Jesus Says a Church Doesn't Need a Bishop
- Thread starter Dale
- Start date
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,650
- 3,299
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep." John 21:15-17
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Let's provisionally agree to that.
If we do, we still have no basis for thinking that anything like the Papacy was intended.
The bishop of Rome himself and his allies didn't even begin to make that argument (and using the Matthew passage to bolster it) until centuries later! In addition, we all know that the Eastern churches didn't see this matter in the same way and never have.
What you have is Peter as someone important in Christ's eyes. But we know for a fact that James and Paul were considered by some in the first century church, ECFs included, to be of the same level (or more?) when it came to leadership.
That's an erroneous interpretation. For one thing, it's keyS in the NT but it was key (singular) in the OT, and also, there was no such thing as a "prime minister" in either case, although Catholics like to add that term into their argument.
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,650
- 3,299
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
1) Peter and the rest of the popes did not need to make any "argument," they knew well they were the popes. Remember the Catholic Church was in existence before one word of the New Testament was written, so Peter for some time had no writing to point at should he have felt the need to "prove" he was the pope, saying look here and here and here.
2) Peter was the pope and if you take the time to study the Bible you will see there are far more references to his authority than to any other Apostles.
3) The position of Shebna and his successors spoken of in the Bible is al-habbayit translated into English as “over the house.” "Over the House" is a reference to one who has authority over the entire house of David, the kingdom of David (although David is long dead by that time).
In translations we try and find the closest word, it is the king’s right hand man, the overlord, the prime minister, the master of the house, chancellor, pope, or whatever English title one thinka comes closest to the translation. Since there were others with authority under him, I think a prime minister with ministers under him is as close of a translation as any. Translations of original Biblical text into English often do not have exact word for word translations. Catholics are not "adding" to the Bible by using a translation.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Swell, but if the church did not also agree, and if the Scriptures do not support it, what do you have except a hollow claim--exactly what I'd expect you to think of the unusual doctrines advanced by various "non-Catholic" denominations?
Sorry, but you cannot ask us to remember something that did not happen.
And simply saying that the RCC existed when it did not doesn't mean anything more than saying the Papacy was recognized by the churches or the ECFs when they also did not.
It isn't. The first prime minister came along in the 18th century AD and the post is completely unlike what you are describing. In addition, they keys analogy was faulty for the reason already explained, so there isn't any connection to the words of Christ as recorded in that passage from Matthew, anyway.
Upvote
0
timothyu
Well-Known Member
- Dec 31, 2018
- 22,700
- 8,500
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
It is unfortunate that the gentiles in becoming the ruling majority of the growing religion, not only branded all others within the movement as heretics as their worldly power increased, but made sure the literature used reflected their own movement. Ironically it became like the Jews who sought a worldly king, this new gentile 'temple' thinking the kingdom was what they built here on Earth.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,209
- 1,236
- 71
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
JL: “[Jn16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.]KJV”
It’s interesting that you mention the Holy Spirit. I’ve noticed that Catholics seem to think that the coming of the Holy Spirit means that the Spirit will guide the Bishops. Protestants think that the coming of the Holy Spirit means that the Spirit guides all Christians. When all Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit, Bishops are a lot less important, if we need them at all.
Upvote
0
timothyu
Well-Known Member
- Dec 31, 2018
- 22,700
- 8,500
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Jesus said He would send the HS to guide those already on the path of the Kingdom to help prevent them from falling to the wayside. Would not those of a different worldly path use that concept to keep their flock within worldly boundaries?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,209
- 1,236
- 71
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Jesus never put Peter above the other Apostles. I’ll try to return to that later.
The analogy between Isaiah 22 and Peter’s confession in Matthew 16 is very imperfect. In Isaiah 22, one official who had the key, or keys, is dismissed, either for incompetence, corruption, or treason. It is Shebna who is dismissed. In his place Eliakim is appointed and give the key, or keys, to the storerooms. Having the key to the storerooms didn’t give Eliakim command of the army. It didn’t give him the power to negotiate treaties. He wasn’t prime minister. His position was more like Chief Butler.
Moreover, Eliakim was always a servant. Hezekiah was a King of Israel and he had a son, Manasseh, who inherited the throne when Hezekiah died. Eliakim had the key to the storeroom but he was never the designated successor to Hezekiah. Yet the Roman Catholic Church claims that when Jesus ascended into heaven, Peter was left as God’s Regent on earth. This is nothing like Eliakim’s position.
Not everything Hezekiah did was a success. King Hezekiah rebelled against the King of Assyria, as we know from II Kings 18:7, and this rebellion didn’t work out very well.
So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of
Assyria at Lachish: “I have done wrong. Withdraw from me,
and I will pay whatever you demand of me.” The king of
Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred
talents [That is, about 10 tons (about 10 metric tons)] of
silver and thirty talents [That is, about 1 ton (about 1 metric
ton)] of gold.
So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the
temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace.
At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold
with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the
temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
II Kings 18:14-16 NIV
Despite paying heavy tribute to the King of Assyria, Assyria continued to threaten Judah. The destruction of Jerusalem was averted only by a miracle.
It looks like the storehouse was empty when Eliakim got the key to it.
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,650
- 3,299
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Nonsense. In Isaiah, the king gives the key of the House of David to his prime minister as a visible sign to the people that the prime minister has FULL AUTHORITY when the king is absent. The prime minister would actually wear the keys of the Davidic kingdom so the people would know his word was a good as the king's word when the king was gone. No, the prime minister was no butler, please take the time to research for yourself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,209
- 1,236
- 71
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What did Paul say about the position of Peter?
Ga. 2:9 James, Peter John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace
given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,
and they to the Jews.
Ga. 2:10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the
poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Ga. 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he was clearly in the wrong.
Ga. 2:12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the
Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and
separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of
those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Ga. 2:13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their
hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
Ga. 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of
the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a
Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it,
then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Galatians 2:9-14 NIV
Paul does not treat Peter as the Overlord of the Christian Church. In this passage in Galatians, Paul says that Peter is one of several men who are “reputed to be pillars” of the Church. He does not see himself as taking orders from the Pillars or from any one of them.
In Galatians 2:11, Paul flatly opposes Peter. Paul believes that Peter is acting like a hypocrite and being too soft on Judaizers. Paul doesn’t treat Peter as the Chief Apostle. He doesn’t treat Peter as the symbolic head or the organizational head of the Christian Church.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,209
- 1,236
- 71
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Did King Saul have a prime minister? NO.
Did King David have a prime minister? NO.
Did King Solomon have a prime minister? NO.
Did King Hezekiah have a prime minister? NO.
Did any prophet in Israel ever speak to a prime minister? NO.
Upvote
0
This reminds me of the absurd RCC theology regarding the queen of Israel being the mother of the King and therefore, Mary, being the mother of King Jesus, is Queen of Heaven.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The only significant old testament reference to a queen is the Queen of Sheba who was, assuredly, not the mother of the King of Sheba. Queens reign as monarchs in their own right as, for example, Queens Elizabeth I and II, and Victoria, of England.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
