Why do Christians need a Pope?

>powers

No fucking way, they really let snake bite them?

Peter is the False Disciples

...

>this thread again
This discussion hasn't ended since the Council of Hippo - it isn't going to end now, in a thread on Veeky Forums. Read a fucking book on the goddamned subject instead of coming here.

pope's become kind of a symbol-

Why do kangs need a fro?

Why does Veeky Forums need a Pepe?

Pope is at most merely first among equals and has no more authority than other patriarchs.

No I wanna talk about it here. Fuck off.

It doesn't, it's a shitty unfunny meme used by communities other than Veeky Forums

Short answer, tradition.

Long answer, the Pope as "the closest human to God", serves as his "voice". But for all that matters, he's our main guy to say so,

t. protestant retard

He's literally God on earth tho

Pope is the remnant of the Western Emperor.

Vatican represents the way in which a part of roman authority survived in a reduced state via theocracy.

The structure of the Vatican was layed on top of existing roman administrative structures.

You can call it "tradition"; but that doesn't legitimise it theologically.

The way Rome contorted Christianity to serve it's own needs is amazing. The same thing happened in the East, sure; but at least they don't put a man before the people and Christ.

Also, the amount of mental gymnastics and paper-work that was needed to legitimise the papacy and override christian concepts with man-made catholic dogma is amazing.

Aside from my crypto-constantine posting one thing remains:

Catholicism has a Pope because Catholicism vastly more political then other christian denominations. Also, the Western mind needs a leader / emperor figure to dictate and uphold their faith as it is not very able around abstract concepts.

It's not just Catholics who have a Pope, there's also the Patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of Antioch, head of the Syraic Orthodox Church, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, head of the Coptic Church. Additionally each other Orthodox Church has a head, as well as some Protestant churches having a head (Church of England has the Archbishop of Canterbury) I believe it's because of arguments over interpretations and eventually there had to be made a final religious authority to settle them.

>Aside from my crypto-constantine posting
The orthodox had the emperor before God and man

>Catholicism has a Pope because Catholicism vastly more political then other christian denominations.
[citation needed]

Because if a king doesn't have absolute control over what people should believe, people will automatically fall into all sorts of heresies.

Catholics are the ONLY Christians

>Catholicism has a Pope because Catholicism vastly more political then other christian denominations.
>[citation needed]

Really? You are either a shill or retarded.

The Orthodox are as well, despite how much so many of them on here (i.e LARPers) hate us

New Living Translation
I wrote to the church about this, but Diotrephes, who loves to be the leader, refuses to have anything to do with us.

>Why do Christians need a Pope?

10/10 b8 m8

Catholics have a pope, not Christians.

Mmmmm, and what was Jesus' answer to this question?

The one who serves the most.

Staging photo-ops to kiss black people's feet while living like an emperor is not serving anyone.

Rubbish.

>what is ex cathedra infallibility of pope

kek

Is it opposite day already?

If the Pope was based, then we wouldn't even ask that question. It's like asking why does America need a President. The fact is if you agree with him, then it's a different story.
Right now I don't like the pope but my religion forces me to at least hear what he has to say, I would prefer a more traditional, conservative Pope that BTFO's modernists.

Stay on the Narrow Road and focus only on the Trinity, otherwise you're entertaining demons and are in danger of Gods Wrath! When Jesus returns He will abolish all false religions, including this one. Your soul is in danger, you've been warned, Jesus Christ is Lord!

>Why do Romans need a Pope?

FTFY

So orthodoxy which shills for the Russian govt isn't political. Or protishitism, which is a tool of the American govt?

Gtfo of here with your shit.

>penniless cult leader preaching ethnic release from empire advocates for abandonment of earthly wealth
>adopted by imperial authority, rulers claim lineage from mythic figure, take on every trapping of luxury possible, claim authority over entire earth
>but wait, schism into a thousand subcultures, mutate into every philosophical development over a thousand year, blatantly rewrite and translate holy book, still claim Eternal Truth

Really makes you not think

They need a physical presentation of their belief because they lack spirit to feel complete without an intermediary carrying them across the desert; forgiving all their sins so they can pretend they don't have to pay for them, in their own blood.

Thank you

I think you are very close to the truth, in that the pope is called the Vicar of Christ, "God on earth", and the catholic's faith is in his church, not in Jesus himself.

Thanks for your warning. I go to to church for God, not the Pope at the end of the day.

You can't be Christian without upholding the tenants of Judaism, faith in Jesus isn't enough.
>inb4 Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism XDD, so we can ignore as many teachings as we want

Judaism
Christianity

Pick one. The New Covenant is not like the Old.

They are in fact incompatible, and deal with different arenas, and have different qualifications.

If you think you can live by the Law, you don't know the Law at all.

Mmmnn, debatable. I agree to an extent but there is definitely a difference between the old covenant and the new one that Jesus brought.

But yes, we should respect the Sabbath among other observances

the head of The Church of England is the Queen, you prole

+6 holy damage

Christianity was hijacked by Paul, deifying the Jesus character from 100 years prior like any textbook cult. That's why they have to invent the Trinity nonsense to justify being polytheist. Anyone who disagreed got wiped out as "Heretics". So actually Christians really just worship raw violence, authority, and power like all sociopaths.

Not if you don't want to.

Romans 14:5
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

Paul was present at the murder of the first martyr, Stephen.

Paul met the risen Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus, and was converted.

Paul met with Jesus in Arabia for years, and Jesus taught Paul the New Covenant, and revealed many mysteries to Paul.

There is no Christianity without Jesus and Paul working together. The rest of the disciples knew less about Jesus and the New Covenant collectively, than did Paul.

Paul and Jesus were contemporaries.

Jesus didn't abolish the law, not even one stroke of one letter of it.

Yet one is to believe that Paul knew Jesus better than the people who knew Jesus, knew Jesus.

I'm not surprised your apologetic relies entirely on impossible delusion.

We don't.

We do now.

Seems like convenient excuses for a guy who invited himself into a movement where none of the apostles wanted him.

Catholics aren't Christian

...

And Catholic Church-held power is divided between the Pope, the College of Cardinals and Local Bishops. Your point?

Christians don't. Only Roman Cucktocuckoldists.

fight! fight! fight! fight!

>Be me
>wonder if Christians need a pope
>open bible
> Ephesians 5:24In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything
>Pope isn't Christ
And that's were any Catholic should stop, seriously consider how apostate Catholicism is, do a 360, and moonwalk out of that religion

No-one worships the Pope though.

Catholics are in subsection to the pope. He is supposed to be the bridge between Jesus and the Christians is he not?

Because they're fucktards.

>He is supposed to be the bridge between Jesus and the Christians is he not
Nope. Every Catholic has a personal relationship with Christ, no Pope needed. He's simply the head of the Church, no different than the Queen of England or the head priest of any other Christian denomination.

mending of the great schism when?
The pope should just be another one of the pentarchy

Matthew 23:8-10 - But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.

The Pope is the leader of the Catholic church. Jesus clearly stated how this is wrong in his eyes before the church even started.

The apostles themselves led congregations as church leaders doofus.

We've been Christian for 2000 years, user.

We've done more to spread the Gospel than whatever shitty little sect you belong to has ever done in its short history.

See

They served as a body being guided by Christ. The Pope isn't the same.

Oh yeah? What denomination are you?
>inb4 something retarded like Jehovahs Witnesses

Sure am :^) And I'm proud of it! Please explain to me how I'm retarded

The Church's organization grew out of the framework that Christ laid down for the Apostles. They transfer spiritual power to each other through the laying on of hands. Priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope are God's intercessors on Earth, and this is what Christ wanted.

That's the part everybody seems to miss. This is what Christ wanted. The Church was founded by Christ and the Holy Spirit is with it. The Church is guided, mostly, by the Spirit. The Spirit is with the Church. The Church's current structure is divinely sanctioned.

>this is what Christ wanted

Then please back up your statement with scripture.

>The Church's current structure is divinely sanctioned.

Dude no. We are all brothers as Jesus said himself in Matthew. There should be no such thing as a clergy class and the rest. The the acts by the Catholics (I am assuming you are, I apologize if you aren't) throughout human history clearly violate Jesus' instructions...

Well technically it's not really Christianity. It's a more extreme Protestant fringe. It's yet another one of those denominations where you need to believe that they got it wrong for 1800 years until your guy came around and interpreted the Bible the correct way

Sort of like how to be Catholic you need to think they got it wrong for the first 1000 years and to be Orthodox you need to think they got it wrong for 300?

>This is what Christ wanted.
The Pope wasn't part of that.

>Well technically it's not really Christianity
When will this meme die? If you think JW's don't follow Christ's teachings implicitly, then you are severely mistaken.

>It's a more extreme Protestant fringe
Without the reformation, we wouldn't be around sure...but we aren't Protestant. Sola Fide isn't what the original first century Christians believed.

>'s yet another one of those denominations where you need to believe that they got it wrong for 1800 years until your guy came around and interpreted the Bible the correct way
I don't mean to disrespect you user. But we all can agree in the bible. 1 John 5:19 "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." If Satan controls the World, would it be logical to think he'd use that power to subvert God's word for the masses for centuries? Just a thought.

Technically, Catholicism had it's birth after the Council of Nicaea. Which was in the 4th century

No? Early Christianity was fragmented, it wasn't a monolith. You had people coming up with all sorts of crazy heretical interpretations (huh seems familiar) like Gnosticism. The point of the council of Nicea was to properly set the doctrine of the Church so you didn't have all these heretics running around saying that Jesus told them he was really a space alien. Since that time the Catholic Church has more or less remained the same for the past 1700 years, with the schism occuring between east and west because Constantinople disputed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (Pope), but even that isn't a big deal and Catholics and Orthodox both view each others sacrements as valid.

Now the Protestant Reformation caused the exact same problems that the council of nicea was attempting to stop, namely every single person making up their own interpretation. The problem with sola scriptura is that opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and when it comes to opinions on the Bible you get a million different Protestant denominations claiming their interpretation is right.

Personally I'll stick with the Catholic Church, the one that began with Peter and has stood ever since, rather than a denomination that sprung up 200 years ago by some nobody deciding his personal interpretation of the Bible was canon.

>But we all can agree in the bible
Yes but you need the traditions of the Church to give context to it. Without that context you can argue about your interpretations of Bible verses til you're blue in the face, it's all in the eye of the beholder. What makes your Bible interpretation more valid than say a Lutherans? You're going to go around in circles.

He also gave Peter Keys of David. A very important thing to have See Isaiah 22. And Peter acted like leader. He is almost always referred as distinguished person when authors speak about Apostles, he was one to proclaim dogma of Church in the counicl in Acts 15, he was one that repleced Judas, his name, Kephas, is title and function of foundation etc. Peter was also humble. He didn't wanted respect, even though for exemple Elijah acepted dulia when he lived. He was a good man, servant of Christ and his Church etc. But he was leader, a Pope. And his succesors on cathedra Petri have privilige to be servants of servants.
And if you think that he cannot be one becouse he dress nicely then I have bad news for ya.

You believe in pixies and imaginary people who live in the sky. The average retard is several steps above you on the mental faculty ladder.

>Personally I'll stick with the Catholic Church
OH, you mean the apostate denomination that has strayed immensely far from biblical teaching? How could Jesus ever condone the crusades user? If Jesus rebuked Peter for chopping off the ear of one of the mob members on the night Jesus was to be tried and executed, how could he ever just contradict himself and say "yeah let's just commit mass murder all the way to Jerusalem. Oh and, remember how I said to love your enemy? I was joking." Get real user

Or how about how recently the Pope has deemed homosexuality has ok within the clergy class? How hypocritical can you be? (Romans 1:26)

>Yes but you need the traditions of the Church to give context to it. Without that context you can argue about your interpretations of Bible verses til you're blue in the face, it's all in the eye of the beholder. What makes your Bible interpretation more valid than say a Lutherans? You're going to go around in circles.
I understand what you are getting at. But our translation is based off of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the BH Quinta. They both are reputable, scholarly translations that are based off of the Leningrad Codex. The NWT is pretty darn reliable.

>And Peter acted like leader
And he was taken down a notch by Paul. Galatians 2:11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. I am sure glad there was a body of men being directed by Jesus rather than one sole heir. Or else favoritism would have ruined the early congregation.

> he was one that repleced Judas
No he wasn't. Acts 1: 23-26 Barsabbas and Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot among the other 11.

Also check this out:
>In a letter dated December 8, 1950, noted Bible translator and scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote regarding the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”
Bible translator and scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed
Edgar J. Goodspeed
Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited the New World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.”—The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.
Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.
Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: “The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.”—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.
Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton

>Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.
Professor S. MacLean Gilmour, while not agreeing with some renderings in the New World Translation, still acknowledged that its translators “possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, page 26.
In his review of the New World Translation that forms part of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Associate Professor Thomas N. Winter wrote: “The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, page 376.
Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”
Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.

Sorry I'm not talking about the textual translation of the Bible, I'm talking about two people interpreting the same verse differently. Like your entire denomination rests on the idea that you guys are the ones who finally figured out what the Bible REALLY meant, but doesn't the fact that some other Protestant can interpret it completely differently kind of nullify that? Both of you are going to point to each other and say "No, he's the one who misunderstood, I know the true meaning". It devolves into "he said she said".

Why not trust the Church leaders who have spent entire lifetimes studying the texts for over 50 generations?

>I'm talking about two people interpreting the same verse differently.
Ahh I see. The point here is that, ever since the get-go, we have always used the bible to answer it's own interpretation. If the bible supported the trinity, it would have more than enough scriptures to prove that point. Nevertheless, it does not. That is true with all doctrines that JW's practice.

>Why not trust the Church leaders who have spent entire lifetimes studying the texts for over 50 generations?
Because as I have already pointed out, these leaders have strayed away from biblical teachings user. Also you can't just trust other people to figure it out for yourself. You have to put forth the effort to build your own faith. That is why I respect the JW organization, they always promote personal bible study programs like the Bereoens of the first century.

>Galatians 2:11
Yes. That is what good leaders do. Take advice. Furthermore, Paul condemns Peter not because he is not a Leader of Church. He done it because he acted hypocritical. Peter, and Popes too, are only mere men. The err in their behavior. The only people that think that Pope is God of some sort is protestants.
>inb4 "Muh infallibility"
Read Catechism before you speak about it. Or canons of Vaticanum I
(Also, note that Paul name Peter Cephas. That Cephas on which Jesus built Church)
>No he wasn't.
15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)
16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
Get those reading skills up.

Hey can I get back to you on the Pope? I got to go. Would you be on later? I am in the pacific time zone. Also by you saying Peter replaced Judas, do you mean that Peter replaced Judas as in he overtook his apostleship? Or do you mean he initiated the new selection of Barsabbas and Matthias to the apostleship?

Your church isn't even 500 years old

>Sola Fide isn't what the original first century Christians believed.
Therefore, having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Romans 5:1
Have you been justified by faith? Do you have peace with God?

It's well known the WT deliberately misquotes Greek scholars to make it sound like they approve of the NWT.