John 21:15-17

[LivingWordUnity]

When Jesus told Peter, "Tend my sheep", are you and I not part of this flock of sheep? How would Peter tend to us if not with a successor?

[DeaconDean]

SO you left that other thread and come and start another one to try and justify Peter as a "successor" to Jesus.

Once again, lets look at the Greek:

"ote oun hristhsan legei tw simwni petrw o ihsouV, simwn iwannou, agapaV me pleon toutwn; legei autw, nai, kurie, su oidaV oti filw se. legei autw, boske ta arnia mou. legei autw palin deuteron, simwn iwannou, agapaV me; legei autw, nai, kurie, su oidaV oti filw se. legei autw, poimaine ta probata mou. legei autw to triton, simwn iwannou, fileiV me; eluphqh o petroV oti eipen autw to triton, fileiV me; kai legei autw, kurie, panta su oidaV, su ginwskeiV oti filw se. legei autw [o ihsouV], boske ta probata mou." -John 21:15-17 (GNT)

The word you have misinterpretated is "boske" and it does not say "tend."

What is does say is "feed."

"boske" means: 1) to feed 1a) portraying the duty of a Christian teacher to promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church"

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

Peter was to teach (cf. Mt. 28:19-20)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

To teach, preach, and to baptize were his primary duties.

And even at that, Peter failed. (cf Gal. 2:11-14; and to a lesser degree, Acts 10:10-16)

v. 15: he saith unto him, feed my lambs; the younger and more tender part of the flock, weak believers, Christ's little children, newborn babes, the day of small things, which are not to be despised, the bruised reed that is not to be broken, and the smoking flax that is not to be quenched; but who are to be nourished, comforted, and strengthened, by feeding them with the milk of the Gospel, and by administering to them the ordinances and breasts of consolation. These Christ has an interest in, and therefore calls them "my lambs", being given him by the Father, and purchased by his blood, and for whom he has a tender concern and affection; and nothing he looks upon as a firmer and clearer proof and evidence of love to him, than to feed these lambs of his, and take care of them.

v. 16 he saith unto him, feed my sheep; both the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and his other sheep among the Gentiles, whom the Father had given him, and he had paid a price for, and must be brought in; these being called, he would have fed with the word and ordinances, with the bread of life, and water of life, not lorded over, and fleeced, and much less worried and destroyed; every instance of care and love shown to these, he takes as a mark of affection and respect to himself.


v. 17 Jesus saith unto him, feed my sheep. It may be observed from the repetition of this phrase following upon Peter's declaration of his love to Christ, that such only are proper persons to feed the lambs and sheep of Christ, who truly and sincerely love him: and in doing which they show their love to him: and who indeed would be concerned in this service, but such? since the work is so laborious, the conduct of those to whom they minister oftentimes is so disagreeable, the reproach they meet with from the world, and the opposition made unto them by Satan, and all the powers of darkness: it is true indeed, there are some that take upon them this work, and pretend to do it, who do not love Christ; but then they are such who feed themselves, and not the flock; and who feed the world's goats, and not Christ's lambs and sheep, and in time of danger leave the flock; only the true lovers of Christ faithfully perform this service, and abide in it by preaching the pure Gospel of Christ, by administering his ordinances, in their right manner, and by directing souls in all to Christ, the heavenly manna, and bread of life. Dr. Lightfoot thinks that by the threefold repetition of the order to feed Christ's lambs and sheep, is meant the threefold object of Peter's ministry; the Jews in their own land, the Gentiles, and the Israelites of the ten tribes, that were in Babylon.


http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

Matthew Henry adds:

The charge he gives him concerning them is to feed them. The word used in v. 15, 17, is boske, which strictly signifies to give them food; but the word used in v. 16 is poimaine, which signifies more largely to do all the offices of a shepherd to them: "Feed the lambs with that which is proper for them, and the sheep likewise with food convenient. The lost sheep of the house of Israel, seek and feed them, and the other sheep also which are not of this fold." Note, It is the duty of all Christ's ministers to feed his lambs and sheep. Feed them, that is, teach them; for the doctrine of the gospel is spiritual food. Feed them, that is, "Lead them to the green pastures, presiding in their religious assemblies, and ministering all the ordinances to them. Feed them by personal application to their respective state and case; not only lay meat before them, but feed those with it that are wilful and will not, or weak and cannot feed themselves." When Christ ascended on high, he gave pastors, left his flock with those that loved him, and would take care of them for his sake.

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/john/mh/john21.htm

And if Peter is the chief shepherd, then I guess all those churches Paul founded are not churches since Peter is the successor to Christ, and the only one who could found a "church."

Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

And if Peter is the chief shepherd, then I guess all those churches Paul founded are not churches since Peter is the successor to Christ, and the only one who could found a "church."Other apostles and bishops can be in charge of local churches, but Peter was the only one who Jesus put in charge of the one universal (catholic) Church.

Paul didn't found any church that was not in communion with the one original Church founded by Christ with Peter as the chief earthly shepherd.

It is the same way with the Catholic Church today -there are individual churches, parishes, and dioceses, but all are in communion with Rome and subordinate to the Pope.

By the way, Greek was one of the first languages of the Catholic Church. In fact, the New Testament is a Catholic book.

I won't be able to reply anymore for at least about a week since I will be traveling.

[DeaconDean]

By the way, Greek was one of the first languages of the Catholic Church. In fact, the New Testament is a Catholic book.

Pure rubbish.


The Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation)), or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek) version of the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible), translated in stages between the 3rd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century_BC) and 1st centuries BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century_BC) in Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria). The Septuagint also includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible).

It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language), lingua franca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca) of the eastern Mediterranean since Alexander the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great) (356-323 BC). The word septuaginta means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars translated the Pentateuch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentateuch) (Torah) from Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language) into Greek for Ptolemy II Philadelphus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_II_Philadelphus), 285–246 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

In fact, the New Testament is a Catholic book.


More pure rubbish.

They might have decided the canon, but it is God who gave the words to the apostles to write.

And a form of the bible was in use, long before the "cathloic church" decided on the canon.

The epistles of the apostles were circulated around through the churches.

I have come to expect more from you than that. A weak argument at best.

And as scripture testifies to, Paul was following after the instructions he received directly from James, and not Peter:

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:...Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia...We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth." -Acts 15:13, 19-20,22-23, 27

As to concerning instructions from Peter, or as Paul said:

"added nothing to me:" -Gal. 2:6 (KJV)

Paul under direction of the "catholic" church, as Ebenezer Schrooge said:

"Bah Humbug"

Paul was following the instructions of the church at Jerusalem which was led by James, not Peter.

Even Peter is recorded as having submitted to the leadership of James in the church at Jerusalem:

"Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place." -Acts 12:17 (KJV)

James led the very first church. And it was founded in Jerusalem, not Rome.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

And as scripture testifies to, Paul was following after the instructions he received directly from James, and not PeterJames was the local bishop. Peter needed local bishops to help him lead the universal (Catholic) because Peter couldn’t be everywhere at once.

It’s no different in the Catholic Church today. As a Catholic, I have to submit to the local bishop as long as the local bishop is in communion with the successor to Peter in his teachings.


"added nothing to me:" -Gal. 2:6 (KJV)That is taken totally out of context. It doesn't say what you want it to say.


Even Peter is recorded as having submitted to the leadership of James in the church at JerusalemIt doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Peter submitted to the authority of James or any other local bishop.

The verse you quoted is Peter instructing the people to tell the local bishop about how Peter had been rescued from prison by an angel.

Today’s successor to Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, also sends messages to the local bishops. The structure of the Catholic Church today is exactly as it was back then.

[DeaconDean]

James was the local bishop. Peter needed local bishops to help him lead the universal (Catholic) because Peter couldn’t be everywhere at once.


Oh my God, thats the best excuse you could come up with? Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Paul of Tarsus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus) in Galatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians) 2:9 (KJV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV)) characterized James as such: "…James, Cephas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephas), and John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle), who seemed to be pillars (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pillars_of_the_Church&action=edit&redlink=1)…" He is described in the New Testament as a "brother of the Lord" and in the Liturgy of St James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_St_James) as "the brother of God"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

And you have the gaul to say that Peter was placed above all the other disciples? Yea right.

That all the other Apostles, disciples, deacons, bishops, presbeters, etc., Peter was the head or chief of them all. Yea, right.

You know, its very strange that of all the churches founded during the first century, none, and I mean absolutely none, were subservant to any church founded in Rome.

That is taken totally out of context. It doesn't say what you want it to say.


Let us quote from another source:

According to Gal. 2, the data relavent to the council are as follows:

First, agreement between Paul's Gospel and that preached by the primitive communtiy is confirmed, and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin" (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations), v. 6: emoi gar oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento" (to me, for those confered nothing).
The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle were not so fully cleared up as to make possible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes in Gal. 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indrectly does Paul have any word of censure for those who come from James, nor does he doubt their authorisation by James (though Gal 2:4: pareisaktouV yeudadelfouV" The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jews may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the "Law" In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord's Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the "Law." The measure of clairity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the "Law" with concent of the primitive community,

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffery W. Bromely, Translator, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, nomoV, p. 1065-1066

It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Peter submitted to the authority of James or any other local bishop.

Read Acts 15 again!

When Paul and Barnabus are brought before the Apostolic council, whose words carry the weight? Whose words do Paul and Barnabus follow?

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:..Wherefore my sentence is,...And they wrote letters by them after this manner;" -Acts 15:13,19,23 (KJV)

It was James' words that carried the weight, not Peters. And if had of been the chief apostle, Christ's successor as you say, his voice, his words would have been the ones they paid attention to. Not James'.

Its the same today, the Pope should visit another church, whose authority is higher, the "local" bishop, or the Pope's?

Brother do you have it wrong.

You know what, for what its worth, I for one, am sick and tired of you carrying your Catholic dogma to the extreme in here.

You have nine (9) threads in here where you are trying to teach and support Catholic doctrine.

I am tired of it myself.

Therefore, I shall not be answering any more of your presuppositions.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:..Wherefore my sentence is,...And they wrote letters by them after this manner;" -Acts 15:13,19,23 (KJV)

It was James' words that carried the weight, not Peters.Context, context, context. Go back to just before the quote that you gave. Look at Acts 15:7-11.

James listened to Peter before accepting it himself, and then James told the people in his local diocese in essence what Peter had said. In the military, this would be called following the chain of command.

A local bishop today would first listen to what the Pope has to say and then pass it on to the ones in his local diocese.

The Catholic Church is the same today as it was in the time of the apostles.

[Hentenza]

Context, context, context. Go back to just before the quote that you gave. Look at Acts 15:7-11.

James listened to Peter before accepting it himself, and then James told the people in his local diocese in essence what Peter had said. In the military, this would be called following the chain of command.

A local bishop today would first listen to what the Pope has to say and then pass it on to the ones in his local diocese.

The Catholic Church is the same today as it was in the time of the apostles.

LOL!!! Yes, context context. Here it is in context:

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
Kind of like if you don't believe in the RC you are not saved. Mmmmm.........

2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Look, even back then they had arguments.;)

3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad.
No mention of the RC here. It seems that the church composed of believers sent them. Ya think!!!!

4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
Oh look, they didn't go to Rome did they? Mmmmm..... I guess the Pope was back in Jerusalem then?

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Legalistic heathen. Gosh!!!!


6The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
No pope spoken of here. Just the apostles and the elders. Gee, that sounds like the way my church runs today. No magisterium, or pope, etc.....



7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.


Yes, Peter got up and address them. How does that make him the pope?



8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."


Look Peter says that it is through the grace of God that we are saved. Not by the RC, pr the pope, or the magisterium, or by venerating Mary or the saints, etc........


12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
Co-popes maybe? Not!!!!



13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me.
Noy listen to Peter, the pope or Peter, the top apostle, or Peter, the leader, or, I think you get the point. As a matter of fact, what did Jesus say to the apostles when they asked him who the greatest one was?





14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Simon, not Peter, or petras, or petros, or .................



16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.

Jesus will return. I hope He does so soon.;):prayer::prayer::prayer:


19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.


Not get legalistic and/or require them to get circumcised. Doesn't sound like the RC does it?



20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Again, no RC here.



Tell me, where do you find the evidence for the pope in the bible? I know, you are not going to post about the "keys" and the "tend my sheep" old argument, are you?

[LivingWordUnity]

Tell me, where do you find the evidence for the pope in the bible? I know, you are not going to post about the "keys" and the "tend my sheep" old argument, are you?What you said amounts to saying, "Show me evidence for the Pope in the Bible, but just don't show me the evidence for the Pope in the Bible because I don't want to see it."

Catholicism teaches that faith and reason go together, that's why we also believe in being reasonable.

I had already posted these threads:
Primacy of Peter in Scripture (http://christianforums.com/t7192309-primacy-of-peter-in-scripture.html)
"On this rock I will build my church" (http://christianforums.com/t7192667-on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church.html)

[Hentenza]

What you said amounts to saying, "Show me evidence for the Pope in the Bible, but just don't show me the evidence for the Pope in the Bible because I don't want to see it."

Catholicism teaches that faith and reason go together, that's why we also believe in being reasonable.

I had already posted these threads:
Primacy of Peter in Scripture (http://christianforums.com/t7192309-primacy-of-peter-in-scripture.html)
"On this rock I will build my church" (http://christianforums.com/t7192667-on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church.html)

And that is the reason why the RC has made of monument to itself. The rock is not Peter but Jesus Christ. Have you ever heard that argument? Beating a horse to death?
Catholicism teaches that faith and reason go together as long as you reason to have faith in the Catholic teachings. ;):D

[LivingWordUnity]

And that is the reason why the RC has made of monument to itself.

http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

The rock is not Peter but Jesus Christ.I never said that Jesus isn't the rock. But that doesn't mean that God didn't want to endow Peter with the grace to share in being the rock with Christ the Rock. This would be necessary for Peter to be Christ's spokesman for the Church. I like the image that the Bible gives us of Peter walking on water with Jesus.

After all, Jesus did pray specifically for Peter that Peter's faith would not fail, and Jesus gave Peter alone the mission to strengthen his bretheren in the faith (Luke 22:32). This is the definition of papal infallibility.

Bottom line: Jesus changed Simon's name to rock and said to Peter, "You are the rock," and I believe it.

[Hentenza]

http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

Another typical RC response when they simply can not answer without violating the teachings of the mother church and catechism. :sleep:

[QUOTE]I never said that Jesus isn't the rock. But that doesn't mean that God didn't want to endow Peter with the grace to share in being the rock with Christ the Rock. This would be necessary for Peter to be Christ's spokesman for the Church. I like the image that the Bible gives us of Peter walking on water with Jesus.
So now Peter shares in "being" the rock with Christ? Wishy washy if you ask me. Look, Christ is the rock, the cornerstone, the foundation of his church. Peter was just a mere man that God used to carry on His will.
BTW- Why would Paul say the following in Galatians 2:7-8:
7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Looks like Paul had his task and Peter his. I wonder if they were co-popes.:scratch:

After all, Jesus did pray specifically for Peter that Peter's faith would not fail, and Jesus gave Peter alone the mission to strengthen his bretheren in the faith. This is the definition of papal infallibility.

No, that is the distorted definition of papal infallibility. BTW- Where is scripture does it mention papal infallibility? Anywhere?

Bottom line: Jesus changed Simon's name to rock and said to Peter, "You are the rock," and I believe it.

Jesus was speaking of Peter's faith which recognized Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the rock (faith) in which Jesus was going to build His church.

Bottom line: Faith is the rock not Peter.

[LivingWordUnity]

Primacy of Peter in Scripture (http://christianforums.com/t7192309-primacy-of-peter-in-scripture.html)
"On this rock I will build my church" (http://christianforums.com/t7192667-on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church.html)

[Vambram]

Its amazing to see that even when proven wrong by Scriptures, the lengths that LivingWordUnity will continue to try to go through in order to promote Catholicism.
Well, I say that I lift up Halleujahs to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ because it is only by His Grace that not only am I born-again, but that He has kept me out of the RCC and away from all of the unsound doctrines and traditions within the RCC.
I praise the Lord that He has called me to be a Christian first, and a fundamentalist independent Baptist, second.

[LivingWordUnity]

Its amazing to see that even when proven wrong by Scriptures, the lengths that LivingWordUnity will continue to try to go through in order to promote Catholicism.I have consistently provided ample scriptural evidence to back up every point that I have made. But every time I do so, either the verses get ignored or someone disagrees with the interpretation. That's why I started the thread asking if Fundamentalists believe that they are infallible when they interpret scripture.

Catholics can provide scripture for everything that they believe in and Protestants can provide scripture for everything they believe in. But the difference is that Catholics rely on ancient interpretation of scripture within the context of Church authority while Protestants rely on modern, private interpretations of scripture divorced from any Church authority.


Well, I say that I lift up Halleujahs to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ because it is only by His Grace that not only am I born-again, but that He has kept me out of the RCC and away from all of the unsound doctrines and traditions within the RCC.The early Christians were Catholics.

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107

The early Christians settled disputes by appealing to the Bishop of Rome, they prayed for the dead, they believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they baptized infants, etc., and not one of them was a Protestant because Protestants didn't first show up in history until the 16th century.

The first Protestant doctrines, "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide," simply did not exist until they were invented by Martin Luther after he broke away from the Catholic Church in 1517.

Martin Luther believed that he could start his own Church with his own doctrines.

But Catholics believe that the only true Church is the one that was founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago with the apostles as the first bishops and Peter as the one chosen by Jesus to be his spokesman for the universal Church on earth. This is necessary for unity and so that the Church can speak with one clear voice to the world in matters of faith and morals.

And since Jesus already started his Church 2,000 years ago, we don't believe that we have the right to start our own.

Protestants see it as “me and Jesus”, but Catholics see it as “us and Jesus”.


I praise the Lord that He has called me to be a Christian first, and a fundamentalist independent Baptist, second.Then why not just call yourself a Christian since the Baptist religion wasn’t invented until John Smyth launched it in Amsterdam in 1605?

[IamRedeemed]

Jesus said that He has other sheep, which referred to the Gentiles who would
become believers. The Gospel of Christ came to the Jew first and then to the Gentile,
as it is written it would. The Gospel was to be preached to the Jew first and then to
the Gentile.

Peter was called as the apostle to those of the circumcision, which are the JEWS. Paul
was called as the Apostle to those not of the circumcision, the Gentiles, therefore Peter
was NOT the 1st Pope as is taught in the RCC.

Galatians 2:7-9

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.




When Jesus told Peter, "Tend my sheep", are you and I not part of this flock of sheep? How would Peter tend to us if not with a successor?

[IamRedeemed]

"Peter" is pebble, not rock.

The ROCK Christ referred to was the revelation given unto Peter by the Holy Spirit that JESUS (not Peter) is THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. Upon that revelation is what Christ's Church is built upon. That Salvation has come unto the world. The ROCK of our Salvation is JESUS CHRIST.


Primacy of Peter in Scripture (http://christianforums.com/t7192309-primacy-of-peter-in-scripture.html)
"On this rock I will build my church" (http://christianforums.com/t7192667-on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church.html)

[cubanito]

la-dee-dah-dah-deeh, I hum to myself reading all this...

In the passage, Peter was being encouraged (even mildly chastised) for his soon coming role as the leader of the Apostles. This was a time that even the BIOLOGICAL older brother of Christ did not believe in Him. There is no question that right after Pentecost Peter was indeed the mouth chiefly used to jumpstart the early Church. However...

As we read acts we notice Peter's role diminishing. At Jerusalem it was James, now a believer, who was most influential, although it is clear there ws no top-down hierarchy (as Jesus had warned against such) but a collegial arragement much more like the conciliar movement. As Acts progresses, and the Jews increasingly reject the Gospel, the role of the Apostle to the Jews (Peter) diminishes, and Paul, that untimely born Apostle to the Gentiles, becomes the central focus.

Now, interestingly, before Peter ever sees Rome, there is already a Church there. Probably before Paul ever goes there too, but CERTAINLY Paul is at Rome long before Peter comes (if indeed, Peter ever went to Rome, as Scripture closes with Peter in Asia minor, and all else is oral tradition and speculations).

So even assuming Peter ever went to Rome, he certainly was NOT Rome's first Bishop, nor even the first Apostle there.

So, you see, no matter how oft repeated, it is an obvious lie that Peter could have been the first Bishop of Rome. Who it was, we do not know, but certainly Paul is a better contender.

Peter was not first at Rome, someone else was first at home. Someone ought to set that to music. You know what, I haven't composed any music in decades. I'm going to do it and send it along to some pop-Christian artist and see what happens.

If an obvious lie can be believed by billions from sheer repetition, perhaps a cute jingle would attract attention to the simple, OBVIOUS fact that Peter was NOT the first Bishop of Rome.
JR

[Vambram]

I have consistently provided ample scriptural evidence to back up every point that I have made. But every time I do so, either the verses get ignored or someone disagrees with the interpretation. That's why I started the thread asking if Fundamentalists believe that they are infallible when they interpret scripture.
Thats because we believe that most of the verses you are using are verses that you are not correctly interpreting due to the context of the passages, as well as due to other verses and passages showing that the Apostle Peter was not considered the main leader of the early Church. Also, consider this, if the Apostle Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was founded, and if Peter was the first pope, and if Peter was the main leader of the early church, then why is his contribution to the New Testament only just 1 Peter and also 2 Peter ? Whereas, we see that the early Church and even the Lord God Himself gave much more authority to the written words of the Apostle Paul who was the human hand that wrote almost half of the entire New Testament.


Catholics can provide scripture for everything that they believe in and Protestants can provide scripture for everything they believe in. But the difference is that Catholics rely on ancient interpretation of scripture within the context of Church authority while Protestants rely on modern, private interpretations of scripture divorced from any Church authority.
And that is where I am so very glad that the Holy Spirit Who indwells within me as a born-again Christian saved by grace through faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not need, nor want RCC authority to teach the Scriptures to me. I Lift up Halleujahs and glorify my Lord because HE teaches me through the written Word, and also through the discernment of the Holy Spirit working within me. No matter what I hear or read from preachers & teachers of the Bible, I praise the Lord that I simply don't have to bow my head to the traditions of men, or to their teachings. Instead, the Lord God grants all of us the intelligence and the discernment, as we pray, so that we can seek from the Lord what the interpretation of the Scriptures should be, and not relying upon the traditions of RCC authority.


The early Christians were Catholics.

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107


Please don't try to force the words of Ignatius to mean what they really do not mean. Its very clear that Ignatius is talking about a Universal Church or the Body of Christ of which all Christians are members. Notice, Ignatius did not say, "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Roman Catholic Church.


The early Christians settled disputes by appealing to the Bishop of Rome, they prayed for the dead, they believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they baptized infants,
I believe that if any of the early Christians in the New Testament Churches started by the Apostles did any of what you claim, then they were believing and practicing heresies that have absolutely ZERO New Testament or Old Testament scriptural support.


The first Protestant doctrines, "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide," simply did not exist until they were invented by Martin Luther after he broke away from the Catholic Church in 1517.

On the contrary, my friend, those doctrines are very clearly present in the early New Testament Church, as the Apostles Paul, Peter, James, and John all wrote under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures that clearly, without twisting their meanings, teach Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.






Then why not just call yourself a Christian since the Baptist religion wasn’t invented until John Smyth launched it in Amsterdam in 1605?

Again, you have made a mistake. First of all, Baptists are not part of a religion. You see, a religion is man reaching up to God. However, true Christianity is God reaching down to man. Second of all, Baptists are not a religion. Indeed, Baptists are a denomination, and in the Baptist statement of faith, you can see and find that all of what Baptists believe theologically, have very strong Biblical support.


:groupray: :hug: :) :hug: :groupray:

[LivingWordUnity]

Please don't try to force the words of Ignatius to mean what they really do not mean. Its very clear that Ignatius is talking about a Universal Church or the Body of Christ of which all Christians are members. Notice, Ignatius did not say, "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Roman Catholic Church.You are right, the Catholic Church is the universal Church. That's why she is called the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church is for everyone everywhere just as Jesus had intended for his Church.

But the name "Roman Catholic" is a name that Protestants invented as a substitute name for the Catholic Church because they knew that the word "catholic" means universal, and they didn't want to acknowledge the true universality of the Catholic Church.

The early Protestants wanted to justify braking away from the Catholic Church. So because they didn't want to acknowledge that the Catholic Church is meant for everyone everywhere, they started calling it "Roman Catholic" in an attempt to restrict and belittle the meaning of the name of the Church which means universal.

Just as the "N" word was originally thought up to be a derogatory name for blacks but then it became accepted slang to some blacks to call themselves that, the same happened with the slang use of the expression, "Roman Catholic".

That's why today you will find some Catholics who will call themselves, "Roman Catholic" because they have accepted the label that Protestants gave to Catholics and made that label their own.

But the official name of the Church has always been either "the Church", "the Catholic Church" or the "Church of Christ" but never the "Roman Catholic Church".

Notice that the official book of Catholic teaching put out by Rome is called, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church", not "The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church".

As a matter of fact, you will never find in any official Vatican Church document the Church being called "The Roman Catholic Church". Not using slang, "Roman Catholic" means the diocese of Rome. But that does not account for the 1.1 Billion Catholics in the world.

Here is more of the quote from Saint Ignatius:

"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107

[LivingWordUnity]

Jesus said that He has other sheep, which referred to the Gentiles who would
become believers. The Gospel of Christ came to the Jew first and then to the Gentile,
as it is written it would. The Gospel was to be preached to the Jew first and then to
the Gentile.

Peter was called as the apostle to those of the circumcision, which are the JEWS. Paul
was called as the Apostle to those not of the circumcision, the Gentiles, therefore Peter
was NOT the 1st Pope as is taught in the RCC.

Galatians 2:7-9

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.When Jesus told Peter to tend his sheep that would include the Gentiles since, as you said, the Gentiles are his sheep, too.

Just because Paul had the specific mission of evangelizing the Gentiles doesn't mean that Peter wasn't still overall spokesman for the Church.

As an example, the bishop of New York is responsible for tending to the people of New York, but we still have the Pope.

I noticed that you mentioned "Cephas" in your quote. When the bible mentions Cephas, it's talking about Peter. Cephas is a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha.

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble). What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church."

[DeaconDean]

I hate to rain down on anybody's parade, but the simple fact is, Jesus did call Peter "PetroV" Peter, a stone, a rock. And petra does include Peter in the context, but, it was Peters confession of Jesus as "the Christ, Son of the Living God" that became the "rock" on which the church will be built upon.

In the New Testament, Paul wrote much of the epistles. Luke even wrote of Paul taking money for the brethern at the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 11:29-30)

The "ekklhsia" (church) is mentioned numerous times in the NT. Paul addressed all but his Pastoral Epistles to churches that were already in existence, founded by him, or others. For example:

"Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church (ekklhsia - church) of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:" -1 Cor. 1:1-2 (KJV)

ekklhsia means: a popular assembly, the congregation of the Lord, the church, a local church, a Christain congregation"

Paul does not address a "Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist," or any other church, but a simple "church."

The primative church prior to the first century, was simply called a church.

Not a "Catholic" (as in universal) church, but simply a church.

And Paul taught that no church built on any thing other than Jesus Christ, not Peter, could stand.

If Peter was the foundation on which Jesus built His "church," why do we not confess on Peter?

Because Peter showed us, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, and that same confession, that little "rock" or "nugget" of truth, (Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God) is what saves.

That is what the church is built upon.

This issue has been argued for centuries. It has not been settled in 2000 years, it will not be settled here.

It is best to to agree to disagree here and now. Because no amount of arguing, will ever change any Fundamentalist over to the "Catholic" viewpoint.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[cubanito]

When Jesus told Peter to tend his sheep that would include the Gentiles since, as you said, the Gentiles are his sheep, too.

Just because Paul had the specific mission of evangelizing the Gentiles doesn't mean that Peter wasn't still overall spokesman for the Church.

As an example, the bishop of New York is responsible for tending to the people of New York, but we still have the Pope.

I noticed that you mentioned "Cephas" in your quote. When the bible mentions Cephas, it's talking about Peter. Cephas is a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha.

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble). What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church."
Earlier u claimed the original language of the Roman Curch was Greek, now you appeal to Latin in order to obscure the play on words that exists in Greek which denies "Petrus'" NOT being the "Petra" upon which the Church was built. So which is the inspired language used for Scripture, dead Latin, or the still living Greek ?

I find it fascinating that the 3 languages of the Bible, almost alone from those days, are still alive today, while almost all of the hundreds of thousands of other ancient toungues, INCLUDING LATIN, are dead languages.

And before someone points out the difference between Koinonie ancient Greek and modern Greek, I have had native Greek speakers read the NT. They regard it with the same difference as we regard the Jacobite English of the KJV--merely a dialectical difference, but still quite understandable.

And Peter, even if somehow shown as the first "Pope", could NOT have been the first Bishop of Rome.

JR tenebrum mundum est puteo

[LivingWordUnity]

Earlier u claimed the original language of the Roman Curch was Greek, now you appeal to Latin in order to obscure the play on words that exists in Greek which denies "Petrus'" NOT being the "Petra" upon which the Church was built. So which is the inspired language used for Scripture, dead Latin, or the still living Greek ?I didn’t say that Greek was the only first language of the Catholic Church. Here is what I had said:By the way, Greek was one of the first languages of the Catholic Church. In fact, the New Testament is a Catholic book. I said that it was one of the first languages of the Church. The other languages were Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic.

Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek were the languages that were common in Jerusalem during the days when Jesus walked with the apostles. These languages are recorded by scripture when it says in John 19:20 that the inscription on the cross above Jesus’ head was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

What’s more, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

[LivingWordUnity]

The primative church prior to the first century, was simply called a church.

Not a "Catholic" (as in universal) church, but simply a church.Semantics. Catholic is the word that best describes the mission of the Church to be everywhere and for everyone. If you added an adjective to your name to describe something about yourself would you still be you?


And Paul taught that no church built on any thing other than Jesus Christ, not Peter, could stand.The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ with Peter as His vicar (representative). If you trace back Protestant denominations back to their origins, you will find that they were all founded by a person other than Christ. If you trace the Catholic Church all the way back in history, you will find that it began when Jesus said to Peter, “Tend my sheep”.

I never said that Jesus isn't the rock. But that doesn't mean that God didn't want to endow Peter with the grace to share in being the rock with Christ the Rock. This would be necessary for Peter to be Christ's spokesman for the Church. I like the image that the Bible gives us of Peter walking on water with Jesus.

After all, Jesus did pray specifically for Peter that Peter's faith would not fail, and Jesus gave Peter alone the mission to strengthen his bretheren in the faith (Luke 22:32). This is the definition of papal infallibility.

[BigNorsk]

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

Kepha means a movable stone. In Matthew 16:18 we see not two forms of the same word but two different words which makes no sense if it was spoken as two identical words in Aramaic. You are claiming the Apostle inaccurately represents Jesus' words. If it was spoken in Aramaic, which is likely, it would have been "You are Kepha and on this Shua I will build my Church."

Peter is a smaller movable stone Shua is a large nonmovable stone. Instead of proving that Peter is the stone, the passage would specifically forbid that very idea.

We even see how rather than being the foundation Peter is indeed movable. Paul had to correct him about him separating from the Gentiles for instance.

Marv

[LivingWordUnity]

Kepha means a movable stone.That's the first time I have heard someone say that. Where do you get that from?


In Matthew 16:18 we see not two forms of the same word but two different words which makes no sense if it was spoken as two identical words in Aramaic. You are claiming the Apostle inaccurately represents Jesus' words.Are you asking why, when the gospel was translated into Greek, did the Greek word "petra" for rock get replaced with "petros" for Peter's name?

It's because Matthew had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have "Peter" and "rock," you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

[cubanito]

1- Latin was NOT used in the original writings. Latin is a dead langueage whereas the other 3 used in Scripture are still very much alive. While they have changed slightly in daily use, the ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are quite recognisable to living speakers/readers today. Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin, but the Vulgate is merely a translation (a pretty good one, overall) but NOT Scripture/

2- Jesus spoke aramaic? No!, I a shocked! Never had a clue, thank you so very much for the information. Now consider the following:

3- Jesus also spoke Hebrew and it is almost certain that Jesus ALSO spoke Greek. Jesus grew up as a carpenter's son, and almost certainly helper and later carpenter Himself, in Nazareth. Where was Nazareth? In "Galilee of the Gentiles", very near Joppa and Caesarea, whuch at the time He would have worked, were being built as GREEK cities. While Aramaic was the local yokel language, those who were hiring at Joppa and Caesarea were mainly GREEK speakers, which was in fact the typical commercial languaege as well. Thus, if Jesus had been at all involved in Joseph's trade, He would have learnt quite a bit of Greek in that enviably easy manner all children learn languages how I covet my own childhood ability to absorb language...). As to Hebrew, any SERIOUS Jewish lover of the Old Testament would have learnt Hebrew and not be content with any of the various tranlations into Greek or Syriac floating about. Jesus read from the Scriptures at the synagoge. No self-respecting synagoge used translations for official services either.

Thus, that Jesus was quite capable of speaking Greek when it suited Him to make a play on words is FAR more credible than to suppose that He was a monoglot.

4- In any case, it does not matter wjether Jesus spole one, 3 or 6 languages (I mention 6 because a friend of mine who grew up in Palestine speaks 6 languages AS A NATIVE, by that enviable simple manner in which children pick up languages in a polyglotic area, seems to me that if this was the natural result for a man of average intellect in Palestine, that to suppose Jesus was a monoglot after growing up in the same area is, well, ridiculous). The fact is, we Fundys hold that the original MANUSCRIPTS were infallible. Thus, no matter in what language Jesus spoke, the Greek preserves a very clear play on words which makes it CLEAR that Peter is NOT the Rock the Church was built on.

5- Finally, I have no quarrel w those that wish to believe that it was Peter's confession of Faith, rather than Jesus Himself, upon which the Church was built. I can't see where one interpretation is altogether certain over the other. Either one is quite acceptable, and in fact, they are not totally contradictory. However, it is clear the Church was NOT built on Peter. In fact, we see livingword pulling back from saying that the Rock is Peter, because it is amply clear from the rest of Scripture Who the Rock of Ages is.

6- Did Peter have a special role? Of course! Sometimes when we seek to correct the error of others, we can overcorrect and say some silly things ourselves. Any fair reading of the passages cited by the OP ,akes it clear that Peter was singled out by JC for a special task. Any fair reading of the Gospels and early Acts provides ample evidence that Peter was "first among equals" and indeed was chosen to inaugurate the Church proper in a larger context than a tiny band of friends and relatives. BUT, nowhere is Peter set up as "Pope" or anything like that. In fact, Peter's role, as predicted by Christ, diminishes towards Peter's later life.

JR

[cubanito]

And, Petercould NOT have been the first Bishop of Rome, as there was a Roman Church long before Peter ever got there.

In case u forgot.

JR

[LivingWordUnity]

1- Latin was NOT used in the original writings. Latin is a dead langueage whereas the other 3 used in Scripture are still very much alive.What does that have to do with my point? :scratch:

If Greek lost its popularity today would you think it was no longer important that it was used in the early days of the Church? If Christianity lost its popularity today would you still be a Christian?

But Latin is not "dead", Latin was used in the early Church and is still used by the Church today. Latin is also still used a lot in science and medicine. I personally don't care if its not popular, I think its a very beautiful language.

If people started saying that Christianity was "dead", I would still be a Christian.

I simply stated the facts. And the facts are that in the time of Jesus and the apostles, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek were common languages.

And it is recorded in the Bible that Jesus spoke in Aramaic when he said, "you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church". This it self-evident because Cephas is used for Peter's name in the Bible, and Cephas is a transliteration of Kepha which is Aramaic for rock (not a small pebble). The truth of this is a very critical to understanding the role that Jesus gave to Peter, so can we stay focused on that point before talking about unrelated topics?

[LivingWordUnity]

And, Petercould NOT have been the first Bishop of Rome, as there was a Roman Church long before Peter ever got there.If I were the first Christian to land on Mars, would that make me the Bishop of Mars? If the bishop of New York made a trip to Rome, would that make him the Bishop of Rome?

[Hentenza]

If I were the first Christian to land on Mars, would that make me the Bishop of Mars? If the bishop of New York made a trip to Rome, would that make him the Bishop of Rome?

And what is that supposed to mean? Can you actually answer the question or not?;)

[LivingWordUnity]

And what is that supposed to mean? Can you actually answer the question or not?;)It means that being the first Christian to physically be in a place does not make one a bishop. Being a bishop is a calling from God. Peter went to Rome to set up office as the Bishop of Rome. And there is no historical evidence whatsoever to refute the fact that he was the Bishop of Rome. It's that simple. Someone not liking it or not wanting to believe it does not change historical fact.

[IamRedeemed]

This is a red herring.
If I were the first Christian to land on Mars, would that make me the Bishop of Mars? If the bishop of New York made a trip to Rome, would that make him the Bishop of Rome?

[IamRedeemed]

Which part of Peter is called as the Apostle to those of the
circumcision (the Jews) and Paul is called as the Apostle to those not
of the circumcision (the Gentiles) do you not understand?

Do you understand roles and assignments?

Peter was assigned to the Jews, His role was Apostle.
He was not called as an Apostle to the Gentiles therefore
He was not the first Pope of Rome.

Edit to ADD: The Papacy is actually unBiblical to begin with and there is only ONE that
could be considered a "vicar" of Christ and that ONE is the HOLY SPIRIT, not the Pope.

One of the Popes (I'll have to look it up) addressing the people called himself
Caesar. He said (This Caesar who now addresses you...yada yada) I'll find it and post it.
The Popes are successors of Caesar not of Peter.


It means that being the first Christian to physically be in a place does not make one a bishop. Being a bishop is a calling of God. Peter went to Rome to set up office as the Bishop of Rome. It's that simple.

[LivingWordUnity]

IamRedeemed,

I had already answered your questions.

[DeaconDean]

Being a bishop is a calling of God.

I gotta call you on that one. That is not what Paul and the scriptures say:

"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." -1 Tim. 3:1 (KJV)

Paul did not say if a man was called to be a bishop.

All that is required, according to the scriptures, is a desire to fulfill the "office of an ecclesiastical overseer."

(The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, episkopew, Wesley J. Perschbaher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, p. 165)

The Biblical examples are: God calling "Pastors:" Jer. 3:15; Eph. 4:11, Jesus (God) calling the disciples, the episcopate and presbyters a desire on mans part, (1 Tim. 1:1, Titus 1:5); and the episcopate and presbyters (in the first century, the Apostles) calling "deacons:" Acts 6

God Bless

Till all are one.

[IamRedeemed]

Thank you LivingWordUnity, but you did not answer them successfully nor Biblically,
you simply tried to apply your own reasoning but your reasonings do not
compliment but rather contradict Scripture and especially Galatians 2:7-9.

And did you see the rest of my post (Edit to ADD) regarding the Papacy itself?


IamRedeemed,

I had already answered your questions.

[LivingWordUnity]

IamRedeemed,

Since your heart is apparently set against the Catholic Church for whatever your personal experience is, nothing that I say and nothing that I show you in the Bible will convince you otherwise.

When I converted to the Catholic Church, it was after I got over my emotional reasons for not wanting to be Catholic.

[LivingWordUnity]

I gotta call you on that one. That is not what Paul and the scriptures say:

"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." -1 Tim. 3:1 (KJV)

Paul did not say if a man was called to be a bishop.So if decided to start calling myself a bishop would that make me one? There is nothing wrong with wanting to serve God as a bishop, but not everyone is called to be one.


Romans 10:14-15
But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!"

[IamRedeemed]

LivingWordUnity,

My heart is not set "against the Catholic Church" but is set on the truth. I believe all Christians regardless of what they believe denominationally or otherwise having received doctrines, need to allow the Holy Spirit through the Word of God lead and guide them to the truth and be willing to follow where ever the truth leads, rather than hold on to things their pursuit for the truth has shown them are false.
The worst thing we can do spiritually to ourselves is fear the truth.

I can assure you that none of my reasonings for rejecting certain practices, traditions
and doctrines of the RCC are based on anything emotional.


IamRedeemed,

Since your heart is apparently set against the Catholic Church for whatever your personal experience is, nothing that I say and nothing that I show you in the Bible will convince you otherwise.

When I converted to the Catholic Church, it was after I got over my emotional reasons for not wanting to be Catholic.

[DeaconDean]

So if decided to start calling myself a bishop would that make me one? There is nothing wrong with wanting to serve God as a bishop, but not everyone is called to be one.

Romans 10:14-15

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!"

You have not read that "evangelists" are called by God the Holy Spirit.

God said:

"I will give you Pastors after my own heart." -cf. Jer. 3:15 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul teaches that one of the gifts of the Spirit was that of a "pastor:"

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" -Eph. 4:11 (KJV)

Now you show me in the scriptures, for one of the "rules" here is Scripture Alone, {emphasis mine} you show me in the scriptures where "bishops" are called.

The Greek definition of an "evangelist" is:

euggelisthV - "one who announces glad tidings; an evangelist; preacher of the Gospel; teacher of the Christian religion"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, euggelisthV, p. 179.

The Greek definition of a "pastor" is:

poumhn - "one who tends flocks or herds, a shepherd, herdsman, a pastor, superintendent, guardian"

Ibid, p. 336

A pastor is the "undershepherd" of the church, the bishops and presbyters are on equal ground as the Pastor, but with less "authority" in the church. The "Pastor" is the superintendent of the church, not the "bishop" or even the "presbyters."

An evangelist is a "traveling" preacher. Big difference.

The word the KJV translators used in 1 Tim. 3:15 for desire is "oregw" and it means "to extend; stretch out, in the middle voice to stretch one's self out, to reach forward to; metaphorically to desire earnestly, long after, by implication to indulge in, be devoted to."

Ibid, p. 296

Further weight is added to the argument when Paul tells Titus:

"...ordain/appoint elders in every city" -Titus 1:5 (KJV)

Those men who met the qualifications, were "appointed" as either elders/presbyters or bishops/episcopate.

Now, I ask you again, show me scripture to prove that God calls "bishops."

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

Without a Pope there can only be endless debates which lead to endless divisions. :sigh:

[DeaconDean]

Without a Pope there can only be endless debates which lead to endless divisions. :sigh:

Oh, like the split between Eastern and Western?

Or the split between Angelican and Roman Catholic?

Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

Oh, like the split between Eastern and Western?

Or the split between Angelican and Roman Catholic?

Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.Those divisions happened when people broke away from Rome which proves my point. After Luther braking away from Rome came the endless divisions of Protestantism. The Catholic Church is one Church throughout the world with the Pope as a sign of our unity while Protestantism is a house divided.

[DeaconDean]

Those divisions happened when people broke away from Rome which proves my point. After Luther braking away from Rome came the endless divisions of Protestantism. The Catholic Church is one Church throughout the world with the Pope as a sign of our unity while Protestantism is a house divided.

Talk about "strawmen."

It was the so called "Catholic" church that split away from the first church.

Strange, I don't see the church in Jerusalem ever being called a "catholic" church. Hum...

Strange, I don't see Peter or any other men/women of God being called "Catholics" at Antioch.

Strange, the word "catholic" isn't used for the "church" until well after the Apostles were dead. Hum...

How come in the entire New Testament, the word for Catholic isn't even used for "Christians" or even Peter?

Nothing but a product of man-made religion.

Even in Revelations, when Jesus tells John to write to the churches, he is not told to write to the "Catholic" church at Ephesus. Or the "catholic" church at Smyrna, etc.

And Revelations was written near the end of the first century.

If there was primacy for the "Pope" or the "Catholic" church surely it would have been included in the canon and found in the scriptures themselves. But its not.

Strawman.

And one of the biggest I've seen in a while too.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

It was the so called "Catholic" church that split away from the first church.

Strange, I don't see the church in Jerusalem ever being called a "catholic" church.A local church can't by itself be called the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church means universally everywhere and not limited to one locality. That's why the Catholic Church is everywhere in the world. "Catholic" describes the mission given to the Church by Jesus to preach to all nations.

[DeaconDean]

A local church can't by itself be called the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church means universally everywhere and not limited to one locality. That's why the Catholic Church is everywhere in the world. "Catholic" describes the mission given to the Church by Jesus to preach to all nations.

yea, yea, yea, the same old rhetoric over and over again.

Strawman!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[cubanito]

Was there a Church operating as a Church in Rome prior to Peter's going there?

Assuming Peter ever went to Rome (probably so), yes, there was a Church before Peter showed up.

Was that Church prior to Peter's visit a properly functioning Church?

Paul addresses the Romans, not as backsliders, but as those of whom Paul rejoices because their "faith is spoken of arund the world." read Rom 1:6-16
Paul addresses the dysfunctioning Corynthians in 1Cor and others very boldly. When Paul has something negative to say to a local assembly, Paul does so strongly and directly.
Therefore, we can conclude there was a properly functioning Church at Rome prior to Peter.

Does a properly functioning local assembly have to have at least one Bishop?

Well, according to Paul it does. He lays out the qualifications, including that they must be married.


Sooo... we have Paul addressing what Paul considers an exemplary Church at Rome.

Are you then proposing that this exemplary local assembly did not have at least one Bishop?

If there was no Bishop of Rome before Peter, then you suggest a well functioning Church with no Bishops. This may be fine for a congregationalist, or some of the anabaptists, but a well-ordered Church wo at least one Bishop is something something you of all people should find impossible.

As to Mars, should I land on Mars with a group of other Christians, once the basic survival mechanisms are worked out, it ought be my business to either seek to be a Bishop or to examine others that may serve as my Bishop on Mars.

JR

[cubanito]

As to a single Pope, the Roman Church had 3 Popes at the same time, one at Rome, one at Avignon and one at Pisa. Each one had anathemized the other two and had declared all other followers excommunicated. How was I living at that time to decide which one was the real Pope?

Also, the first Bishop to call himself Catholic (universal)was a Bishop of Constantinople (sorry, the name escapes me, but it occured in the late 500s to early 600s). And guess who repudiated the claim that ANY Bishop could claim universal primacy, catholicity or any such high and mighty titles:

Greogory I (the Great)

Only 2 Popes are titled "the Great" by history. One, Leo, raised the power and claims of the Papacy, but the other, Gregory, made it amply clear, in voluminous writings that NO SINLE MAN had the right to be universal Bishop.

I always knew I liked those Gregorian chants for some reason...

JR

[LivingWordUnity]

As to a single Pope, the Roman Church had 3 Popes at the same timeAnti-popes are not the same as the true Pope. And there are also false Christs, but we know that only one can be the true one.

There have been anti-popes even in our modern times:
20th century antipopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th_century_antipopes)

[cubanito]

But the titles "anti-Pope" and "Pope" are decided long after everybody is dead, by virtue of who wins. At the time of a dispute as to who the real successor is, there is no certain way to know who is "anti" and who is "real". Papal lists are an example of history written by the conquerors, conquerors on a MILITARY field, or by means of bribes. Like George Orwell's 1984, it requires doublethink.

The historical fact is that the RC "Magesterium" has fractured several times, and been reconstituted later, usually with the previous "Vicar" pronouncing all manner of anathemas on the new group. The RC has no unbroken line of succession.

Where I to believe in Apostolic Succession (I do not), I would belong to the EO, or perhaps the Coptics, for they DO have a fairly clear line of succession. The claims of the RC are revisionist history.

I do apologize if this is offensive, but I am trying to say it as kindly as I can, while yet stating Truth.

JR

[Vambram]

:amen::thumbsup:

I Could not have said that, nor answered LivingWordUnity any better myself. Somehow, though, I doubt that the answer will do him any good. However, I hope that I am incorrect about that. :groupray:

[LivingWordUnity]

But the titles "anti-Pope" and "Pope" are decided long after everybody is dead, by virtue of who wins. At the time of a dispute as to who the real successor is, there is no certain way to know who is "anti" and who is "real".Like I had said before, there are anti-popes even today. But when the worldwide media reports on what the Pope said, who else but Pope Benedict XVI do they report on?


Papal lists are an example of history written by the conquerors, conquerors on a MILITARY field, or by means of bribes.If you really believe this how can you say that you believe the historical account of what is written in the Bible? The same Church which you accuse of being corrupt is the same one that infallibly decided by the Holy Spirit which books would make up the New Testament. That's why an attack on the Catholic Church is at the same time an attack on the Bible.


The historical fact is that the RC "Magesterium" has fractured several times, and been reconstituted later, usually with the previous "Vicar" pronouncing all manner of anathemas on the new group. The RC has no unbroken line of succession.Where is your proof of these claims? The first model of the Magisterium is found in the Bible - the apostles (the first bishops) with Peter (the first Pope) as the chief apostle.


Where I to believe in Apostolic Succession (I do not), I would belong to the EO, or perhaps the CopticsWhich EO church? They are divided by nationality. Is the body of Christ divided?

The Coptics are an example of how the EO churches are vulnerable to the possibility of falling into heresy when they don’t have a Pope.

Even though the Catholic Church has been around for 1,500 years longer than the oldest of Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church has never taught any heresy and never will because the Holy Spirit will always guide the Magisterium of the Church when teaching about faith and morals.

[Vambram]

If you really believe this how can you say that you believe the historical account of what is written in the Bible? The same Church which you accuse of being corrupt is the same one that infallibly decided by the Holy Spirit which books would make up the New Testament. That's why an attack on the Catholic Church is at the same time an attack on the Bible.


This is simply, without any doubt, very clearly NOT true. However, it is not a surprise to me that a RCC apologist would make such an outrageous claim.

[LivingWordUnity]

This is simply, without any doubt, very clearly NOT true. However, it is not a surprise to me that a RCC apologist would make such an outrageous claim.Please consider the following quote:

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
Source (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem)

[Hentenza]

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments. Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"




Source (http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem).

[LivingWordUnity]

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments. Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"Source (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem).Like when people keep responding to my points by telling me things like "you are wrong" or “this is simply, without any doubt, very clearly NOT true” but not giving me any reason for saying this other than because I am a Catholic.

[Hentenza]

Like when people keep responding to my points by telling me things like "you are wrong" or “this is simply, without any doubt, very clearly NOT true” but not giving me any reason for saying this other than because I am a Catholic.

No, not because you are Catholic but because you continue to repeat your rhetoric here. Have you not gotten the point that we are not converting to the RCC? Most of your posts have been posted in the fundamentalist forum. Do you think that we don't know what you are up to. Dude, your credibility was shattered a long time ago when you continued to post your agenda here.
Again, get this through your head, we are not converting to the RCC. Got that?

[LivingWordUnity]

No, not because you are Catholic but because you continue to repeat your rhetoric here. Have you not gotten the point that we are not converting to the RCC? Most of your posts have been posted in the fundamentalist forum. Do you think that we don't know what you are up to. Dude, your credibility was shattered a long time ago when you continued to post your agenda here.
Again, get this through your head, we are not converting to the RCC. Got that?What does what you just said have to do with the question of what is truth and what is not truth concerning Christianity?

This sub-forum is called, "Debate A Fundamentalist", so it should not matter what my motivation is as long as I am debating fairly and speaking the truth.

Is what I have said the truth or not? If so, why not acknowledge it? If not, why not show me how I'm wrong instead of getting defensive?

[Vambram]

No, not because you are Catholic but because you continue to repeat your rhetoric here. Have you not gotten the point that we are not converting to the RCC? Most of your posts have been posted in the fundamentalist forum. Do you think that we don't know what you are up to. Dude, your credibility was shattered a long time ago when you continued to post your agenda here.
Again, get this through your head, we are not converting to the RCC. Got that?

That is exactly correct. On this forum, we are Fundamentalist Christians, and we are very clearly NOT members of the RCC. We are not going to convert to the RCC, and I know that I never shall. Do you want to know why I know this, LivingWordUnity? I shall tell you why. The reason why I shall never, ever convert to the RCC is because my Savior and God, the Lord Jesus Christ through the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit within me, has thoroughly and utterly convinced me that the RCC is a denomination with his filled with many heresies and fasle teachings. It don't matter how many times that you, LivingWordUnity continue to post RCC rhetoric that lacks real, solid, and verifiable proveable evidence. You shall still be unable to convince myself or anyone else I know that you and the RCC is correct.

[Hentenza]

[quote=LivingWordUnity;46898165]What does what you just said have to do with the question of what is truth and what is not truth concerning Christianity?
No, not about Christianity but your version of Christianity. I already spent 22 years as a Roman Catholic. I am not returning to the RC and neither is anyone here.

This sub-forum is called, "Debate A Fundamentalist", so it should not matter what my motivation is as long as I am debating fairly and speaking the truth.

That is the problem. You are not debating just promoting Roman Catholism. There is a difference you know.;)

Is what I said the truth or not? If so, why not acknowledge it? If not, why not show me how I'm wrong?

Many here already have.:amen:

[LivingWordUnity]

But the titles "anti-Pope" and "Pope" are decided long after everybody is dead, by virtue of who wins. At the time of a dispute as to who the real successor is, there is no certain way to know who is "anti" and who is "real".Like I had said before, there are anti-popes even today. But when the worldwide media reports on what the Pope said, who else but Pope Benedict XVI do they report on?


Papal lists are an example of history written by the conquerors, conquerors on a MILITARY field, or by means of bribes.If you really believe this how can you say that you believe the historical account of what is written in the Bible? The same Church which you accuse of being corrupt is the same one that infallibly decided by the Holy Spirit which books would make up the New Testament. That's why an attack on the Catholic Church is at the same time an attack on the Bible.


The historical fact is that the RC "Magesterium" has fractured several times, and been reconstituted later, usually with the previous "Vicar" pronouncing all manner of anathemas on the new group. The RC has no unbroken line of succession.Where is your proof of these claims? The first model of the Magisterium is found in the Bible - the apostles (the first bishops) with Peter (the first Pope) as the chief apostle.


Where I to believe in Apostolic Succession (I do not), I would belong to the EO, or perhaps the CopticsWhich EO church? They are divided by nationality. Is the body of Christ divided?

The Coptics are an example of how the EO churches are vulnerable to the possibility of falling into heresy when they don’t have a Pope.

Even though the Catholic Church has been around for 1,500 years longer than the oldest of Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church has never taught any heresy and never will because the Holy Spirit will always guide the Magisterium of the Church when teaching about faith and morals.

[LivingWordUnity]

No, not about Christianity but your version of Christianity. I already spent 22 years as a Roman Catholic. I am not returning to the RC and neither is anyone here. That is the problem. You are not debating just promoting Roman Catholism. There is a difference you know. Many here already have.You keep repeating the same defensive thing without answering any of my questions. What version of Christianity do you expect me to explain other than the version of Christianity that I am?

[Hentenza]

You keep repeating the same defensive thing without answering any of my questions.

LOL!!! Not defensive but offensive in the sense that it is directly directed at you. I am not going to waste my time answering your questions because you are not interested in an answer from me or anyone else here. There has been plenty of good people here that have tried but to no avail. You are not here to listen to our answers but to attempt to tell us yours. We are not interested. Go in peace.

[LivingWordUnity]

LOL!!! Not defensive but offensive in the sense that it is directly directed at you. I am not going to waste my time answering your questions because you are not interested in an answer from me or anyone else here. There has been plenty of good people here that have tried but to no avail. You are not here to listen to our answers but to attempt to tell us yours. We are not interested. Go in peace.I think that you might be confusing this sub-forum with the "Ask a Fundamentalist" sub-forum. This one is called, "Debate a Fundamentalist". Perhaps the name of this sub-forum should be changed.

[Vambram]

No one answered to post #63, because there is no real, proveable, and verifiable evidence to back up these claims, LivingWordUnity.
The same Church which you accuse of being corrupt is the same one that infallibly decided by the Holy Spirit which books would make up the New Testament. That's why an attack on the Catholic Church is at the same time an attack on the Bible.
There is absolutely no real and solid, and verifiable proof and really solid evidence to back up your claims that I have ever seen presented. Again, I ask, where ARE the facts???


Even though the Catholic Church has been around for 1,500 years longer than the oldest of Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church has never taught any heresy and never will because the Holy Spirit will always guide the Magisterium of the Church when teaching about faith and morals.

Do you really and truly want to get into a debate with Fundamentalist Christians what we believe that the heresies and false teachings are of the RCC? If so, then lets start another thread, my friend, and I am sure that the Fundamentalist Christians will be more than willing to oblige you in such a debate.
:)

[LivingWordUnity]

That is exactly correct. On this forum, we are Fundamentalist Christians, and we are very clearly NOT members of the RCC. We are not going to convert to the RCC, and I know that I never shall. Do you want to know why I know this, LivingWordUnity? I shall tell you why. The reason why I shall never, ever convert to the RCC is because my Savior and God, the Lord Jesus Christ through the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit within me, has thoroughly and utterly convinced me that the RCC is a denomination with his filled with many heresies and fasle teachings. It don't matter how many times that you, LivingWordUnity continue to post RCC rhetoric that lacks real, solid, and verifiable proveable evidence. You shall still be unable to convince myself or anyone else I know that you and the RCC is correct. That sounds very defensive.

What heresies? And who has the authority to infallibly tell someone that what they believe is a heresy?

[Hentenza]

I think that you might be confusing this sub-forum with the "Ask a Fundamentalist" sub-forum. This one is called, "Debate a Fundamentalist". Perhaps the name of this sub-forum should be changed.

Not really. Debate. when is done sincerely, helps all to learn, to sharpen our sword as it where. You are not here to debate but to attempt to teach. There is a big difference. Have you learned anything here? Probably not.

I tell you what. As a member of this forum (not as a mod) I am establishing a moratorium on your threads. I pray that many here will follow. Adios!!!

[LivingWordUnity]

There is absolutely no verifiable and solid evidence or real facts that I have ever seen presented that back up this claim of yours and the RCC. Where ARE the facts???Please be specific. What part of what I said are you talking about?

[Vambram]

That sounds very defensive.

What heresies? And who has the authority to infallibly tell someone that what they believe is a heresy?
I promise you that I am not being defensive to you or anyone else at all. As to who has the authority? well, apparently the human and very fallible priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes in the RCC believe that they have the authority to call out what they think is heresy. So, if they believe that they have the ability and authority to do so, then ALL Christians have the same ability to do this as they are truly only under the Leadership and under the authority of the Savior Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. All of my beliefs concerning doctrine and spiritual matters are grounded and found directly within the Scriptures.... NOT the words of human priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, and the traditions of the RCC.

[LivingWordUnity]

As a member of this forum (not as a mod) I am establishing a moratorium on your threads. I pray that many here will follow. Adios!!!There is no legitimate reason that you would have to have me banned, and it would reflect more on you than on me. God is my witness that I have always done my best to say what is true.

John 18:23
Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

[LivingWordUnity]

As to who has the authority? well, apparently the human and very fallible priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes in the RCC believe that they have the authority to call out what they think is heresy. So, if they believe that they have the ability and authority to do so, then ALL Christians have the same ability to do this as they are truly only under the Leadership and under the authority of the Savior Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ.Would it make any sense if you had the authority to tell me that what I believe is heresy while, at the same time, I would have the authority to tell you that what you believe in is a heresy? That would lead to contradiction.


All of my beliefs concerning doctrine and spiritual matters are grounded and found directly within the Scriptures.... NOT the words of human priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, and the traditions of the RCC.Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not in the Bible, sola fide (faith alone) is not in the Bible, and "once saved, always saved" is not in the Bible.

But even though the Bible does not teach that every teaching of Christianity has to be in the Bible, all of my beliefs are in the Bible either directly or indirectly.

[tisamy]

Even though the Catholic Church has been around for 1,500 years longer than the oldest of Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church has never taught any heresy and never will because the Holy Spirit will always guide the Magisterium of the Church when teaching about faith and morals.

I remember something said about being able to back up all RCC teaching with the bible either 'directly or indirectly.' So here are just a few issues I have with the RCC: The teaching of Mary's assumption into heaven and coronation as queen of heaven.' The teaching of Mary as 'Mediatrix of all graces.' These are fairly recent doctrines within the history of the RCC. The bible says Jesus alone is the only mediator between God and man. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

As far as papal succession there were several times if I recall that there were two declared popes for a number of years.

Paul makes no mention of the church in Rome or it's leader as superior. And if Rome had Peter and his successor to teach with superior authority, why is Paul writing to teach Romans doctrinal issues?

Revelation names the seven churches of Asia: the church in Ephesus , etc.... the Spirit is teaching the churches through the writings of John what they should hold onto closely and what they lack. Christ is the only head of the church.

[Vambram]

Would it make any sense if you had the authority to tell me that what I believe is heresy while, at the same time, I would have the authority to tell you that what you believe in is a heresy? That would lead to contradiction.

Not if you stick to the Bible only for doctrinal beliefs, and make sure that you interpret the Bible properly according to and within a Scripture's context.


Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not in the Bible, sola fide (faith alone) is not in the Bible, and "once saved, always saved" is not in the Bible.

Actually, yes they are, but you are too bound by the traditions of the men of the RCC to believe this, no matter how many times the Scriptures are used to show the error of some of the RCC doctrines.


But even though the Bible does not teach that every teaching of Christianity has to be in the Bible, all of my beliefs are in the Bible either directly or indirectly.

Then, please attempt to try to prove from the Bible the teachings of the RCC to which tisamy referred to in the post previous to mine.
Thank you. :cool:

:groupray:

[LivingWordUnity]

Vambram,

Please choose A or B to describe your beliefs:


A) You believe that you are infallible in your personal interpretation of scripture

B) You believe that its possible that your personal interpretation of scripture could be in error

2 Peter 1:20
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."

[cubanito]

Like I had said before, there are anti-popes even today. But when the worldwide media reports on what the Pope said, who else but Pope Benedict XVI do they report on? ....

.
I spend time as I see fit on these fora. As self employed, my job fluctuates quite a bit, and so at times I go away to do stuff, sometimes for weeks. My non-response is usu related to the demands of my job. I am again enetering busyville, so I won't respond to all your new and off topic points, but this one is so blatantly :doh:


So now the media decides Truth?

Praytell, to whom would reporters have turned for an interpretation of the Torah, to JC or Caiaphas? To whom do they still turn to understand Judaism, to Jews for Jesus, or us grafted in folk, or to those dead branches that set a dry bone at passover and call it a sacrificed lamb?


Your answer tipyfies why so many turn to the RC, even true Christians, for I am not among those who believe the RCC is totally bereft of the Gospel, but yet a true Christian Church (if a bit obfuscated at times).

You see with the eyes of the world. You judge by the standards of man. You are enthralled by outward appearances. You are comforted by pagentry and old rites from medieval times.

We are not yet very spiritual (note the WE), and it comforts our flesh, yes even the flesh of many true Christians, to have some fatherly figure they can see and hear, especially as the world grows increasingly chaotic. I understand that, and frankly, I can't condemn that as harshly as some of my fundy brothers. It is not easy to live in the time Christ predicted when there will be NO mountaintop sacred, NO visible head, and we all should worship the invisible God alone, and seek our council from a book, our comfort from the Spirit, and stand before God with JC, Whom we can not here see, as the sole Mediator. It isin't easy on the flesh. .


The RC is just another veil to ahield our terrified eyes from God. And sometimes good Christians need veils, even among Protestants.

JR

[Vambram]

2 Peter 1:19-21

The Scripture is made more sure by fulfilment in part. Fulfilled prophecy is a proof of inspiration because the Scripture predictions of future events were uttered so long before the events transpired that no merely human sagacity or foresight could have anticipated them, and these predictions are so detailed, minute, and specific, as to exclude the possibility that they were mere fortunate guesses.
Hundreds of predictions concerning Israel, the land of Canaan, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and numerous personages -- so ancient, so singular, so seemingly improbable, as well as so detailed and definite that no mortal could have anticipated them -- have been fulfilled by the elements, and by men who were ignorant of them, or who utterly disbelieved them, or who struggled with frantic desperation to avoid their fulfilment. It is certain, therefore, that the Scriptures which contain them are inspired. "Prophecy came not in olden time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".
"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," Its own interpretation; that is, not isolated from all that the Word has given elsewhere. No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation (or origin, margin). This statement has given rise to a great variety of interpretations. Some are absurd, such as the view that interpretation of the Bible is the right of the church alone and that individuals should not study it! Other explanations may be true statements, although not the meaning of this passage. For instance, it is true that no verse should be interpreted by itself, but in the light of the context and of all the rest of Scripture.
But Peter here is dealing with the origin of the prophetic word, and not with the way men interpret it after it has been given. The point is that when the prophets sat down to write, they did not give their own private interpretation of events or their own conclusions. In other words interpretation does not refer to the explaining of the word by those of us who have the Bible in written form; rather it refers to the way in which the Word came into being in the first place.

D. T. Young writes:
"So the text, rightly understood ... asserts that Scripture is not human in its ultimate origin. It is God's interpretation, not man's. We often hear of certain statements of Scripture as representing David's opinion, or Paul's opinion, or Peter's opinion. Yet, strictly speaking, we have no man's opinion in those Holy Writings. It is all God's interpretation of things. No prophecy of the Scripture represents an individual's interpretation: men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The translation in the NKJV margin, origin, is thus quite accurate, and, we believe, superior in context.
1 Peter 1:21 This verse confirms the explanation just given in verse 20. For prophecy never came by the will of man. As someone has said, “What they wrote was not a concoction of their own ideas, and it was not the result of human imagination, insight, or speculation.”
The fact is that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In some way which we cannot fully understand, God directed these men as to the very words to write, and yet He did not destroy the individuality or style of the writers. This is one of the key verses in the Bible on divine inspiration. In a day when many are denying the authority of the Scriptures, it is important that we stand firmly for the verbal, plenary inspiration of the inerrant word.



As a human, saved by the Grace of the Lord through faith, I am certainly still very capable of being fallible in anything that I do. The same is also true for all of the priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes, for they are all indeed still human, and thus fallible. Therefore, when I read and study the Scriptures, I see for myself through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit Who indwells within me, what the proper interpretation of the Scriptures is, as well as with the prophecies in Scriptures. I praise and thank the Lord Jesus Christ for all of the godly teachers and preachers and scholars whom have taught, preached and published throughout myriad and sundry forms of publishing. Their works and teachings can easily be read, studied, and then through prayer, I can discern for myself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit what is the Truth.
:groupray:

[LivingWordUnity]

Please choose A or B to describe your beliefs:

A) You believe that you are infallible in your personal interpretation of scripture

B) You believe that its possible that your personal interpretation of scripture could be in errorAs a human, saved by the Grace of the Lord through faith, I am certainly still very capable of being fallible in anything that I do. So you are saying that your answer to the question is B?

[cubanito]

First you choose:

a) your interpretation of what the Pope writes is infallible

b) your interpretation of what the Pope writes could be mistaken

JR

[Vambram]

First you choose:

a) your interpretation of what the Pope writes is infallible

b) your interpretation of what the Pope writes could be mistaken

JR

Agreed, first you choose, and try these other options if you would, please, as well.

c) the Pope (no matter who is the Pope) is a fallibe human being and capable of sinning, and being in error with his interpretation of Scriptures
d) the Pope (no matter who is, or was, the Pope) is THE personal representative of Christ on Earth and is therefore perfect, and completely infallible with his interpretations of Scripture.



However, for the record, I shall restate again what I already have said, and hope that I am clearly understood.
As a human, saved by the Grace of the Lord through faith, I am certainly still very capable of being fallible in anything that I do. The same is also true for all of the priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes, for they are all indeed still human, and thus fallible.


:groupray:

[LivingWordUnity]

Agreed, first you choose, and try these other options if you would, please, as well.

c) the Pope (no matter who is the Pope) is a fallibe human being and capable of sinning, and being in error with his interpretation of Scriptures
d) the Pope (no matter who is, or was, the Pope) is THE personal representative of Christ on Earth and is therefore perfect, and completely infallible with his interpretations of Scripture.You are confusing impeccability with infallibility. I will agree if it is correctly worded as such:

C) The Pope is not impeccable. Therefore he is capable of sinning. This was true of Peter and our current Pope.
True.

D) The Pope THE personal representative/spokesman of Christ on Earth. Therefore, the Holy Spirit prevents him from ever teaching anything that is contrary to the apostolic deposit of faith. 266 Popes and about 2,000 years of the Church bear witness to this fact.
True.

[LivingWordUnity]

First you choose:

a) your interpretation of what the Pope writes is infallible

b) your interpretation of what the Pope writes could be mistaken

JRA) No.

B) Yes.

If everyone interpreted what the Pope says with infallibility then the Pope would not need to have any successors.

But since our interpretation of what the Pope says or of what the Bible says is not always perfect, every generation has to have a living Pope to clarify to people whenever there is a misunderstanding of either Scripture or something that was taught in the past by the Church.

If the people of the Church misunderstand what the Pope teaches, he can clarifiy his position on the matter. This is why the Pope writes things like Encyclicals to clarify matters that people may have misunderstood in the past.

But, if someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible won't answer them back and tell them that they are misinterpreting it.

That was easy. Why is it so difficult for Fundamentalists to give an answer to this...

Please choose A or B to describe your beliefs:

A) You believe that you are infallible in your personal interpretation of scripture

B) You believe that its possible that your personal interpretation of scripture could be in error

[DeaconDean]

Why is it you will not accept it when the Greek and Hebrew words contridict your Pope's "infallible" teachings?

And how do you explain that the Greek word "katholikos" is not used in conjunction with Christianity until the epistle written by Ignatious and Polycarp? (Thayer's Lexicon)

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

DeaconDean,

It is not complicated like you are trying to make it.

The word "church" is a noun. The word "catholic" is an adjective that describes that noun. The noun itself did not change. It is still the same Church.

An analogy:

I tell you that I have a rose.

You ask me "what kind of rose do you have?"

I then say, "I have a red rose."

It's still the same rose.

The word "catholic" means "universal". Universal means everywhere. This is the mission that Jesus gave to the Church when he told the apostles to preach to all nations. He gave them a universal (catholic) mission.

Some of the letters in the Bible are addressed to a particular local church, but other letters are addressed to the whole Church. In other words, these letters are to the whole Catholic Church.

By the way, historians believe that Saint Ignatius was taught directly by John the apostle.

And the quote from Saint Ignatius when he talks about the Catholic Church is dated at only 7 years after the death of John, the last living apostle.

[DeaconDean]

But the point is still valid.

In the "God-Breathed" scriptures, "katholikos" is not used in conjunction with Christianity.

That is "man-made" doctrine.

And I repeat:

Why is it you will not accept it when the Greek and Hebrew words contridict your Pope's "infallible" teachings?

I'm a student of the Koine Greek as used in the New Testament. Do you have any idea what lengths I go to to i