Again all speculation and fine have fun with it. One person we know was there was St. Matthew who recorded and no one questioned his recollection. All you have done arbitrarily drawn blanks where convenient and then played a little scripture mad libs. It sounds fun when done responsibly.AgLiving06 said:jrico2727 said:Why appeal to the EO here when you clearly ignore their teachings elsewhere? And why would them bering wrong in conjunction with you make you right? Since there are many Eastern rites in the Catholic Church it isn't a fully disputed by the East either. Only one Church has the authority to make those claims and it is the one you will reject no matter what I write.AgLiving06 said:jrico2727 said:1. Ok it's been debated, and so have most scriptures that is why you need a body that can provide a definitive answerAgLiving06 said:
I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.
1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.
2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.
3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.
4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.
So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.
2. To be fair Our Lord did speak highly of Simon at the moment: And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
We see St Peter moved by the Holy Spirit to provide the answer that the others given everything else he had been given couldn't. It shows that there was a special charism granted to St. Peter by the father.
3. And he never took away his title or office. We see after the 3 fold rejection of Christ, Peter being forgiven and being commanded to feed my sheep the flock he was given charge to.
4. Something being omitted isn't proof of a rebuttal, and if that is the strongest rebuttal it is pretty week. Luke glances over the narrative of the scene likely due to the fact most of the readers would have been familiar with the narrative from Matthew.
What you are leaving out is St Peter is given the Keys of Heaven. This is singularly the distinction given to him alone. All the other apostles were given the power to loose and bind. The keys are significant as his post in the Kingdom. Following the model of the Davidic Kingdom the chief steward, held the keys which was a sign of the Masters authority which the chief steward will have in the absence of the Master. When paralleled Isaiah. 22:20-22 we see striking similarity to Mark 16.
These are the typical responses from Rome. Yes and they are less convincing.
Lets take point 1. What body provided the definitive answer? Rome itself declared it. To this day the EOdox do not agree with that claim. So how much weight should we put behind someone self declaring themselves to be something? Typically that's considered a weak argument from authority.
Your point 3 is contingent on your answer to points 1 and 2 and so itself becomes weak. If you don't see strength in Church history or the verse itself, then we have no reason to believe he has a special title or office. So again, not a strong argument.
On point 4, I'm really glad you said it this way. Because that becomes problematic for Rome because we have next to no documentation about a Bishop of Rome in the early church. So if you're arguing that an absence of something isn't sufficient, that's going to create additional challenges for you. The typical Rome apologist response is that they weren't mentioning the Bishop of Rome to protect him, but that as you said would be a weak response.
However, I do think, in this case, it holds more weight that Luke specifically does not mention it. It seems pretty clear he spent time with at least Mary (based on the details he provides) and then the Apostles. For him, of all people, to leave out any proclamation about Peter is interesting because that tends to go against the thoroughness he showed.
The rest of your points are basically interjection of what isn't there, then speculation on what may be said and more injection of what is absent. But clearly your hypothetical points are incredibly convincing. Was Our Lady even present for the events in Matthew? She isn't mentioned there maybe if you assert that she was Luke's source, it could have been Paul as well, neither were there likely we don't know. Again this is all speculation to fill your narrative. There is more proof that Peter was at Rome than wasn't. Do the EO dispute that since you appeal to their authority when convenient? There are clear records of the order Popes within the Early Church.
If you only appealed to sources that 100% agree with yourself, you'll only be agreeing with yourself.
In this case, my disagreement with EO is not relevant to the topic. You, not me, made an appeal that a body to provide the definitive answer. My response was very clear to specify who that body is. Rome is appealing to Rome to declare that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme leader. That's your argument from authority. A self declared statement.
Notice, I never said Mary alone was someone who Luke met with. I also said the Apostles. I think a fair argument could be made that Luke met with Peter and the Paul, due to how Acts is written and the words he used.
So I actually don't even think it's out of the realm of reasonability that Luke talked with Peter as he was writing his Gospel.
If Peter was the leader of the church, why did Paul rebuke him?
9,425 Views |
109 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by AgLiving06
Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?HDeathstar said:
Paul was his trusty council providing legal advice.
Because Christ is the head of the Church.M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
Peter is holding on to the keys until he returns
jrico2727 said:Again all speculation and fine have fun with it. One person we know was there was St. Matthew who recorded and no one questioned his recollection. All you have done arbitrarily drawn blanks where convenient and then played a little scripture mad libs. It sounds fun when done responsibly.AgLiving06 said:jrico2727 said:Why appeal to the EO here when you clearly ignore their teachings elsewhere? And why would them bering wrong in conjunction with you make you right? Since there are many Eastern rites in the Catholic Church it isn't a fully disputed by the East either. Only one Church has the authority to make those claims and it is the one you will reject no matter what I write.AgLiving06 said:jrico2727 said:1. Ok it's been debated, and so have most scriptures that is why you need a body that can provide a definitive answerAgLiving06 said:
I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.
1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.
2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.
3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.
4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.
So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.
2. To be fair Our Lord did speak highly of Simon at the moment: And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
We see St Peter moved by the Holy Spirit to provide the answer that the others given everything else he had been given couldn't. It shows that there was a special charism granted to St. Peter by the father.
3. And he never took away his title or office. We see after the 3 fold rejection of Christ, Peter being forgiven and being commanded to feed my sheep the flock he was given charge to.
4. Something being omitted isn't proof of a rebuttal, and if that is the strongest rebuttal it is pretty week. Luke glances over the narrative of the scene likely due to the fact most of the readers would have been familiar with the narrative from Matthew.
What you are leaving out is St Peter is given the Keys of Heaven. This is singularly the distinction given to him alone. All the other apostles were given the power to loose and bind. The keys are significant as his post in the Kingdom. Following the model of the Davidic Kingdom the chief steward, held the keys which was a sign of the Masters authority which the chief steward will have in the absence of the Master. When paralleled Isaiah. 22:20-22 we see striking similarity to Mark 16.
These are the typical responses from Rome. Yes and they are less convincing.
Lets take point 1. What body provided the definitive answer? Rome itself declared it. To this day the EOdox do not agree with that claim. So how much weight should we put behind someone self declaring themselves to be something? Typically that's considered a weak argument from authority.
Your point 3 is contingent on your answer to points 1 and 2 and so itself becomes weak. If you don't see strength in Church history or the verse itself, then we have no reason to believe he has a special title or office. So again, not a strong argument.
On point 4, I'm really glad you said it this way. Because that becomes problematic for Rome because we have next to no documentation about a Bishop of Rome in the early church. So if you're arguing that an absence of something isn't sufficient, that's going to create additional challenges for you. The typical Rome apologist response is that they weren't mentioning the Bishop of Rome to protect him, but that as you said would be a weak response.
However, I do think, in this case, it holds more weight that Luke specifically does not mention it. It seems pretty clear he spent time with at least Mary (based on the details he provides) and then the Apostles. For him, of all people, to leave out any proclamation about Peter is interesting because that tends to go against the thoroughness he showed.
The rest of your points are basically interjection of what isn't there, then speculation on what may be said and more injection of what is absent. But clearly your hypothetical points are incredibly convincing. Was Our Lady even present for the events in Matthew? She isn't mentioned there maybe if you assert that she was Luke's source, it could have been Paul as well, neither were there likely we don't know. Again this is all speculation to fill your narrative. There is more proof that Peter was at Rome than wasn't. Do the EO dispute that since you appeal to their authority when convenient? There are clear records of the order Popes within the Early Church.
If you only appealed to sources that 100% agree with yourself, you'll only be agreeing with yourself.
In this case, my disagreement with EO is not relevant to the topic. You, not me, made an appeal that a body to provide the definitive answer. My response was very clear to specify who that body is. Rome is appealing to Rome to declare that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme leader. That's your argument from authority. A self declared statement.
Notice, I never said Mary alone was someone who Luke met with. I also said the Apostles. I think a fair argument could be made that Luke met with Peter and the Paul, due to how Acts is written and the words he used.
So I actually don't even think it's out of the realm of reasonability that Luke talked with Peter as he was writing his Gospel.
We have recordings of what Matthew said. Yes. There is disagreement on what he meant. Failure on your part to admit that, while not surprising for Roman Catholics, is part of the reason barriers exist.
I haven't provided anything arbitrarily, but presented the actual context vs a very selective view that is designed to support one particular group.
We could speculate about why many of the authors mentioned some things but not others. However, Paul refers to Peter several times (often as Cephas) to recognize how God uses Peters ministry. 1 Cor 3:22; 1 Cor 9:5.M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
Paul also affirms that Christ's Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13). He is describing an organization...not an invisible Church made up of the milieu of denominations and veritable biblical interpretations. The whole point of Paul's letters was to pass on Christ's teachings and to ensure the Church endured with these same teachings. Now, as far as speculating, many believe Paul was careful in his letters not to call out Peter as the head , nor specify his location etc because they were all in great peril from being persecuted/hunted by the Romans. The Church had to remain underground somewhat during those times and to tell the Romans in your letters "Hey, the guy that our Messiah left as head of our new Church is hanging out in Rome and his name is Peter" would not have been very prudent.
jrico2727 said:Because Christ is the head of the Church.M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
Peter is holding on to the keys until he returns
I believe that Jesus gave the keys to ALL of the apostles, including Paul. That power was not bestowed upon Peter alone. And, again, nowhere did Paul, who wrote extensively, say anything about Peter being the head of the church. Paul did tell us the following but, again, there's nothing in there about "obeying Peter".
Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:7 ESV
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
In ACTS 20 Paul tells the Ephesian elders that they are all "overseers' for the care for the "church of God". No mention of Peter being in charge.
Acts 20:28 ESV
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
When one gets into the details of the word of God, the doctrines of the Catholic Church fall apart.
This?BluHorseShu said:Paul also affirms that Christ's Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13).M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
1 Timothy 2:8-13
New International Version
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Quote:
When one gets into the details of the word of God, the doctrines of the Catholic Church fall apart.
Define "Word of God"
M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
BluHorseShu said:We could speculate about why many of the authors mentioned some things but not others. However, Paul refers to Peter several times (often as Cephas) to recognize how God uses Peters ministry. 1 Cor 3:22; 1 Cor 9:5.M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
Paul also affirms that Christ's Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13). He is describing an organization...not an invisible Church made up of the milieu of denominations and veritable biblical interpretations. The whole point of Paul's letters was to pass on Christ's teachings and to ensure the Church endured with these same teachings. Now, as far as speculating, many believe Paul was careful in his letters not to call out Peter as the head , nor specify his location etc because they were all in great peril from being persecuted/hunted by the Romans. The Church had to remain underground somewhat during those times and to tell the Romans in your letters "Hey, the guy that our Messiah left as head of our new Church is hanging out in Rome and his name is Peter" would not have been very prudent.
Yes, there are and were always hierarchies in Jesus's church.
1 Timothy 5:17 ESV
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
Peter was certainly a leader in the church, I simply dispute that he was the leader of all of the apostles, which includes, of course, Paul. Paul rebuking Peter is pretty strong evidence to me that Paul was not subservient to Peter.
Faithful Ag said:M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
If you want to enlighten others to the truth, who better to quote than God?
For instance, should I say "Don't commit adultery because it's a sin" or is it better that I instead share God's words by sharing the following?
Exodus 20:14
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
There is only one Apostle that receives keys in scripture. According to your personal rules you need to follow strictly what is in scriptureM1Buckeye said:jrico2727 said:Because Christ is the head of the Church.M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
Peter is holding on to the keys until he returns
I believe that Jesus gave the keys to ALL of the apostles, including Paul. That power was not bestowed upon Peter alone. And, again, nowhere did Paul, who wrote extensively, say anything about Peter being the head of the church. Paul did tell us the following but, again, there's nothing in there about "obeying Peter".
Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:7 ESV
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
In ACTS 20 Paul tells the Ephesian elders that they are all "overseers' for the care for the "church of God". No mention of Peter being in charge.
Acts 20:28 ESV
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
When one gets into the details of the word of God, the doctrines of the Catholic Church fall apart.
I can show you scripture that demonstrates that all of the apostles were given the keys. Let me know if you're interested in reading it. However, if you are comfortable in your belief that the keys were only given to Peter, I won't attempt to change your belief.jrico2727 said:There is only one Apostle that receives keys in scripture. According to your personal rules you need to follow strictly what is in scriptureM1Buckeye said:jrico2727 said:Because Christ is the head of the Church.M1Buckeye said:BluHorseShu said:Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).M1Buckeye said:
Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.
Why didn't Paul write about Peter being the head or the church? Is it because Peter wasn't actually the head of the church?
Peter is holding on to the keys until he returns
I believe that Jesus gave the keys to ALL of the apostles, including Paul. That power was not bestowed upon Peter alone. And, again, nowhere did Paul, who wrote extensively, say anything about Peter being the head of the church. Paul did tell us the following but, again, there's nothing in there about "obeying Peter".
Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:7 ESV
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
In ACTS 20 Paul tells the Ephesian elders that they are all "overseers' for the care for the "church of God". No mention of Peter being in charge.
Acts 20:28 ESV
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
When one gets into the details of the word of God, the doctrines of the Catholic Church fall apart.
cut out the drama and show your cards
Quote:
I can show you scripture that demonstrates that all of the apostles were given the keys. Let me know if you're interested in reading it. However, if you are comfortable in your belief that the keys were only given to Peter, I won't attempt to change your belief.
Yes. Please show us this crystal clear verse that shows where Jesus gives all of the apostles THE KEYS.
Nah. Jesus told us not to share our pearls with PIGS.jrico2727 said:
cut out the drama and show your cards
M1Buckeye said:Nah. Jesus told us not to share our pearls with PIGS.jrico2727 said:
cut out the drama and show your cards
So you have nothing.
You are a troll and need to stop wasting everyone's time on this forum.
M1Buckeye said:Nah. Jesus told us not to share our pearls with PIGS.jrico2727 said:
cut out the drama and show your cards
Wow
Faithful Ag said:M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
Are you claiming that Rome gave us the OT?
AgLiving06 said:Faithful Ag said:M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
Are you claiming that Rome gave us the OT?
I am simply asking M1 to define for us Pigs what he accepts as Scripture.
AgLiving06 said:Faithful Ag said:M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
Are you claiming that Rome gave us the OT?
To be fair they give you the FULL OT
jrico2727 said:AgLiving06 said:Faithful Ag said:M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
Are you claiming that Rome gave us the OT?
To be fair they give you the FULL OT
I didn't realize that Rome existed as a church back when Moses was writing or Jeremiah was writing. So Peter was Pope before the birth of Jesus? Interesting.
It's a reference to the protestant re-edition. We didn't write it but we didn't take anything outAgLiving06 said:jrico2727 said:AgLiving06 said:Faithful Ag said:M1Buckeye said:
. Can you provide scriptural support for this claim?
Tell me where I am allowed to look for scriptural support?? WHAT IS SCRIPTURE??
OT= ??
NT = ??
OT+NT= ??
Are you claiming that Rome gave us the OT?
To be fair they give you the FULL OT
I didn't realize that Rome existed as a church back when Moses was writing or Jeremiah was writing. So Peter was Pope before the birth of Jesus? Interesting.
I go the joke.
I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?
I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?
what gets me is they say that Peter is the "rock" of the church but it's in 1Peter 2:4-8 where Peter says that it Jesus spoken of in the old testament as the rock.
The Chosen Stone and His Chosen People
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
"Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who [a]are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed
The Chosen Stone and His Chosen People
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
"Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who [a]are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed
Like I said in the other thread, it's a whole mess to make the claim that they did...but it's a self serving claim, and so reason doesn't matter to them. In fact, because of their faith in unwritten tradition, they are bound to believe it and to question it might unravel the whole thing.
This doesn't disprove Matt 16AG @ HEART said:
what gets me is they say that Peter is the "rock" of the church but it's in 1Peter 2:4-8 where Peter says that it Jesus spoken of in the old testament as the rock.
The Chosen Stone and His Chosen People
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
"Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who [a]are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed
Christ is the cornerstone rejected we accept that
Christ also took a man named Simon, Named him Peter, which means rock, in Aramaic Cephas, in the original language it would have been said You are Cephas (rock) and on this Cephas (rock)....
It is ok for Christ to be the "rock" on which our Faith is formed and form him to have Peter serve as the rock he founded on his Church upon.
The scripture above refers to Christ as the living stone and his follower as living stones, how would this be inconsistent with Peter being "Rock", and Christ listed him as the rock he was going to build his church upon, which sounds a whole lot like this spiritual house in this scripture too.
AgLiving06 said:
Like I said in the other thread, it's a whole mess to make the claim that they did...but it's a self serving claim, and so reason doesn't matter to them. In fact, because of their faith in unwritten tradition, they are bound to believe it and to question it might unravel the whole thing.
Jrico, several times you have made statements showing your lack of familiarity with the proper translation of the Greek language. According to non RCC scholars, Jesus said Peter was the stone (Petros) and on the rock (Petra), which was the statement that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" was where he would build his Church. Meaning this fact was the foundation of the new church. Also, a grammatically accurate translation of Matthew 16:19 is "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever you bind on earth SHALL HAVE ALREADY BEEN BOUND IN HEAVEN, and whatsoever yo loose on earth SHALL HAVE BEEN LOOSED IN HEAVEN."
Petro and Petra both mean rock, not sure what Catholic Scholars you're using, I am sure there are more than a few that would disagree. And we don't disagree that Christ is the foundation but he gave Peter a special place and office at that time. All these other little semantical ways to chip away are meant to justify disobedience versus finding a truth. It is to give cause for disunity vs unity. As we know where Peter is there is the Church.bpchas2 said:
Jrico, several times you have made statements showing your lack of familiarity with the proper translation of the Greek language. According to non RCC scholars, Jesus said Peter was the stone (Petros) and on the rock (Petra), which was the statement that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" was where he would build his Church. Meaning this fact was the foundation of the new church. Also, a grammatically accurate translation of Matthew 16:19 is "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;and whatsoever you bind on earth SHALL HAVE ALREADY BEEN BOUND IN HEAVEN, and whatsoever yo loose on earth SHALL HAVE BEEN LOOSED IN HEAVEN."
I don't speak Greek, never claimed to, never even mention Greek so, got me
Greek wasn't the language used when the statement was said
not sure what translation you're using but ok
I used the King James Version for a generic Protestant version, so don't care if it has poor grammar
I said NON RCC scholars. Meaning those who are not influenced to translate within the confines of a religion.
Bereaved Literal Bible
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
NASB 1995
Legacy Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
Christian Standard Bible
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Etc
Used proper translations of the Greek,
You may argue that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but Matthew wrote about it in Greek. A proof of which is when he quotes Jesus on the cross speaking in Aramaic. He then translates what Jesus said. If he had written in Aramaic, that wouldn't have been necessary.
Peter was a great apostle, but nowhere in the Bible or recorded history is he credited with starting the church in Rome.
Bereaved Literal Bible
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
NASB 1995
Legacy Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
Christian Standard Bible
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Etc
Used proper translations of the Greek,
You may argue that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but Matthew wrote about it in Greek. A proof of which is when he quotes Jesus on the cross speaking in Aramaic. He then translates what Jesus said. If he had written in Aramaic, that wouldn't have been necessary.
Peter was a great apostle, but nowhere in the Bible or recorded history is he credited with starting the church in Rome.
I like a good pot stirring.
Did pilate speak Aramaic? Or did he and Jesus converse in Greek? Also wasn't the Septuagint widely used at that time (itself being in Greek)?
I'll show myself out.
Did pilate speak Aramaic? Or did he and Jesus converse in Greek? Also wasn't the Septuagint widely used at that time (itself being in Greek)?
I'll show myself out.
AgLiving06 said:
I go the joke.
I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?
My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.
M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.
When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?
The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.
Simple answer: Paul "got in Peter's face" because of Peter's hypocrisy at Antioch, Syria. Barnabas also was hypocritical. Shunning the Gentiles at meals was their sin. Antioch, about 300 miles north of Jerusalem, had become a major seat of Christianity following the great persecution at Jerusalem. Paul's three major journeys originated at Antioch. By the way, Peter had a mother-in-law.
Featured Stories
See All
12:54
2h ago
2.5k
Offering a behind-the-scenes a look at February signees of the past
by Ryan Brauninger
14:10
1h ago
852
Where A&M's NCAA Tournament resume sits entering the bye week
by Luke Evangelist
8:49
4h ago
560
Ag06Law
IRS Issuing Out Letters Denying NIL Collectives Tax-Exempt Status
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
120
Captain Hindsight 20/20
IRS Issuing Out Letters Denying NIL Collectives Tax-Exempt Status
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
54
BOBHICA
Baseball America polled 50 coaches on the 2025 national champion
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
43
ChiAggie2012
CFB analyst Josh Pate joins TexAgs Live as a Tuesday-morning regular
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
40