Testify is Great on the Gospels, Here He Gets Into Why Not RC

Why I Don't Accept the Papacy
Testify | 2 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izfntr_taAk

2:41 Is the Lourdes one I cite on this one sufficiently specifically Catholic?

New blog on the kid: Two Queen Mothers Against Tuberculosis
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/08/two-queen-mothers-against-tuberculosis.html

I mean, at the place an apparition had told a girl "[tell him] that I am the immaculate conception" (Que soy era Immaculada councepciou ... no, "era" isn't "was" it's "the" = other romance lingos have "la").

If this is a false claim by the apparition, why does God authentify it so multiply?

4:11 John 21. Given Jesus is "the good shepherd" what kind of office is Jesus giving Peter with "feed my sheep"?

Matthew 28. Given the last words, verse 16, are adressed mainly to the eleven, whom was Jesus promising to perpetuate in verse 20, "all days"?

LegendBegins

@LegendBegins

It really looks like Jesus is restoring Peter after his denial more so than giving him any elevated office.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@LegendBegins Why would that involve "shepherding"?

---

All the following comments have disappeared:

4:40 Is St. Irenaeus early enough?

2. 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

3. 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. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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.

Book III of Adversus Haereses. [and chapter 3]

4:48 The NT says his authority passes on though.

Matthew 28:20. All days to the consummation of the age means further on than just to when Peter was crucified.

Like it still isn't finished.

WHERE precisely that office passes on depends on where he died. If you think his "Babylon" means a city on the Euphrates which was great back in Daniel's day, why would he go there, when it was shrunk to the proportions of a pagan Disney land?

4:54 Whether Peter or another Cephas gets rebuked by Paul is overall dubious.

Sure, Latin, that is the most immediately Papal of the main regional traditions says it was Peter. Alexandrine says it was another Cephas (see Stromata).

But getting rebuked isn't in and of itself a mark of lacking supreme authority (under God). St. Thomas says St. Peter was setting an example to accept correction even from inferiors.

5:06 If you mean Titus and I and II Timothy, there are offices that St. Paul is pretty sketchy about in the text.

St. Paul's own and St. Timothy's for instance.

I would say "local" or "ordinary bishop" wasn't called "bishop", it was called "teacher" or in Douay Rheims "master" and is most memorably mentioned in James 3:1, exactly matching Catholic attitudes to being offered a diocese. The word "bishop" on at least one (Catholic) opinion simply meant "priest" (like 1 Timothy 3:1 matches attitudes to wanting to become a priest).

The one bishop mentioned in the two to Timothy is simply called "thou" ...

In other words, the NT doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive manual to Church offices.

[couldn't add:

There is a reason why the Bible would say less about bishops and Popes.

God knew there would be changing circumstances, so elections would be made in different ways. But also, the usual candidates would anyway have gone through the school described by Paul for presbyters ("bishops") and deacons.]

5:31 Like Timothy can be adressed "thou" (in a manual for his overseeing among other things lesser offices), or "Church in Ephesus" ...

Not sure if he was still around when Jesus adressed "the angel of the Church of Ephesus" but that would be Timothy or a successor to him.

5:40 Checking 1 Clement 44:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

This covers St. Paul appointing St. Timothy over Ephesus. In the singular. So, the plural is for plural churches that have apostolic origin, not for a plurality of office holders in each Church.

5:50 It's actually not weird.

If everyone in Corinth knew to obey the Pope, the Pope only had to remind them to behave well to their bishop. Like St. Ignatius had done to some Churches, but not the one in Rome which didn't need instruction on that point, or from him.

6:07 Again, Rome was already submitting to the then Pope, so didn't need a reminder from St. Ignatius.

6:15 Presides in love = presides in the unity of the love that binds faithful Christians.

What does "preside" suggest to you?

6:28 That a single bishop presides over the Church doesn't stop presbyters from doing so with him.

Hermas was mentioning the cardinals, basically. Would you say cardinals have no presiding function in Rome today? I wouldn't.

[couldn't add:

For a recent example, see the skull of St. Agatha.]

6:55 Yes, the Pope is local bishop of Rome.

You sound as if every text has to supply every truth about the Pope for them to be confirmed.

What was your logic again, when John mentions Philip in chapter 6 and some other Gospeller mentions Bethsaida? Is Philip invalidated because Synoptics don't mention him or Bethsaida invalidated because John doesn't mention the place in this context?

Or do you apply one set of logic rules for the Gospels and a different set when reading the Early Church?

Are they considering "abortion" a survival for siblings of the aborted? How ghastly ... and also not always true, abortions kill and sterilise mothers too

Why Did Ancient Humans Have Kids at 12?
Noxenn / Volt / Dodoz | 11 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F63f-UivWU

3:22 "in parts of Europe"

Norway, Scotland, maybe Sweden, Denmark, England, maybe Hamburg and Berlin ....

Sure, less good nutrition, and lots of the year with no light much of the day.

5:28 No decade long time when body and hormones say "adult" and society replies "child" ...

Thank you, Old Rome (also followed by Christians).

7:21 "and your offspring will benefit from a more mature and more resourceful parent"

Well, not if teens and single life drive some to suicide or if some are socially held back from being considered mature anyway, as per psychiatry or child protective services.

Those factors don't just delay, they handicap even after the delay is over.

[tried to add:

Not to mention the clear non-benefit of being aborted since mother is considered "too young"]

8:01 Pelvis, trade off.

BEST time for first child birth is between 17 and 25. Now consider that as a point, a limit.

Before that, down to 13, the pelvis is narrower, but more malleable, after that the pelvis is wider but harder.

30 is riskier than 13, other things being equal. At least according to the Gynaecology professor of my mother.

8:25 "it cost lives"

I'm going to a study on Ethiopia, where young childbirth is pretty common.*

Result: A total of 61 studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing all Ethiopian regions. The pooled MMR was estimated at 366.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, showing only modest progress from previous decades.

This was between 2015 and 2015

13:21 With some modification.

Biologically ready can happen between 9 and 18, but the younger years were in fact cut off in Christendom, as in Ancient Rome, due to a legal age of 14 for the male and 12 for the female participant of a marriage.

20 secs up to 14:05

We look back at 12-year-old brides and young mothers in the ancient world, and we feel a very natural, very justified sense of unease, sometimes horror. And honestly, that reaction is appropriate given what we now know about adolescent development, about the risks of early pregnancy, about the psychological and physical toll it took.

Count me out from this "we" and I object to "justified" and ""what we now know".

That early pregnancy is a risk was always obvious. But for very long this risk has been mitigated by good medicine. Waiting to 30 is objectively speaking riskier. It works out in Sweden, and wouldn't work out in Ethiopia, for the same reason that many of the teen mothers who die in Ethiopia would have survived in Sweden.

Adolescent development is an ideal age for the bonding that needs to take place in a marriage. And the two last items, "psychological and physical toll" are simply redundant for the first two items.

In other words, you are uselessly catastrophising about it.

15:25 "Began climbing steadily across most of the world."

You frame it as a kind of very natural development.

In fact, it was more of a project starting in 1880's US, among other centres. Making early teen marriages illegal. By now, that policy is being viewed as "the natural course of things" and early pregnancies are often death sentences due to that culture and to legal abortion.

In Italy, at least, under Il Duce, a mother of 14 who aborted went to prison, as older mothers and a mother under 14 who aborted, whoever legally put her up to it (she hadn't legally consented to abortion) went even longer to prison. However, normal marital age was 18 / 18, as it had been since the Risorgimento (and somewhat earlier in Sardegna), and getting married earlier was, if at all possible, then as a derogation when a girl was already pregnant.

In Austria, under Francis Joseph II, a woman of 21 could marry without asking her parents, but a girl of 14 could marry with parental permission. AEIOU.

16:05 "how far our species has travalled" ... into brutal abortion mills, among other things.

* Maternal mortality in Ethiopia (2015-2025): a systematic review of recent evidence and determinants
Merga Abdissa Aga 1, Ding-Geng Chen 2 3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41462176/
BMC Public Health. 2025 Dec 29;26(1):539. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-26101-w.

Skipping Some on What They Consider "Second Tier Issues" ... Or Their Relation Between Bible and Tradition

We Wish All Christians Knew THIS About the Book of Genesis
Answers in Genesis | 4 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72rO2eoimw

St. Paul treats Melchisedec as a real person.

This means, he takes Genesis 14 as real history.

Now, in a non-inspired work, real history could include pseudo-facts, like WW-I propaganda about Germans making lamp shades of human skin. However, in an inspired work, the only reason for a non-factual statement would be "not meant as real history" ... like the lost son who came back, we cannot be sure any specific man ever ate or tried to eat the husks he gave to swine (nor that there wasn't one). But this venue is not open about Genesis 14.

It's real history, not parable. AND it's inspired, not fallible.

And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar
[Genesis 14:7]

And where is Asasonthamar?

And there came messengers, and told Josaphat, saying: There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, and out of Syria, and behold they are in Asasonthamar, which is Engaddi
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 20:2]

Now, the archaeology for Ein Gedi shows no human habitation between the presumable Amorrhean habitation of the chalcolithic, ending 3500 BC (carbon dated) and the Iron Age which is definitely too late.

I think Osgood for all the facts except the 3500 BC carbon date, had to look that one up elsewhere.

However, Genesis 14 cannot have happened in actual 3500 BC, since Abraham was c. 5 years earlier called 430 years before the Exodus, that was 480 or 480 + years prior to the Temple of Solomon, and that was c. 390 years prior to the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

This means, there is a discrepancy between the carbon date and the actual date. If we take Abraham as born in 2016 BC (as the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day does), and allow Abraham to be around 80 (more than the 75 in chapter 12, less than the 86 in chapter 16), this automatically involves a discrepancy of 1564 extra years.

But 1564 extra years is a carbon 14 level of 82.763 pmC * . Perfectly viable if the carbon 14 level was still rising from an initially lower level, but impossible as just a "wiggle" in the c. 100 pmC roughly speaking stable level.

* (Since .5^(1564/5730) = 0.8276258493022752)

3:49 Obviously, St. Augustine who believed at least on and off in a one moment creation was saved too.

However, if you think Adam had progenitors, you are in trouble.

Two scenarios:

a) they were fully human = he was not the first man, his sin could not be decisive, directly condemned by Trent Session V;
b) they weren't = God put a sinless human child in harm's way.

The idea of Adam having fully human parents was certainly not allowed anywhere among purported Catholics in 1950. The second idea was, by Pius XII, "left on trial" rather than directly condemned.

This had been kind of, but less officially, the case since 1941.

And some were not taking it to "we can defend in a discussion that Adam had non-human progenitors, but we can't actually believe it unless the Church first accepts our arguments", no, they were not just or even foremost defending it, they were believing it. That part of Catholic clergy started the modern child abuse crisis. Remember the 1941 date I just mentioned?

A few years ago, when people who had been big children but below puberty in the 1930's were still alive, a French commission started on the child and youth abuses. Their earliest examples were from the 1940's ... Romans 1:26 ...

7:37 Logically, if you know your science, if you accept long periods of time, you'd suppose the atmosphere was c. 100 pmC both in 3500 BC and in 1936 BC, so full and inerrant historicity of Genesis 14 is out.

Somehow those people never make that connection.

---

Let's add a closing line in response to their final question:

---

I allow the Catholic Church to define as first or at least second tier issues whatever She proclaims as dogma.

Note, a statement to the effect "let's say there is so far no dogma on the issue, you can discuss this behind closed doors" is not a dogma, and Pius XII did not define (technical term) that Adam having ancestry was even licit to hold. It isn't. He conditioned the discussions on the willingness to submit to a definite statement of the Church, but didn't say it had to be a future one. I do. Trent Session V echoes Romans Chapter V and this makes Theistic Evolutionism an absolute no go zone.

Accepting millions of years but also believing a literal Adam is simply lazy thought. You can probably be saved, as in a state of grace, but you can't be coherent as in a good philosopher if you do that.

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong

I'd Never Heard This C.S. Lewis Argument Before
Matt Fradd | 1 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsmIgZpD00

3:13 That's not my favourite chapter of Miracles.

It's a horrible (if not red) thing in exegesis. I think the exact same example is where CSL applies this to the Ascension, and that reading of the Ascension ends up basically saying the Incarnation was reversed.

Nope, wasn't. Jesus still has a body which certainly is present in each validly consecrated Host, but primarily is present under its own dimensions in Heaven, which therefore is a place and not just the Divinity. A physical place.

3:32 Old man in the clouds is a conflation of two Biblical images ... with physicality to them.

Daniel saw God the Father as "the ancient of days".

Jesus says He's coming back "in the clouds" ...

4:44 "signage"

I suppose that means a collection of sign posts, like "no U turns" and so on.

Would be a very good parallel if the Bible were only teaching values and if all the facts and especially physical ones were only obiter dicta. I think that position has been fairly recently condemned and with the precise wording "obiter dicta" in the condemnation, but I could be wrong.

5:17 The problem with Jordan Peterson is, he doesn't take Biblical truths seriously, when they are statements about fact, rather than value.

In Principle, I'm a Monarchist, and Ethnically, Scandinavian

But that doesn't mean I'm "helfrelst" on Scandinavian current monarchs.

Norway's Glorious New Globalist Monarch
Bjorn Talks / Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen | 2 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19V7LVZUBXg

As I'm kind of 1/4 Norwegian, I'm sharing.

The fuel price went up by 1 USD 89 cents, and some, per [US] gallon.

A Templar Doesn't Want Me to Be Catholic?

7 Orthodox Beliefs That Shock Protestants and Catholics
Ancient Faith Explained | 30 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gEh1xlkIE

Why the title "7 Orthodox Beliefs That Shock Protestants" isn't it enough?

If you were to rename the video, how about "7 Orthodox and Catholic Beliefs That Shock Protestants" ... or you document why Catholics are supposedly outside.

Marc Blaydoe

@mblaydoe

Because the video is not about Catholicism? Let the Catholics defend Catholicism. Does a video explaining Judaism have to explain why Catholicism is "outside"?

Note

OMSDT Knights :
https://www.usaknightstemplar.org/omsdt-knights

Grand Marshal, Marc Blaydoe, Knighted November 2018

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@mblaydoe A Jewish video stating "Jewish beliefs that shock Atheists and Catholics" and enumerates "God created the world" as one of them or "God spoke to Moses on Sinai" as another of them would be equally lying (or mistaken) about Catholicism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mblaydoe For the record, I am a Catholic defending Catholicism.

For the record. Templars were banned in 1313 and might be somewhat initiative in their "revival" version. Protecting pilgrims may, to them, involve making them reevaluate things, including the Catholic religion./HGL

Refuting a Protestant, Roughly (or closely or exactly, don't know) 7DA

What Does the Bible Say About the Pope? (And Why it Matters to Your Faith)
30 April 2025 | Becoming Christians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=964t2wnJa64

2:23 That allegation is not in the Bible.

[The allegation that the papacy "as we know it today" is not in the Bible]

2:39 Suppose we grant the rock is Jesus.

Who receives the keys in next verse? "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven" ... I suppose Jesus was not using "thee" for "myself", right?

Becoming Christians

@becomingchristians

You're absolutely right that in Matthew 16:19, Yahshua says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..."—and yes, He was speaking to Peter directly. But here’s where it gets interesting:

Receiving the keys doesn’t mean exclusive or supreme authority over the Church. In Jewish culture, keys represented the authority to open or close access—like a steward, not a king. Peter was entrusted with a special role: opening the doors of the Kingdom through the gospel. And that’s exactly what he did! In Acts 2, he preached to the Jews. In Acts 10, he brought the gospel to the Gentiles (Cornelius' household). That’s Peter using the keys.

But here’s the key part: that authority wasn't limited to Peter alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@becomingchristians "like a steward, not a king"

Exactly how we view the papacy.

However, in the physical or more precisely social absence of the king (not physically absent from the Eucharist, but also not usually talking from it), the steward exercises the powers of the King.

"that authority wasn't limited to Peter alone."

That's where we agree. He had successors too. Linus, Cletus, Clemens ...

Or wait, did you mean Matthew 18? Well, St. Peter had some equality with the others of the twelve. The Pope has some equality with the other bishops.

3:09 Here is a parallel verse about foundation:

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
[Ephesians 2:20]

However, the verse you cited, if you would like some context, here it is:

For we are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry; you are God's building According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus [1 Corinthians 3:9-11]

So we have learned two things from here about foundations:

• the only foundation is Christ Jesus
• nevertheless Apostles are laying it, it is not just Himself or the Father who's laying it, no, Apostles are in fact active as laying it ... which is what you find in Eph 2:20.

Becoming Christians

thanks for the additional insight

3:43 This is a historic allegation, contradicted by Church Tradition.

Here is St. Irenaeus:

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. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

4:12 You forget that it is Catholic doctrine that papal authority can take turns with collegial authority of a council.

By contrast, Peter in Acts 2 founded the Church in Jerusalem, and in Acts 8 together with John the Church in Samaria.

Becoming Christians

You're right that Catholic doctrine teaches a shared authority between the Pope and Church councils (collegiality), especially in ecumenical councils. However, what I addressed in the video is not just the shared structure, but the claim that the Pope holds supreme, universal, and infallible authority—a claim the Bible simply doesn’t support.

As for Peter in Acts 2, he certainly played a key role in preaching the first sermon at Pentecost. But nowhere in Scripture does it say he founded the Church in Jerusalem—if anything, James became the leading figure there (Acts 15:13-21). And in Acts 8, Peter and John went to confirm the work that was already started by Philip in Samaria—they didn't plant a new church.

The pattern we see in Acts and the New Testament isn’t of one supreme human leader, but of apostles and elders working together, always under the headship of Yahshua the Messiah.

No doubt, Peter was bold and faithful. But the Church was never built on Peter as a person—it was built on Christ and the confession of faith in Him (Matthew 16:16-18, 1 Corinthians 3:11).

Much love and blessings to you as we all keep seeking the truth in His Word!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians "As for Peter in Acts 2, he certainly played a key role in preaching the first sermon at Pentecost."

Let me refresh your memory.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak
[Acts Of Apostles 2:4]

But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words
[Acts Of Apostles 2:14]

The preaching of the 120 who had received the Holy Ghost was a sign, but indecisive.

The preaching of Peter was decisive.

5:02 Before you get from there to "no stand-ins" you need to skip a real lot.

"As the Father hath sent me, so I send you"
"He who heareth you heareth me, and him who hath sent me"

Jesus is the good shepherd and makes Peter the shepherd of his flock at lake Genesareth.

Becoming Christians

Hi! I have explained to you that Peter isn't the sole authority in the church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians And you claimed in so doing he was not in any way, shape or form a standin for Jesus.

I give the obvious counterexample.

5:16 If the words of a man, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, can be the words of God, and infallible, when that man is writing a Gospel, the words of a man, like Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus and Clement, can be the words or decisions of God too.

Becoming Christians

What is the words of a man go against the established word of God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians You have to prove there are ways in which the words of the papacy have gone against the word of God.

However, if you do not show a pedigree back to the apostles, and pretend to be a Church, that in itself is against the word of God, like Matthew 28:16 through 20.