25 Reasons Peter Was NOT The First Pope! (REBUTTED)

In this episode Trent rebuts two dozen arguments against Peter and the papacy from Protestant apologist Todd Friel.

[brittoncain]

So many protestant arguments against the papacy rely on the Pope having characteristics that Catholics don't believe he has.

[jasonsherilynpyle]

I find it truly ironic how the Pope and Bishops are mocked by Todd as not being humble because of their outfits, when Todd exudes what comes across as very prideful from his attitude and demeanour in both this and many of his videos. And I’m not Catholic and can clearly see the difference in his approach and Trent’s.

God bless you Trent. You are a challenging example, to us non-Catholics, of what a good Christian should be like when arguing and defending their position, whatever it may be, everything must be done in love. You do very well to stick to the arguments. We’ll done sir.

[scottyaklin]

I knew Friel's arguments were going pear-shaped from the gitgo when he brought up the old "Petros/Petra" argument. Jesus wasn't maybe, possibly or even likely speaking Aramaic to Peter. HE WAS speaking Aramaic and Kephas IS literally "rock!"

[BrewMeister]

Some Protestants: "Peter was such a terrible guy, there's no way he could've been pope! Also, he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write sacred scripture."

[DailyBible]

Even if they do not believe Peter was the first pope, I don't understand how they could mock Peter like that? Didn't they read the act of apostles?

[mtaylor]

Trent exposed another Protestant scripture twister. I found Todd’s mocking tone to be evil.

[reystacy]

This guy looks like an evangelical Bill Nye.

[legodavid]

I am not a Catholic, but honestly Trent's arguments were far superior to anything Todd had to say. Todd seems to try way too hard to be funny rather than actually presenting good points.

[ThePhilosorpheus]

Saying Catholics added books to the bible to me amounts to admitting he has absolutely zero knowledge of basic bible history, church history and protestant history

[Theophilus-pk]

I’ve been a Protestant my whole life, now looking into Catholicism, and I’ve never heard such unconvincing arguments against the papacy as I have heard here 😂

[taylorj.]

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter if there was no shift in his role?

[cab]

I’m sorry but Todd Friel always comes across to me like a good, old-fashioned snake oil salesman (i.e. con man). It baffles me that anyone would take him seriously.

[sird]

Peter was an Apostle. One of Jesus’ inner circle.

He was blessed, but the idea that the Catholic Church stemmed from him is just a way to excuse the pagan practices you Caths love to engage in.

[gnomeresearch]

My 7 year old son wasn't buying this guy's schtick.... God bless you Trent for addressing such insaneness.

[mac]

Point number 3 (and all of them really) just demonstrate he’s not serious about understanding Catholicism at all. I wish anti-Catholic rhetoric wasn’t always so boring. At least Truth Unites makes you think a little.

[bearistotle]

When he said that Catholics "added books to the bible" I burst out laughing. Luther himself, when writing about these books, acknowledges that they have been in the Christian Canon for centuries.

[CatholicA.]

Todd freel could be pee wee Herman's father his arguments are so comical 😜

[thecatechumen]

Objection 3 is merely a combination of the most prevalent, surface-level anti-Catholic myths that take a single sentence to debunk. It is sad, because I am willing to bet (as my own experience as a former Protestant) that most of Todd's viewers are misled by Todd's misrepresentation of Catholic theology. Why is that? Because the vast majority of Protestants do not learn about Catholicism from Catholic sources.

[florencechandler]

God bless you and love you trant for your patience and aptness to teach

[ToddJambon]

Does this guy think that God would have allowed His Church to be led by an illegitimate succession of popes for 1500 years before Martin Luther corrected the situation and started the Church that God intended? Jesus is God and would have known that such a misunderstanding would take place; and he would have said, "By the way, Peter, to be clear: you are not the leader of the Church when I die. I will still lead the Church and it shouldn't have any kind of hierarchy or further teaching outside of what's written about my life, as well as some writings by disciples you don't know yet." Further, why would God allow this to happen right at the beginning of the Church? I could understand if Protestants were claiming that someone several hundred years down the line suddenly claimed themselves to be pope and faked the papal succession somehow; then you could have a legitimate Church up to a certain point and then a schism. But that's not what's happening here.