The Papacy is neither biblically supported, nor historically. Prove me wrong

Peter literally means "rock".

lol, BTFO

Explain why you think so first.

No it doesn't.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Πέτρος#Ancient_Greek

Because they are the same as pharisees, valuing tradition over scripture and regularly ignoring the commandments.

On top of regularly illicitly acquiring temporal power.

Are you the same one that made the thread about Christians being modern Sadducees?

you don't need a donation of constantine to fill the power vacuum that happens when you're the only institution left standing when the visigoths pay a visit to "borrow" your civilization

>the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter.

gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html

No

Doesn't matter. It was an earthly power grab

Actually Pharisees valued the 613 commandments more than God.

so did Jesus actually mean then when he
-renamed Simon to Peter (latin for "rock")
--when renaming is kind of a Big Deal in Judaism
-said "upon this rock I will build my church"
-gave Peter the Keys of Heaven, and the power to bind and loose
-said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

like idk, you prots tend to take an autistically literal reading of the bible, except for Matthew 16 and the Last Supper narratives.

Actually your both making strawmen to attack when peoples actual spiritual beliefs are far more complex. But you cant look at other religions with even the pretense of neutrality because you're so deep in your own bullshit

so what would you do if barbarians looted your city and destroyed everything but the Church?

>Caring about Latin

I don't do hypotheticals from papist devils.

>not caring about how language works

wow you must be stupid or something. typical for prots tho, guess I can't hold it against you

>Caring about a language Jesus didn't use
>Needs to use irrelevant languages to justify his position

>"didn't use"

I think you're forgetting what language the empire that ruled over Judea in Jesus's time spoke.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and the gospels were written in Greek

see retard

>Papists are big Roman dumb dumbs
>But I'm totally part of the true church because I follow the ideas of a an antisemite who was buttmad he couldn't get his duck wet who lived thousands of years after Jesus

Protestants are weird.

>Ad hom instead of supporting your position with biblical/historical evidence

...

nice source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_(given_name)

from here. First thing that came up on a google search for "Peter in Aramaic"

protties BTFO utterly and completely

drbo.org/difficult.htm

>wikipedia

mistranslations, try again.

>>wikipedia
How does it differentiate from your sources? What are your sources that say peter doesn't mean rock? The answer is a protestant website claiming it means pebble or some other complete and utter bullshit.
behindthename.com/name/peter

abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Peter.html#.WJ9ew9G5-Hs

We can't, because you're right
youtube.com/watch?v=8zghMbjv3b8&t

wew this is really bad surface-level argumentation

This website or this whole thread?

The website

wrong answer

It is historically supported, but not in the way you think i is, there is a very good reason why the papacy came to be so powerful, but it might be obsolete
ask me and I'll tell you

What are ya gonna do cunt? Retrieve Peter's remains from the basilica? I'd like to see you try cunt

>It is historically supported
Peter was not the pope
Peter was one of several elders in the church at Rome

don't draw conclusions before you know what I'm talking about
again, ask me and I'll tell you, I won't put effort into something if there's no interest.

no u

>Protestants

they never cease their schisms

>don't draw conclusions before you know what I'm talking about
What I said are factual statements
>ask me and I'll tell you
Go ahead

>not an argument

you hate christianity and want to break it up into smaller denominations. I get it.

Catholics aren't Christian

>those people who believe in jesus aren't christian
whatever man.

Christians believe that justification is by faith alone
Catholics do not

Catholics don't believe in Jesus anymore than Muslims do.

youtube.com/watch?v=bgQ2wiTefmQ

I don't think the bible even says that.

that's a complete lie. they believe he's the son of god. you guys just like believing in propaganda.

No, they are pagans, their Jesus is not the Christian Jesus. Just like the Muslim Jesus isn't our Jesus.

>I don't think the bible even says that
It does
Therefore, having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Romans 5:1

>Therefore, having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
>Romans 5:1

How does this say that you can reach heaven by faith alone. This just says "peace with god"

Peace with God is access to heaven

based on what?

faith without works is a dead faith. you know this.

>Peace with God is access to heaven
Where does it say this

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [James 2:20]

Based on the fact that they worship Mary and the Saints and therefore cannot be Christian.

Justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone

...

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [James 2:24]

that's just not true. you believe in lies. the devil is a liar, be careful who you listen to.

>worship Mary and the Saints
I'm gonna need a definition of worship and citations

Why are Protestants so obsessed with Catholics?

>that's just not true
>as he prays to anyone but God and burns incense for statues

We all just want to solve these arguments and be one again! We could usher in a new age of greatness.

This will never happen though. We are all too stubborn.

>pray to someone who isn't god
>some how not polytheism

Prayer isn't inherently worship

We are saved by faith alone. But faith WILL produce good works, if not, then it's not true faith.

Prayer is an act of worship

Why?

sure here it is(this might get long and my memory might be a little shaky)

the only reason the pope came to being was due to juridic reasons.

You see during roman times there were numerous christian communities qnd those communities would often go to their local bishop with their conflicts and that bishop would serve as arbiter, the communities became more and more numerous

it was really a thorn in the eye of the emperors, who were doing serious juridic reforms at the time, that there was a whole system of law they had no control over, so they decided to incorporate it into their system.

I won't get into the specifics of it, but it was a serious progress, long story short christianity was recognized as an official religion(now people say it became THE state religion, no) a system was put into place to determine who was bishop and who wasn't.

A bishop of rome also came into being, as did bishops for many other areas.
I believe he was one of the patriarchs, which were nothing more than the supreme courts for christian law

fast forward a bit, rome's gone and the byzantines lost italy.

-At one point Gregory ii seizes rome and the surrounding area during a dispute with the byzantine emperor declaring it to be annonaria(dunno if spelled right) needed for him to do "good works" which he wouldn't be able to do otherwise because he couldn't rely on the byzzies anymore. Pope now has rome.

-Pope Leo III crowns charlemagne holy roman emperor, further establishing independence from the emperor.

fast forward further to the investiture controversy, which ends with the bishops getting their own courts over feudally fragmented europe, major victory and results in bishops being able to keep annonaria they held. this is not similar to roman bishop law no, this is exclusively about the clergy

1/2

How can faith be alone if there are good works? You are basically admitting that there are both faith and good works and thus can't be saved by faith alone. Because faith alone is alone without works.

James is using justified to speak of external proof of preexisting internal justification
Hence why James 2:18 says "Show me your faith apart from works, and I will show you my faith by my works". This is also why James uses the metaphor of death, because the faith which does not justify is a false faith but can be called faith nonetheless. Likewise when I die my corpse can be called me but it will not truly be me as I will go to be with the Lord
Amen

Faith alone means that faith is the only thing in the category of 'that which justifies', it does not mean that a lone "faith" justifies.

Now comes the important part

priests become celibate, testament is reintroduced as it has been absent from western europe for hundreds of years as a logical consequence of a lack of heirs

commonfolk want this too, not only that, normal courts(which often just consisted of one feudal lord, who might even be a farmer of a really small domain, so not much impartiality) were very bad so they saw the clergy, obviously men of God, as the people to go to, the problem is however, their courts aren't meant for them.
So what do people do? They donate to the clergy to make their matters church matters!

This way they get access to testaments among other things, however this puts pressure on the clergy, who develop an appeal system to deal with all these new matters coming in. The head of that appeal system becomes the pope, because you know, he's the bishop of rome.

Dealing with all these matters forces the churches to become more and more organized, they become more and more one church(which they technically were), a true organization so they can deal with all these new responsibilities, and the all-power of the catholic church is born. The pope comes to sit at the top of the hierarchy of it all.
Scriptural justification was a non-factor, unless it came to the Schism and the protestant reformation.

>The Papacy is neither biblically supported

It is, but even if it weren't it isn't like Christianity is based on the bible.

>nor historically

Now that's just silly

I think OP meant historically supported as coming from God

>it isn't like Christianity is based on the bible
True Christianity is
>Now that's just silly
The church at Rome was ruled by a plurality of elders until about 140. Peter thus could not have been pope, and this fact completely undermines the foundation of the papacy.

that requires some backward logic, he even mentioned the donation of constantine in a later post here it's clear what he means
what I wrote is true, it's the reason for papal primacy, other than rome being such a legendary city to represent

>>it isn't like Christianity is based on the bible
>True Christianity is

But Christianity came before the bible

>The church at Rome was ruled by a plurality of elders until about 140

Citation needed, the Church Fathers say otherwise.

>True Christianity is
Epic no true scotsman

>But Christianity came before the bible
So? The apostles are dead, and even then it was based on the Old Testament
>Citation needed, the Church Fathers say otherwise.
The ones that came later did yes, but there is evidence of this fact in Hermas, Clement and Ignatius, as well as the New Testament

Jesus is God you stupid proddy, he has knowledge of all languages.
>historical evidence
Doesn't exist;

>LE EPIN LOGICAL FALLIES BRO

gb2 reddit

fallacy fallacy

>Doesn't exist
So why would you be a papist?

>gotquestions.org

idiot

>it's an I don't know what a fallacy is episode

>So? The apostles are dead

But they appointed successors called bishops

>but there is evidence of this fact in Hermas, Clement and Ignatius, as well as the New Testament

Are you sure? Because Clement and Ignatious seem to affirm what Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox believe about bishops

>everybody that disagrees with me must be this thing i dont like!

Don't you have some scripture to ignore?