate Galilean fisherman, what makes you think he could write? (Acts 4:13 - ‘Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled.’) Wikipedia articles are not usually written by scholars or experts in that field, but by the general public. I would also surmise the Wiki page on Peter has likely been contributed to by Catholics and others who believe the Sunday school narrative. I am currently reading a book on Constantine written by a history prof and expert on Constantine, but he makes the same mistake of repeating the Peter legends as his field is a different subset of history. And what makes you think you should trust Wikipedia more than the scholars? Start by reading the books highlighted in the video instead.
@@SylvesterReport Not saying Wikipedia isn’t corruptible with disinformation, just that sometimes they have the little numbers above certain quotes and statements that are links to credible sources. The Peter page has many of these. You’re Wikipedia defence is also based on the relativity of truth from sources that could just have been from random people on the internet, when to me, you are a random person of the internet, collecting their information from another random person who wrote a book about their opinion. The defence leaves us at an impasse. On a final note: even if we equate Peter must have been illiterate, any of the apostles could have hired someone to dictate speeches or letters for them. It was a common trade back then.
I am gobsmacked that you would characterize the numerous highly regarded Christian scholars I cited as 'random people on the internet.' I honestly don't know what to say to such a perspective other than you need to broaden your reading beyond Wikipedia.
@@SylvesterReport Other than the direct citations to the writings of people who lived in the 2nd and 3rd century that Wikipedia provides links to, yes?
This discussion is clearly futile as you class 6 books by 5 Christian scholars as 'random people on the internet' and seek refuge in the propaganda of apologists centuries after Jesus died instead.
According to the Scriptures the Apostles didn't have any successors; when they died out that was it. In the book of Revelation the Lord Jesus Christ commended one of the churches who tested those who claimed to be Apostles and they were not and they were proven to be liars. It's a shame that you have people who try to connect themselves directly to Jesus Christ or one of His Apostles in order for people to follow them.
Peter stood and spoke to those in the upper room, “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection.” And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (Acts 1:20-26). Apostolic succession does occur in Scripture. “Bishopric” is the name of the office.
"...yet they perpetuate it anyway as it serves their agenda; which tells us all just how seriously they take the commandment not to lie." No serious seeker of truth speaks/writes like this. Sad.
Isaiah "WITH his stripes we are healed " The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own (he who had no sin became sin for us) BY which he redeems man unto the Biblical words "I HURT & I HEAL " (Job) the words that underscore the Communion, The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through FAITH - The GRACE So the stripes that man gave him he uses to redeem is the reason why " it pleased God to Bruise him " Not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit For which he had to Resurrect that he did, cause Our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin rules) cause he was found stronger than Sin itself, unto his words "I have overcome the world" (its sins) to say there is no sin that he cannot remove Thus is basically a "Conversion act " instead of a "Substitution (magical) act as generally believed by Protestants , the Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening of the Faith by "Faith Only " that James specifically says is not, unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) & the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel So it is not surprising that the Ez communication of QE 1 (head of Protestantism) by Pope St Pius V was the Ex communication of Protestantism itself, in spirit , Give unto God what is to God - FAITH, surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith,
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. 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. 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 (Mt 16:17-19). These are Jesus’ words recorded in Scripture. They are to be taken at face value. Prior to these words, Jesus had asked His Apostles what people were saying about who He is. After several guesses Simon declared, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus proclaims this to be an insight that only could be known through divine inspiration. Simon’s name is changed to Peter. A name change in Scripture is always significant. Peter’s sign of authority is not in the change of his name, it is on the keys that he is given. In Isaiah 22:15-23, there is a dishonest steward over the house of David, Shebna. The LORD removes Shebna; “I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.” Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Mt 5:17). The use of verbiage that comes from Isaiah would be of great significance to His Apostles and Matthew’s audience, Jews. Peter’s authority is limited to the house of David on earth. A few of the instances in Scripture that demonstrate Peter is the leader of the Church on earth: Jesus’ declaration to Peter that he will be tried by Satan. After his trial he will be given the wherewith all to strengthen his bretheren (Lk 22:31-32). Peter’s three-fold restitution on the shores of the Sea of Tiberius (Jn 21:15-17). Peter calls for the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Peter is the first to deliver the Good News at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). The first miraculous healing takes place through Peter’s intervention (Acts 3:2-8). Paul goes to Peter for affirmation concerning his first three years of ministry (Gal 1:18). Peter gives priests (presbyters, elders) instructions (1 Pt 5:1-11) as to how to shepherd their flocks. Again, these are just a few. Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyon (C. 130-202 AD) wrote extensively about the Church Jesus established. His writings include the following: Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Papal Succession. Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 3:1-2) We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, the apostles were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down upon them, were filled from all His gifts, and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things sent from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (The Writers of the Four Gospels. Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 8:1) In order to make an argument that Peter, the Apostle, is a “myth” one has to disregard what is proclaimed to be the inerrant Word of God, The Bible, and the witness of history. Since Jesus is the Word of God, with Scripture being all about Him. It is Jesus, Himself, that is disregarded. The Holy Spirit who was to guide, lead, and protect the Church failed to do so.
Did you even bother to watch and to understand why all your circular reasoning is false? Or did you just list your biblical passages as tautological proof without even bothering to learn something?
Please spinback, ghoulish evil spirited demonic Hell-Vetican-Enabler and therefore kiddochomo. Shame on you and your fellow cult members. Dagon is nuttin.
Thanks for the suggestion. An interesting passage early on: 'Peter had been crucified there, it was asserted with no more plausible data than a pious tradition, for the Bishops of Rome had no more evidence then than have the pontiffs of the twentieth century. The latter have attempted to substantiate it with doubtful archaeological finds. The process, begun by Pope Pius XII (1939-58), was completed by Pope Paul VI. In 1968 Paul declared officially that “a few fragments of human bones found under the Basilica of St. Peter are the authentic mortal remains of the Apostle”. How the “identification” had been carried out, on a site where hundreds of thousands of bodies had been buried during many centuries, was not plausibly explained, in view also of the fact that there has never been any definite historical evidence to prove that Peter was ever in Rome.'
We mean no harm, no wipe-out. If I used that term I meant the Vatican Dagon Underwater Base Crux Serpentines feckers. From what I witnessed today, they need that special treatment. Thinking anyone living on the surface is too stupid to break their mimikry. Arrogance was their downfall. Molech is a sad old guy that really got mad when I MK Matrioshka Ultra'ed him / her / it. M-Word down, I repeat, M-Word down. Ezwin, GG and good sports. Peace.
I have not watched this video. Your immature replies tell me that I do not want to waste my time with you, regardless of if the content is true or not. I'm sure I can find another source.
Peter never went to Rome. He did however go to Babylon. Visa Vatican international sales association. Looks alot in common with Babylon. Paul went to Rome to preach to the gentiles. For the new covenant from Christ to present day this dispensation known as the Church age.,we see Jesus instruct us to follow Paul as Peters message was more for the Jews at that time
An interesting take on history alright, so if peter did not go to Rome and become the first bishop there, where was he all this time, did he just go back to fishing in the sea of Galilee.
Peter has very strong ties to the church in Antioch. Antioch was one of the leading Sees, with Rome and Alexandria, before being eclipsed by Constantinople and then converted in the Muslim conquests.
@@SylvesterReport if that is the case, which it very well could be, then the church in Antioch was not very good in spreading the word with a apostle like Peter in there midst, is there any writing anywhere that says Peter was preaching the teaching's of Jesus anywhere else, other than Rome
@@michaelmcist I believe in Paul's letters he mentions Peter being in Antioch but I don't have the references handy. You could try a keyword search for Antioch on his letters on Biblegateway.com
Peter lived and died in a cave outside of JeruSalem. He died when he was about 66 years old.
I'm glad you cleared that up forever. lol
Exactly! Scripture proves this also.
Peter died in Rome! He was crucified upside down in what are the main doors to Saint Peter’s Bascilica. His body is buried under the High Altar in the Bascilica. In 1952, a group of forensic scientists studied the remains of Saint Peter and concluded that Saint Peter was in fact buried in Saint Peter’s Basilica as
as the Catholic Church as stated.
So I'm no Biblical scholar, but you're saying this advantage of succession began in 366 AD. Naturally, since Christianity was now legal in Rome. Well a quick Wikipedia search on St. Peter references from multiple texts written way before 366, which mention Peter's death IN ROME, and Peter's own epistle welcoming the citizens of "Babylon", and "Babylon" was code for Rome back then. Sooooooo I'm not convinced by this "Peter was never in Rome" position.
All the stories of Peter in Rome are apocryphal, as Demacopoulos points out in his book. And just for reference, Demacopolous teaches at a Catholic university. Peter's 'own epistle' is also apocryphal and Peter would have been an illiterate Galilean fisherman, what makes you think he could write? (Acts 4:13 - ‘Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled.’)
Wikipedia articles are not usually written by scholars or experts in that field, but by the general public. I would also surmise the Wiki page on Peter has likely been contributed to by Catholics and others who believe the Sunday school narrative. I am currently reading a book on Constantine written by a history prof and expert on Constantine, but he makes the same mistake of repeating the Peter legends as his field is a different subset of history. And what makes you think you should trust Wikipedia more than the scholars? Start by reading the books highlighted in the video instead.
@@SylvesterReport Not saying Wikipedia isn’t corruptible with disinformation, just that sometimes they have the little numbers above certain quotes and statements that are links to credible sources. The Peter page has many of these.
You’re Wikipedia defence is also based on the relativity of truth from sources that could just have been from random people on the internet, when to me, you are a random person of the internet, collecting their information from another random person who wrote a book about their opinion. The defence leaves us at an impasse.
On a final note: even if we equate Peter must have been illiterate, any of the apostles could have hired someone to dictate speeches or letters for them. It was a common trade back then.
I am gobsmacked that you would characterize the numerous highly regarded Christian scholars I cited as 'random people on the internet.' I honestly don't know what to say to such a perspective other than you need to broaden your reading beyond Wikipedia.
@@SylvesterReport Other than the direct citations to the writings of people who lived in the 2nd and 3rd century that Wikipedia provides links to, yes?
This discussion is clearly futile as you class 6 books by 5 Christian scholars as 'random people on the internet' and seek refuge in the propaganda of apologists centuries after Jesus died instead.
According to the Scriptures the Apostles didn't have any successors; when they died out that was it. In the book of Revelation the Lord Jesus Christ commended one of the churches who tested those who claimed to be Apostles and they were not and they were proven to be liars. It's a shame that you have people who try to connect themselves directly to Jesus Christ or one of His Apostles in order for people to follow them.
Peter stood and spoke to those in the upper room, “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection.”
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (Acts 1:20-26).
Apostolic succession does occur in Scripture. “Bishopric” is the name of the office.
Christianity is a sore to some, so they try to destroy it or criticize it with untrue statements.
Perfect blind follower excuse to not see what Christianity did and still does, brother or sister. Please wakey-wakey.
"...yet they perpetuate it anyway as it serves their agenda; which tells us all just how seriously they take the commandment not to lie." No serious seeker of truth speaks/writes like this. Sad.
You've clearly never read or heard anything Hitch wrote or said.
Isaiah "WITH his stripes we are healed " The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own (he who had no sin became sin for us) BY which he redeems man unto the Biblical words "I HURT & I HEAL " (Job) the words that underscore the Communion, The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through FAITH -
The GRACE
So the stripes that man gave him he uses to redeem is the reason why " it pleased God to Bruise him " Not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit For which he had to Resurrect that he did, cause Our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin rules) cause he was found stronger than Sin itself, unto his words "I have overcome the world" (its sins) to say there is no sin that he cannot remove
Thus is basically a "Conversion act " instead of a "Substitution (magical) act as generally believed by Protestants , the Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening of the Faith by "Faith Only " that James specifically says is not, unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) & the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel
So it is not surprising that the Ez communication of QE 1 (head of Protestantism) by Pope St Pius V was the Ex communication of Protestantism itself, in spirit ,
Give unto God what is to God - FAITH, surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith,
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. 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. 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 (Mt 16:17-19).
These are Jesus’ words recorded in Scripture. They are to be taken at face value.
Prior to these words, Jesus had asked His Apostles what people were saying about who He is. After several guesses Simon declared, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus proclaims this to be an insight that only could be known through divine inspiration. Simon’s name is changed to Peter. A name change in Scripture is always significant. Peter’s sign of authority is not in the change of his name, it is on the keys that he is given.
In Isaiah 22:15-23, there is a dishonest steward over the house of David, Shebna. The LORD removes Shebna; “I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.”
Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Mt 5:17). The use of verbiage that comes from Isaiah would be of great significance to His Apostles and Matthew’s audience, Jews. Peter’s authority is limited to the house of David on earth.
A few of the instances in Scripture that demonstrate Peter is the leader of the Church on earth: Jesus’ declaration to Peter that he will be tried by Satan. After his trial he will be given the wherewith all to strengthen his bretheren (Lk 22:31-32). Peter’s three-fold restitution on the shores of the Sea of Tiberius (Jn 21:15-17). Peter calls for the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Peter is the first to deliver the Good News at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). The first miraculous healing takes place through Peter’s intervention (Acts 3:2-8). Paul goes to Peter for affirmation concerning his first three years of ministry (Gal 1:18). Peter gives priests (presbyters, elders) instructions (1 Pt 5:1-11) as to how to shepherd their flocks. Again, these are just a few.
Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyon (C. 130-202 AD) wrote extensively about the Church Jesus established. His writings include the following:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Papal Succession. Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 3:1-2)
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, the apostles were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down upon them, were filled from all His gifts, and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things sent from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (The Writers of the Four Gospels. Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 8:1)
In order to make an argument that Peter, the Apostle, is a “myth” one has to disregard what is proclaimed to be the inerrant Word of God, The Bible, and the witness of history. Since Jesus is the Word of God, with Scripture being all about Him. It is Jesus, Himself, that is disregarded. The Holy Spirit who was to guide, lead, and protect the Church failed to do so.
Did you even bother to watch and to understand why all your circular reasoning is false? Or did you just list your biblical passages as tautological proof without even bothering to learn something?
Such ignorance and stupidity.
It’s refreshing to see that good ol’ anti-Catholic bigotry is still alive and well….
Facts about the lies they made up is bigotry? Good to see Catholics burying their heads in the sand and enabling centuries more of being duped.
Please spinback, ghoulish evil spirited demonic Hell-Vetican-Enabler and therefore kiddochomo. Shame on you and your fellow cult members. Dagon is nuttin.
No comment in your propaganda video?
You label historical facts from a multitude of highly respected Christian scholars as propaganda? Let me guess, Fox "news" viewer?
Read The Vatican Billions by Avro Manhattan.
Thanks for the suggestion. An interesting passage early on:
'Peter had been crucified there, it was asserted with no more plausible data than a pious tradition, for the Bishops of Rome had no more evidence then than have the pontiffs of the twentieth century. The latter have attempted to substantiate it with doubtful archaeological finds. The process, begun by Pope Pius XII (1939-58), was completed by Pope Paul VI. In 1968 Paul declared officially that “a few fragments of human bones found under the Basilica of St. Peter are the authentic mortal remains of the Apostle”.
How the “identification” had been carried out, on a site where hundreds of thousands of bodies had been buried during many centuries, was not plausibly explained, in view also of the fact that there has never been any definite historical evidence to prove that Peter was ever in Rome.'
You cannot wipe out what you hate, because you are biased.
We mean no harm, no wipe-out. If I used that term I meant the Vatican Dagon Underwater Base Crux Serpentines feckers. From what I witnessed today, they need that special treatment. Thinking anyone living on the surface is too stupid to break their mimikry. Arrogance was their downfall. Molech is a sad old guy that really got mad when I MK Matrioshka Ultra'ed him / her / it. M-Word down, I repeat, M-Word down. Ezwin, GG and good sports. Peace.
I have not watched this video. Your immature replies tell me that I do not want to waste my time with you, regardless of if the content is true or not. I'm sure I can find another source.
Good luck.
Peter never went to Rome. He did however go to Babylon.
Visa Vatican international sales association. Looks alot in common with Babylon.
Paul went to Rome to preach to the gentiles. For the new covenant from Christ to present day this dispensation known as the Church age.,we see Jesus instruct us to follow Paul as Peters message was more for the Jews at that time
AMEN😇🙏😜‼️