- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,16:12) 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.
No, we think it a good argument because we can read what the scripture says.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,16:12) 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.
Do the bishops ever “send” the pope anywhere?Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,16:16) If you can respond to the nine posts in a row, you will get a gold star.
Will you buy me a fancy mansion in Southern California to live in while I wait for Armageddon?I didn't think so.
What do you think it means that you can't answer any of those questions.
It is you who keeps saying we should discuss authority.
Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,07:19) 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
I ask it again. Why focus on only one scripture that can be taken more than one way, when there are very clear statements made elsewhere that all agree on Jesus being the “rock” the “stone” (foundation cornerstone that the congregation is built upon.)?Why can you not touch these other scriptures?
Quote (david @ Sep. 04 2009,02:20) Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,07:19) 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
I ask it again. Why focus on only one scripture that can be taken more than one way, when there are very clear statements made elsewhere that all agree on Jesus being the “rock” the “stone” (foundation cornerstone that the congregation is built upon.)?Why can you not touch these other scriptures?
Ahh…so you're saying that Peter is “another Christ.” Great we agree.Hi CA,
Christ was in Paul and the apostles.
They were joined to him but what of the carnal men you offer as substitutes for him?Quote Ahh…so you're saying that Peter is “another Christ.” Great we agree. I didn't say that. I said you cannot touch or even acknowledge the existence of these scriptures.
I said you only focus on the one scripture, which even Augustine said can be understood more than one way, and you ignore all others, to your own detriment.By saying Peter is “another Christ” are you suggesting he fulfills those scriptures that spoke of a foundation stone, a rock that people would put their faith in?
And what of those 9 posts you ignore?
Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,17:13) While I've touched on this before, I want to actually discuss it, so I am greatly narrowing the subject matter, to Matthew 16:18. The question is a simple one, but I would like to look at the actual scripture itself at the middle of this question (Matthew 16:18).
The Question:
Was Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?
Matt. 16:13,18, 20 New Jerusalem Bible:
“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi he put this question to his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of man is?'. . . . So I now say to you: You are Peter [Greek, Pétros] and on this rock [Greek, pétrai] I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. . . . . Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone that he was the Christ.”(Notice in the context [vss. 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the close similarity between the two terms shows that Peter is the foundation stone of the true church.)
1–But since the Bible has much to say about the symbolic stone, should we not examine other verses in order to gain a correct understanding?
Important prophecies had already announced the coming of a symbolic foundation stone and the double role it would play. It was to be an instrument of salvation for those who exercised faith: “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) Paradoxically, it was to be a rock over which the unbelieving Israelites would have stumbled: “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)
2–In whom should we exercise faith in order to obtain salvation, in Peter or in someone greater?
3–Over whom did the Israelites stumble, over Peter or over Jesus?4–Whom did the apostles Peter understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “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.”5–Whom did the apostles Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “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, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”
The Scriptures clearly indicate that the prophecies concerning the precious stone were fulfilled, not in Peter, but in Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who applied the prophecies of Isaiah and Psalm 118 to himself, as Matthew 21:42-45 shows.
6–Did Jesus have it wrong in thinking he himself was this stone?
(Again, this thread is about Matthew 16.)
This post was NOT just about Matt. 16. You chained up a whole bunch of scriptures and set up a straw man. What did you expect me to say to you?But since you want this to be about Isa. 28, Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:4-8, here you go:
The fact that Jesus is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that in Matt. 16:18 Peter is the foundation on which Christ is building. Christ is naturally the principal “rock” and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary “rock” and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
There, you have been refuted. Good day to you.
Hi CA,
So where is this PRINCIPAL ROCK shown in Rev21?
Alongside all the other living stones he spoke of in his first letter.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,07:10) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,17:13) While I've touched on this before, I want to actually discuss it, so I am greatly narrowing the subject matter, to Matthew 16:18. The question is a simple one, but I would like to look at the actual scripture itself at the middle of this question (Matthew 16:18).
The Question:
Was Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?
Matt. 16:13,18, 20 New Jerusalem Bible:
“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi he put this question to his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of man is?'. . . . So I now say to you: You are Peter [Greek, Pétros] and on this rock [Greek, pétrai] I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. . . . . Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone that he was the Christ.”(Notice in the context [vss. 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the close similarity between the two terms shows that Peter is the foundation stone of the true church.)
1–But since the Bible has much to say about the symbolic stone, should we not examine other verses in order to gain a correct understanding?
Important prophecies had already announced the coming of a symbolic foundation stone and the double role it would play. It was to be an instrument of salvation for those who exercised faith: “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) Paradoxically, it was to be a rock over which the unbelieving Israelites would have stumbled: “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)
2–In whom should we exercise faith in order to obtain salvation, in Peter or in someone greater?
3–Over whom did the Israelites stumble, over Peter or over Jesus?4–Whom did the apostles Peter understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “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.”5–Whom did the apostles Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “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, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”
The Scriptures clearly indicate that the prophecies concerning the precious stone were fulfilled, not in Peter, but in Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who applied the prophecies of Isaiah and Psalm 118 to himself, as Matthew 21:42-45 shows.
6–Did Jesus have it wrong in thinking he himself was this stone?
(Again, this thread is about Matthew 16.)
This post was NOT just about Matt. 16. You chained up a whole bunch of scriptures and set up a straw man. What did you expect me to say to you?But since you want this to be about Isa. 28, Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:4-8, here you go:
The fact that Jesus is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that in Matt. 16:18 Peter is the foundation on which Christ is building. Christ is naturally the principal “rock” and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary “rock” and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
There, you have been refuted. Good day to you.
What? No I didn't set up a straw man.If I did, please explain how I misrepresented your argument. (That is what a straw man is.)
Quote What did you expect me to say to you? –ca
If the questions were wrong or part of a straw man, I wanted you to explain why the questions were wrong. That's what I would have done. Listen, we apparently don't know exactly what you think about this, because you have recently mentioned something about Peter being another Messiah. So, if we state that you believe something that you don't, yes, please do call us on it. But, the questions below are based on what I believe you believe. (I even asked them a couple times and now numbered them because I actually wanted answers.)
1–But since the Bible has much to say about the symbolic stone, should we not examine other verses in order to gain a correct understanding?
2–In whom should we exercise faith in order to obtain salvation, in Peter or in someone greater?
3–Over whom did the Israelites stumble, over Peter or over Jesus?
4–Whom did the apostles Peter understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
5–Whom did the apostles Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
6–Did Jesus have it wrong in thinking he himself was this stone?They are mostly simple yes or no type one word answers.
Quote But since you want this to be about Isa. 28, Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:4-8, here you go:
Question # 7:
If there are 8 scriptures that mention Jesus being a stone, and a 9th scripture that has either Jesus OR Peter being a stone, don't you think it prudent and logical and reasonable and scriptural to take those other 8 into account?Quote Christ is naturally the principal “rock” and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish
We agree.Quote but Peter is named by him as the secondary “rock” and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation.
That's the question isn't it? IS PETER THAT ROCK? By the end of his life, Augustine wasn't so sure. I wonder if he looked at those many other scriptures that foretold of a rock that people would put faith in?
And since that IS the question, THOSE MANY OTHER SCRIPTURES which speak of the very same subject….DO MATTER, IMMENSELY.Quote One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. –CA
I'm going to make your words bold, so we can sit back and stare at them for a while.
“One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages.”— YOUR WORDS, CA
So what YOU are saying…..I love this…so what YOU are saying is, we (you and I) shouldn't take a single passage, and use it to twist the plain meaning of the other passages.
Again, we have many many clear passages speaking of a rock or stone that would arrive. It is the Christ, Jesus.
We have ONE SINGLE passage that isn't perfectly clear.You are suggesting we shouldn't take the one passage (which can be understood more than one way) and twist the meaning of the other very clear passages to fit our understanding of the one passage.
That is a great idea.
We should start with the very clear passages which you and I both understand to be the Christ, and then, when looking at the passage which doesn't specifically say one way or another, we should use what we clearly know from the clear passages to help us understand the unclear one.
Quote Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, –CA
Again, I am astounded. Do you hear what you are saying? Yes, exactly. We must respect and harmonize the different passages.
That's why I am so frustrated when someone else ignores them completely as though they didn't exist and only focuses on their one scripture which can be understood more than one way. As you say, we must respect the other passages, and especially is this the case when they are so very clear.Quote for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses. There, you have been refuted. Good day to you.
Ummmm. You didn't refute it.
Here's what you did:
1. You agreed with me, that we should consider those passages.
2. In the very last sentence, you said the church can have different foundations.So we agree those passages are important, and point to Christ.
But, you say, the church can have different foundations. Essentially, Christ was the foretold stone that would be the foundation of the church. But Peter is also a secondary foundation of the church.Is that correct? I didn't know there could be two foundations. I guess I now at least understand what you believe. What you believe is quite convenient.
I guess the question then becomes:
Was the church really built on Peter or Christ or both? (Matthew 16:18)
To all……Jesus is (NOT) the ROCK, that is GOD the FATHER, Jesus is the Chief building STONE or the CORONER STONE. The ROCK is The bed on which the building Stones are laid on, Jesus builds the building on the ROCK (GOD). He himself the (CHIEF) building STONE.
peace and love…………………gene
I don't know what the Catholic church called itself before 324 A D, but it was Constantine who gave it the name when he made this new religion, “Christianity”, the empires religion; it was then when it became the “Roman Catholic (Universal) Church”
There weren't any official popes until 533 A D, when Justinian decided that only the bishop of Rome should be called Pope (papa, father) as there were many bishops called pope in Italy.
Also, it was Justinian that decided that the pope of Rome should be the head of all the clergy.
To claim that Peter was the first pope is just plain dumb, and only dumber people would believe that.Georg
Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 06 2009,10:18) I don't know what the Catholic church called itself before 324 A D, but it was Constantine who gave it the name when he made this new religion, “Christianity”, the empires religion; it was then when it became the “Roman Catholic (Universal) Church”
There weren't any official popes until 533 A D, when Justinian decided that only the bishop of Rome should be called Pope (papa, father) as there were many bishops called pope in Italy.
Also, it was Justinian that decided that the pope of Rome should be the head of all the clergy.
To claim that Peter was the first pope is just plain dumb, and only dumber people would believe that.Georg
George,Your clear ignorance of Scripture and the OBVIOUS fact the you ONLY read ANTI-CATHOLIC REVISIONIST history by a kook fringe group of “teachers” is duly noted.
The term “Roman Catholic Church” was applied by the so-called “Reformers” over a millennia after you fancy it happened.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
The term has only been adopted in the last fifty years or so UNOFFICIALLY by some in the Latin West.
And your assertion that there were no popes until 533 is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I could list them, but I'm having a hard time taking you seriously at the moment.
Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,17:17) Quote What did you expect me to say to you? –ca
If the questions were wrong or part of a straw man, I wanted you to explain why the questions were wrong. That's what I would have done. Listen, we apparently don't know exactly what you think about this, because you have recently mentioned something about Peter being another Messiah. So, if we state that you believe something that you don't, yes, please do call us on it. But, the questions below are based on what I believe you believe. (I even asked them a couple times and now numbered them because I actually wanted answers.)
1–But since the Bible has much to say about the symbolic stone, should we not examine other verses in order to gain a correct understanding?
2–In whom should we exercise faith in order to obtain salvation, in Peter or in someone greater?
3–Over whom did the Israelites stumble, over Peter or over Jesus?
4–Whom did the apostles Peter understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
5–Whom did the apostles Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
6–Did Jesus have it wrong in thinking he himself was this stone?They are mostly simple yes or no type one word answers.
Quote But since you want this to be about Isa. 28, Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:4-8, here you go:
Question # 7:
If there are 8 scriptures that mention Jesus being a stone, and a 9th scripture that has either Jesus OR Peter being a stone, don't you think it prudent and logical and reasonable and scriptural to take those other 8 into account?Quote Christ is naturally the principal “rock” and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish
We agree.Quote but Peter is named by him as the secondary “rock” and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation.
That's the question isn't it? IS PETER THAT ROCK? By the end of his life, Augustine wasn't so sure. I wonder if he looked at those many other scriptures that foretold of a rock that people would put faith in?
And since that IS the question, THOSE MANY OTHER SCRIPTURES which speak of the very same subject….DO MATTER, IMMENSELY.Quote One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. –CA
I'm going to make your words bold, so we can sit back and stare at them for a while.
“One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages.”— YOUR WORDS, CA
So what YOU are saying…..I love this…so what YOU are saying is, we (you and I) shouldn't take a single passage, and use it to twist the plain meaning of the other passages.
Again, we have many many clear passages speaking of a rock or stone that would arrive. It is the Christ, Jesus.
We have ONE SINGLE passage that isn't perfectly clear.You are suggesting we shouldn't take the one passage (which can be understood more than one way) and twist the meaning of the other very clear passages to fit our understanding of the one passage.
That is a great idea.
We should start with the very clear passages which you and I both understand to be the Christ, and then, when looking at the passage which doesn't specifically say one way or another, we should use what we clearly know from the clear passages to help us understand the unclear one.
Quote Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, –CA
Again, I am astounded. Do you hear what you are saying? Yes, exactly. We must respect and harmonize the different passages.
That's why I am so frustrated when someone else ignores them completely as though they didn't exist and only focuses on their one scripture which can be understood more than one way. As you say, we must respect the other passages, and especially is this the case when they are so very clear.Quote for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses. There, you have been refuted. Good day to you.
Ummmm. You didn't refute it.
Here's what you did:
1. You agreed with me, that we should consider those passages.
2. In the very last sentence, you said the church can have different foundations.So we agree those passages are important, and point to Christ.
But, you say, the church can have different foundations. Essentially, Christ was the foretold stone that would be the foundation of the church. But Peter is also a secondary foundation of the church.Is that correct? I didn't know there could be two foundations. I guess I now at least understand what you believe. What you believe is quite convenient.
I guess the question then becomes:
Was the church really built on Peter or Christ or both? (Matthew 16:18)
Sorry, not a great deal of time today as it is a holiday and have to be with the fam.Quickly though,
1. Both Jesus and Peter can be said to be the “Rock”, though the latter operates in office established by the former to perform certain duties on behalf of the former.
2. It is only in the light of statement 1 that we see that there are foundations (plural). Of course Peter was built on top of Christ, but performed foundational duties in his office and can duly be called foundation or rock. The other apostles who were not called “rock” and were not give the specific office of Peter are said to be “foundation” as well. So there is no real problem.
3. I'm glad you highlighted my words. Anyone thinking with half a lobe can see that you obviously didn't get what I was saying to begin with. But here you go: It is CLEAR that Jesus is the Rock. It is CLEAR that Peter received an office to operate in the capacity of ROCK for Jesus Christ. He later singled him out (like on many other occasions) and drove in the point “feed my sheep.”
Many a hammer from heretics like yourself have been worn out on the anvil of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
God love your soul.
Hi CA,
To take personal responsibility for seeking truth where it is to be found is to be a heretic?
Wake up- you are following fools.Quote It is CLEAR that Peter received an office to operate in the capacity of ROCK for Jesus Christ.
Augustine says it's not that clear.One says it's “clear” because you need it to be clear, or….well, you need it to be clear. But it is obviously not. If you look at the actual words, as Augustine points out, it is not directly said. So it is not clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
