- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,05:07) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,04:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,04:06) Hi CA Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 02 2009,04:13) Ignatius of Antioch “Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
And what does that prove? He mentions Peter and Paul as Apostles. Where is the evidence that Peter is the first Bishop of the Catholic Church and that he was concidered the “Rock' by the Apostles that the Church was built on?It's not in the scriptures! What we do have is this…
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Eph 2:19-22
Do you see that the “Church of Jesus Christ” is his body which is made up of “Living Stones” which are built upon the foundation of the “Apostles (plural) and Prophets (plural), Jesus being the chief cornerstone, and that we as living stones are his “Temple”, the dwelling place of God by his Spirit?
WJ
Again, as I've shown, Peter is first among apostles. Not the first apostle.Maybe you don't think Matt. 16 is early enough?
CA,
You have not proven that Peter is the first among apostles. Paul claimed that he was EQUAL to the chiefest of apostles,Quote For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5)
and,Quote I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. (2 corinthians 12:11) In the least Paul claimed to be EQUAL to the chiefest of apostles. I personally believe that he used an understatement and he meant that he was the chief apostle.
thinker
These words are a demonstration of the humility of St. Paul when forced to speak his own praises. He is not claiming to be the Vicar of Christ here.Debate me on Sola Scriptura, Private Interpretation, and Oral Tradition.
You are in very real danger of wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction. I fear you are “unlearned” and “unstable” in your handling of the Scriptures.
Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 03 2009,05:04) David, W.J. and thinker! The Roman Universal Church did not come on the scene until the third century. Till then the Christians were persecuted tortured and killed by the millions. It was Constantine a Roman emperor that issued an edit in A.D. 313 and gave the Christian free will to practise their religion. And in 324 He established the Roman Universal Church as His official Church of His empire. All facts of Ancient History. It is a long time ago when my Husband wrote His Book and I don't remember were He got this information, but I am sure it is in some of our Books that we have. From that time those Saints IMO will reign with Christ in the Millenium. Rev. talks about those Saints under the Altar waiting…. etc. So the Apostles also were killed by the Romans. Nowhere in the Bible will you find that they were a first Pope of the Catholic Church.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
Why are you bringing the supposed “millennium” into this discussion?thinker
CA said:
Quote These words are a demonstration of the humility of St. Paul when forced to speak his own praises. He is not claiming to be the Vicar of Christ here. I simply pointed out that Paul claimed that he was not inferior to the very chiefest apostles. And the original disciples were all the “vicar” of Christ (Matthew 18:18). Jesus used the plural “you.”
CA said:
Quote You are in very real danger of wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction. I fear you are “unlearned” and “unstable” in your handling of the Scriptures. Come on!
thinker
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,05:02) Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,01:56) Quote “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.” No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.
Augustine wasn't so sure. “For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built.” –Tractate CXXIV, 24
And your inability to consider other scriptures that clearly speak of Jesus being the foundation stone make me wonder.
Of course Peter was built on the foundation of Christ. Duh.How long must I bear with you?
So you agree Jesus was the “rock,” the foundation cornerstone scripture so often speaks of?Acts 8:14 (English Standard Version)
“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John.”“the apostles….”SENT to them Peter…”
It seems as if the apostles acted as a group, and “sent” Peter to Samaria. What?
Doesn't that seem like the cardinals or bishops sending the Pope somewhere?
Something has gone wrong here.
ACTS 6:1-6
“Now in these days, when the disciples were increasing, a murmuring arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution. So the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said: “It is not pleasing for us to leave the word of God to distribute [food] to tables. So, brothers, search out for yourselves seven certified men from among YOU, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business; but we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And the thing spoken was pleasing to the whole multitude, and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, and Philip and Proch′o·rus and Ni·ca′nor and Ti′mon and Par′me·nas and Nic·o·la′us, a proselyte of Antioch; and they placed them before the apostles, and, after having prayed, these laid their hands upon them.”It was the 12 apostles, collectively, who decided how to provide for the material necessities of needy ones.
“Here I am laying as a foundation in Zion a stone, a tried stone, the precious corner of a sure foundation. No one exercising faith will get panicky.” (Isaiah 28:16)
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.” (Psalm 118:22)
“As a stone to strike against and as a rock over which to stumble to both the houses of Israel.” (Isaiah 8:14)
It was prophecies that there would be a figurative stone, which would both be the foundation that we should excercise faith in, and that would stumble many. This stone is unquestionably Jesus, not Peter.
Do these scriptures not matter?
1 Pet. 2:4-8, Jerusalem Bible (Catholic):
“Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a STONE to stumble over, a ROCK to bring men down.”WHO DID PETER THINK THE “ROCK” OR “STONE” (THE CORNERSTONE) WAS?
That's right, Peter thought it was Jesus.
Acts 4:8-11, Jeruslam Bible (Catholic):
“Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” NAB].’”?
Eph. 2:20, Jerusalem Bible:
“You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”Even if we say that “the apostles” (Not one apostle, Peter, but “the apostles”) and prophets are the foundation, it is Jesus who is the “main cornerstone.”
Time and again, in scripture JESUS and not Peter is referred to as a stone or a rock that was prophesied to come.So even if Matthew 16:18 is confusing to some, we have many other clear scriptures that cannot be dismissed. Well, they are being dismissed. Let me rephrase…that “shouldn't” be dismissed.
david
All the scriptures I've just listed are exceedingly clear. The apostles, (even Peter) acknowledged that Jesus was the “rock” the “stone” that would be the cornerstone, and that people would stumble over.
Matthew 16:18 is not exceedingly clear.
Augustine himself points out that it is not clear in his retractions.
S. Augustine Retract. i. 21.
“In a certain place of the book which I wrote while a presbyter Contra Epistolam Donati, I said concerning the Apostle Peter, that on him as the rock the Church is founded; which sense is also sung by the mouth of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, where speaking of the c o c k, he saith, Hoc, ipsa petra ecclesa Canetre, culpam diluit. But I know that I have since very often expounded that saying of the Lord, Tu es Petras, et super hanc petram edificabo Ecclesium meam, to mean, Upon Him Who Peter confessed, saying Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God: and so that Peter, named from this Rock, should figuratively represent the Church which is built upon this rock, and which hath received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. For it is not said to him, Tu es Petra, but Tu es Petrus. Now Petra erat Christus, the Rock was Christ; whom having confessed, as the whole Church confesseth Him, he was called Peter. Which of these two senses is more probably, let the reader choose.”As Augustine notes, it was not said to him, “you are rock” but it was said to him “you are Peter.” Augustine then says “Now Rock is Christ.”
So, it is NOT CLEAR.
The other scriptures that we are ignoring are VERY CLEAR.
Why focus only on only a scripture that can be understood more than one way, and ignore the many clear scriptures.
david
David Really it does not even matter, because by the time the first Church came into being, all the Apostles were persecuted and died, by the hands of the Romans. Except John who wrote the Book of Revelation on the Island I can't remember that Island though. The three centuries following were the most brutal and bloody century in History. It was and I repeat, Constantine a Roman emperor granting all Christians full freedom to practise their religion.
And in 324 He established the Roman Universal Church to be the official Church of His empire.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,06:47) Acts 8:14 (English Standard Version)
“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John.”“the apostles….”SENT to them Peter…”
It seems as if the apostles acted as a group, and “sent” Peter to Samaria. What?
Doesn't that seem like the cardinals or bishops sending the Pope somewhere?
Something has gone wrong here.
David,
This is a very good argument you present.thinker
Hi ,
The relative importance of the apostles is seen in the new Jerusalem in rev21.
None is greater than any other.This pope worship is just another form of idolatry as with the worship of the bread and wine.
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,07:42) Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,06:47) Acts 8:14 (English Standard Version)
“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John.”“the apostles….”SENT to them Peter…”
It seems as if the apostles acted as a group, and “sent” Peter to Samaria. What?
Doesn't that seem like the cardinals or bishops sending the Pope somewhere?
Something has gone wrong here.
David,
This is a very good argument you present.thinker
And it deserves a response.David,
I counted nine (9) posts in a row there without anyone's response in between.
Either you are making NO SENSE…or you are trying to keep this thread at the top of the forum. Hmmm…
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,07:42) Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,06:47) Acts 8:14 (English Standard Version)
“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John.”“the apostles….”SENT to them Peter…”
It seems as if the apostles acted as a group, and “sent” Peter to Samaria. What?
Doesn't that seem like the cardinals or bishops sending the Pope somewhere?
Something has gone wrong here.
David,
This is a very good argument you present.thinker
You guys only think this is a good argument because you don't know how the pope and council of bishops work.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,16:10) David, I counted nine (9) posts in a row there without anyone's response in between.
Either you are making NO SENSE…or you are trying to keep this thread at the top of the forum. Hmmm…
No, since you didn't respond to any of my questions in one large post, I was hoping breaking the questions down would bring a response. People tend to read posts that are smaller.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
