What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader Part (4) [Archive]

View Full Version : What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader Part (4)

arcura

Mar 8, 2009, 07:19 PM

What I am looking for is Biblical and Historical EVIDENCE that Peter was the earthly human leader of the apostles who became bishops of The Church.
Acknowledged that Jesus was and remains the supreme divine leader.
If you have no evidence as asked please refrain from posting to this thread.
If you are curious as to what is being posted please feel free to view the evidence posted here.
Thank you.
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

arcura

Mar 8, 2009, 07:30 PM

For all...
I'll start if off by posting some of what has been previously posted as a reference.
This was posted by JoeT
Peter and the Papacy (http://catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp)

Many have understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter since Christ's era. This can be illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful who are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine's decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor's gives judgment.”

Consequently, I'd like to extend this question to include

Part 2: Can we find other similar authoritative evidence in antiquity of Peter's leadership outside of scripture?

<+><+><+>
Akoue wrote……
There's more Irenaeus: Adversus haereses 3.3.2-3.

Also the early ecumenical councils, especially Nicaea and Constantinople: Council of Nicaea (325), canon 39, recognizes the primacy of Rome on account of its being the see of Peter. The Council of Constantinople (381), canon 3, reaffirms the primacy of Rome.

It's worthy of note that Clement's Epistle, which you mention in the OP, was included in the canon of the NT at Corinth.

Akoue wrote…..
St. Ignatius bears compelling testimony to the monarchial episcopate. And he was a disciple not just of John, but of Peter and Paul (who ordained him a deacon). In his Epistle to the Ephesians (which was part of some early NT canons), he defines orthodoxy as fidelity and obedience to the bishop (7.1). He also writes: “Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and the deacons (Epistle to Magnesians 6.1)” .

<+><+><+>
From Rickj,
Early church leaders affirmed it too:

Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19].. . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"[i]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter.. . A great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.'.. . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him.. . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright.. . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church.. . ' Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed.. . That it ought to be announced that.. . The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.. . ' [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well.. . One among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I

"In seeking the things of God.. . You have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven'" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is 'I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ's enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: 'We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you.. . You joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: 'There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of losing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors'" (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ.. . Has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter's solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ.. . Established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion.. . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others.. . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

<+><+><+>
From Fr Chuck….
And the simple fact that from a earthly level, there had to be some organization to allow things to work.

Even today every group has some level of leaderships, yes we can call Christ the "head" of our church, but he is not there to type out the termination notice of employees or file their taxes and so on.
So every church has some leadership, paid or not paid. The early church would have been no difference. We see the listing, Apostles, pastor, deacon, teacher and so on.

Tj3

Mar 8, 2009, 07:44 PM

The only time in scripture that the term "head of the church" is used in scripture is this:

Eph 5:23-24
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church"; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

sndbay

Mar 9, 2009, 03:43 AM

Tj3,
Please, please, please stick to the topic of evidence that Peter was the leader of the apostles or refrain from posting here.
I'm tired of this thread being shut down because of controversy
Thanks,'Fred

Fred,

# 1 Once before I offered scripture as proof that NO man other then Christ walked this earth being what man should bow down, and follow. "Commandment"

God is our leader (Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ)

# 2 Christ said: (Mark 10:15 Luke 18:17) One must receive the Kingdom as a child, a child is one who follows their Father, doing the Father Will.. "Commandment"

One Father (Matthew 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.)

# 3 Scripture tells of one (supposed) man that comes forth to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The question is do you believe that the (supposed) man named Jesus is the begotten Son of God?

That supposed child was the Key of David, mother Israel had the crown of 12 stars who are all asked to follow... Knowing One Father in Heaven resides over them.
(Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.)

It is satan that makes war against Christ Jesus.. (Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.)

Through the power of The Holy Spirit, the disciples went forth as servants of God..Witnesses of the Truth
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

~child of God

arcura

Mar 9, 2009, 07:28 PM

sndbat,
I have NO argument with what toy posted.
But Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader of the apostles.
Peter himself said that he should not be bowed down to.
I bow down to Jesus in Church as do all Catholics for He IS there.
This thread is about Peter and biblical or historical evidence that He was the earthly human leader.
So far sin this thread was first started there as been severl very good posts on that showing that Peter was that leader and preformed his duties.
I am hoping that if there is more I would like to see and save it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Mar 9, 2009, 07:54 PM

But Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader of the apostles.

Fred, do you realize how divisive that it is to make that claim when the overwhelming number of denominations go by what scripture says where it states that the head of Christ is Christ alone?

JoeT777

Mar 9, 2009, 09:09 PM

# 1 Once before I offered scripture as proof that NO man other then Christ walked this earth being what man should bow down, and follow. "Commandment"

God is our leader (Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ)

Not to bow down is a commandment? Where does it say, “Thou shall not bow to any man?” Just curious, I can’t seem to find anything that would lead me to this conclusion. In fact, what Christ said seemed to imply one should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and Give God what belongs to him. And where in any comments made here is it a requirement to bow down to a man?

Your message is lost here.

# 2 Christ said: (Mark 10:15 Luke 18:17) One must receive the Kingdom as a child, a child is one who follows their Father, doing the Father Will.. "Commandment"

One Father (Matthew 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.)

The Kingdom is the Catholic Church, it is accepted by a billion people. We’ve discussed the ‘father’ thing before. You talking in random verses without exegesis, seems like random meaninglessness to me. I don’t get it. But what I do know from the Magisterium of the Church that calling priests father, calling the Pope father, and calling my Old Man father has nothing to do with this verse.

# 3 Scripture tells of one (supposed) man that comes forth to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The question is do you believe that the (supposed) man named Jesus is the begotten Son of God?

Who’s the “supposed one?”

That supposed child was the Key of David, mother Israel had the crown of 12 stars who are all asked to follow... Knowing One Father in Heaven resides over them.

How does a child become a Key of David? And what does the 12 starts have to do with Peter’s primacy?

(Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.)

? Peter’s primacy?

It is satan that makes war against Christ Jesus.. (Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.)

Through the power of The Holy Spirit, the disciples went forth as servants of God..Witnesses of the Truth
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
~child of God
? Peter’s primacy?

I can deal more readily with your objection if you would just come out and say them. I don’t do well with Protestant random bible verse means something game. Last I checked, the idea here is to communicate .

JoeT

sndbay

Mar 10, 2009, 04:16 AM

I can deal more readily with your objection if you would just come out and say them. I don't do well with Protestant random bible verse means something game. Last I checked, the idea here is to communicate .

JoeT

Joe,

I believe the authority behind scripture is God Himself, and the words of scripture are His Words to us (Hebrews 1:1) (John 1:14)

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth...

My heart of love for Christ would rather not leave The Word out of what is being established, for it is indeed God who established all. We are servants who follow, doing the Will of God, not by our own hands and mouth, but with His presence within those who follow and believe. Knowing fully that my sprit remains stedfast in faith and obedience in Him which is not of this world but of a world with Him (John 17:16)

AND: I do not consider myself anything other then Christain, and a child of God.

Peter was a follower of Christ Jesus, a servant of God. Not by his own hands, but by the revealed truth of God's Will that is written.

Jesus warned the Pharisees that tradition of man can make void The Word of God (Mark 7:13)

sndbay

Mar 10, 2009, 05:26 AM

But Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader of the apostles.

Fred, Who did Peter follow? A follower is just that, one who follows.. Who did Peter bear witness of? A witness tells of what he saw.

Peter himself said that he should not be bowed down to.

I agree he did say this for a good reason.. To bare witness to what was truth. Because no other gods before us is a commandment. Bowing down to another is to take on the mark of the beast, = the mark of death.

This thread is about Peter and biblical or historical evidence that He was the earthly human leader.

So far what is posted shows Peter was given authority to feed the sheep with what God revealed of truth to him. No one has shown where Peter did the works of anything other then what God told him to do, or gave him vision to do. Establishing God's power and God's Will being done by Peter, as a follower.

So far sin this thread was first started there as been severl very good posts on that showing that Peter was that leader and preformed his duties.

Duties as a servant known as works, acts of righteousness in obedience to God

In the spirit of love we are to rebuke what is not of truth.

`child of God

adam7gur

Mar 10, 2009, 05:50 AM

I don't think that there is a verse saying that the Church will be build on Peter himself.
Jesus names Simon as Peter right after Simon testifies that Jesus is the Son of God,the Christ.This testimony,this revelation that comes from no man but from the Father only,is the rock(petra) that Jesus builds His Church on!
This is a testimony,a revelation ,a rock inside us, so that the church will be built inside us first.Remember,true worshippers will worship God in Spirit and in Truth and The Spirit which is The Spirit of Truth lives inside us.Consider The Spirit a spiritual build church inside us and us attending the Spirit inside us to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.That spiritual church cannot be build inside us unless the Father reveals to us that Jesus is the Son of God,the Christ!
Did the apostles have a human leader?Well, they were the ones telling us that the church,the believers in Christ are one body so I suppose that goes for them also,they(the apostles) are also members of the one true body of Christ and the leader was is and will always be the only head,the only leader,divine and human Jesus Christ Himself!

Tj3

Mar 10, 2009, 07:23 AM

I don't think that there is a verse saying that the Church will be build on Peter himself.
Jesus names Simon as Peter right after Simon testifies that Jesus is the Son of God,the Christ.This testimony,this revelation that comes from no man but from the Father only,is the rock(petra) that Jesus builds His Church on!
This is a testimony,a revelation ,a rock inside us, so that the church will be built inside us first.Remember,true worshippers will worship God in Spirit and in Truth and The Spirit which is The Spirit of Truth lives inside us.Consider The Spirit a spiritual build church inside us and us attending the Spirit inside us to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.That spiritual church cannot be build inside us unless the Father reveals to us that Jesus is the Son of God,the Christ!

Right. Paul's words are in agreement:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Did the apostles have a human leader?Well, they were the ones telling us that the church,the believers in Christ are one body so I suppose that goes for them also,they(the apostles) are also members of the one true body of Christ and the leader was is and will always be the only head,the only leader,divine and human Jesus Christ Himself!

Well said.

adam7gur

Mar 10, 2009, 10:04 AM

Thank you for the scripture seal Tom!

JoeT777

Mar 10, 2009, 03:47 PM

I don't think that there is a verse saying that the Church will be build on Peter himself.

I need to point out that the proposition presented here assumes that Peter was selected first among equals. Further the proposition assumes that Peter was the leader of the 12 Apostles. In so doing it was hoped that we would find various different sources that show the early Church held this view.

If, however, you would like to argue whether this is true, you can arrange it by posting an appropriate question I'm sure you'll get some discussion.

Jesus names Simon as Peter right after Simon testifies that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ. This testimony, this revelation that comes from no man but from the Father only, is the rock (petra) that Jesus builds His Church on!

This is a testimony, a revelation, a rock inside us, so that the church will be built inside us first. Remember, true worshippers will worship God in Spirit and in Truth and The Spirit which is The Spirit of Truth lives inside us. Consider The Spirit a spiritual build church inside us and us attending the Spirit inside us to worship God in Spirit and in Truth That spiritual church cannot be build inside us unless the Father reveals to us that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ!

Did the apostles have a human leader? Well, they were the ones telling us that the church, the believers in Christ are one body so I suppose that goes for them also, they(the apostles) are also members of the one true body of Christ and the leader was is and will always be the only head, the only leader, divine and human Jesus Christ Himself!

Obviously Catholic Tradition holds quite a different opinion. Not on who is the Founder of the Church, Christ; but rather the idea that an organization wasn't intended by Christ in his ministry.

It seems to me that breaking down Matthew 16:16-19 into their essential elements we have the following bits of fact:

1. Christ is the authority, the founder of the Church. It is His name that the Roman Church bears.
2. Christ knew Peter's revelation that Jesus was God, recognizing the supernatural source of his faith
3. Christ named Simon Bar-Jona to “Rock” The title of Peter's office.
4. Peter was handed the authority and designated as the “foundation” on which Christ builds his Church.
5. The gates of hell won't prevail against the Church
6. The keys to bind and loosen where given to Peter.

In this we see the classic transfer of power from a more authoritative source to a lesser authority. Christ has the authority to give Peter a subservient role. In so doing, Peter is given a title, “the Rock” on which He can ultimately rely on. The only thing left is the wherewithal to accomplish the goal, the building a Church. This is done with the keys. In the keys are the powers with which Peter needs to accomplish his assigned goals; the power to bind and loosen – in heaven or on earth. Any authority must designate who has power, the extent of that power, and must provide the wherewithal to accomplish the goals. We see all of this in Matthew 16.

Thus, Peter was given a title of for his office, a mission to accomplish, and the wherewithal to achieve his goal. Only the most convoluted logic can come to any other conclusion from this passage. Peter the first Pope.

All of which is to say, any number of those Catholics responding here would be happy to give the Catholic answer to “was Peter the first Pope.”

JoeT

Tj3

Mar 10, 2009, 06:17 PM

I need to point out that the proposition presented here assumes that Peter was selected first among equals. Further the proposition assumes that Peter was the leader of the 12 Apostles. In so doing it was hoped that we would find various different sources that show the early Church held this view.

That proposition though, is not found in scripture. That is the concern that others have raised.

sndbay

Mar 11, 2009, 06:50 AM

Scripture says that Christ fulfilled what was spoken of by the first prophets quote= ( That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,) Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

As we know and read in scripture Jesus, Himself was a servant to the Lord. (Matthew 20:27-28 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.)

( Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord.)

Yet we understand that Christ being named the anointed one, was exalted with the right hand of His Father! In His Father's strength!!

This is a question? A good example to us: Matthew 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord...

Pastors are servant to God, and that includes what Peter was to God.. That includes what the Pope is to God..

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them , and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Matthew 20:26-28 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Psa 48:10 According to thy name, O God, so [is] thy praise unto the ends of the earth: [U]thy right hand is full of righteousness.

Luke 22: 69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

There is no scripture that says Peter will be more then a servant...

Names of the bible..and what they represented..
Joseph = "Jehovah has added"
Thomas = "a twin"
Simon = "a rock or a stone"
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
Jabez = "sorrow"
John = "Jehovah is a gracious giver"
James = "supplanter"
Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"
Christ = "anointed"

There are more then one Simon in scripture, and more then one Jesus.. But there is only One Christ

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ

3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)

4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)

5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)

_____________________________________

1) Peter was one of the apostles

2) Simon called Zelotes or the Kanaites

3) Simon, father of Judas who betrayed Jesus.

4) Simon Magus, the Samaritan wizard

5) Simon the tanner, Ac. 10

6) Simon the Pharisee, Luke 7:40-44

7) Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Christ

8) Simon the cousin of Jesus, the son of Cleophas

9) Simon the leper, so called to distinguish him from others of the same name

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 11:07 AM

Scripture says that Christ fulfilled what was spoken of by the first prophets quote= ( That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,) Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

As we know and read in scripture Jesus, Himself was a servant to the Lord. (Matthew 20:27-28 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.)

( Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord.)

And where was it written that Catholic’s hold that Peter or the Pope was ’above his lord’. This certainly shows a misconception of what the Pope is and who the Bishops are.

But, maybe this will help. I know that Evangelicals and many Protestants believe that the only authority to interpret Scripture is one’s own self. I believe that the Holy Spirit has moved me, through scripture, to hold that the correct and authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures is those taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Yet we understand that Christ being named the anointed one, was exalted with the right hand of His Father! In His Father's strength!!

This is a question? A good example to us: Matthew 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord...

Pastors are servant to God, and that includes what Peter was to God.. That includes what the Pope is to God..

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them , and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Matthew 20:26-28 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Psa 48:10 According to thy name, O God, so [is] thy praise unto the ends of the earth: [U]thy right hand is full of righteousness.

Luke 22: 69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

There is no scripture that says Peter will be more then a servant...

Names of the bible..and what they represented..
Joseph = "Jehovah has added"
Thomas = "a twin"
Simon = "a rock or a stone"
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
Jabez = "sorrow"
John = "Jehovah is a gracious giver"
James = "supplanter"
Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"
Christ = "anointed"

There are more then one Simon in scripture, and more then one Jesus.. But there is only One Christ

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ

3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)

4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)

5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)

_____________________________________

1) Peter was one of the apostles

2) Simon called Zelotes or the Kanaites

3) Simon, father of Judas who betrayed Jesus.

4) Simon Magus, the Samaritan wizard

5) Simon the tanner, Ac. 10

6) Simon the Pharisee, Luke 7:40-44

7) Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Christ

8) Simon the cousin of Jesus, the son of Cleophas

9) Simon the leper, so called to distinguish him from others of the same name

Given my previous statement, how does this bear on the topic of ‘Peter being the head of the Church?’

I’m confused. That Peter was humble man, I’ve held for a long time. That “Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate,” I’ve always held. I don’t understand how this deals with the opening proposition?

JoeT

sndbay

Mar 11, 2009, 11:35 AM

And where was it written that Catholic's hold that Peter or the Pope was 'above his lord'. This certainly shows a misconception of what the Pope is and who the Bishops are.

But, maybe this will help. I know that Evangelicals and many Protestants believe that the only authority to interpret Scripture is one's own self. I believe that the Holy Spirit has moved me, through scripture, to hold that the correct and authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures is those taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Tell me who the Catholic Church holds as master?

Is the Pope considered a servant to God?

Is the Pope considered a servant to the people?

Does the Catholic Chruch follow Peter or Christ?

Given my previous statement, how does this bear on the topic of 'Peter being the head of the Church?'

JoeT

What would the Catholic Church consider as being betroth to Christ?

Can the Cathoic Church have 2 leaders?

Was Christ a leader in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

Does the Catholic Church consider Christ as the Rock?

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 11:47 AM

Tell me who the Catholic Church holds as master?

Is the Pope considered a servant to God? Yes, and a servent of the faithful

Is the Pope considered a servant to the people Yes, and a servernt of God.

Does the Catholic Chruch follow Peter or Christ? The Church follows Christ through the teachings of the Magisterium.

What would the Catholic Church consider as being betroth to Christ? The Church is the Bride of Christ!

Can the Cathoic Church have 2 leaders? It dosen't have two leaders (Are these supposed to be trick Qestions?)

Was Christ a leader in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Yes, leader, teacher, Messiah, 2nd Person of the Godhead.

Does the Catholic Church consider Christ as the Rock? Founder, foundation, even a rock if need be; yes!

sndbay

Mar 11, 2009, 01:03 PM

Does the Catholic Chruch follow Peter or Christ? The Church follows Christ through the teachings of the Magisterium.

Does the Catholic Church consider Christ as the Rock? Founder, foundation, even a rock if need be; yes!

Joe: I was not sure what the teaching of Magisterium was? What I found as: According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly . The Infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching under certain circumstances.

However, In theological language, which in many circumstances has become current, there is still greater precision and this in countless directions. At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles.

Anyhow I discern that traditions are what I consider by all denominations the error of teaching. (The traditions of scripture doctrine verse man's doctrine. )

2 Ti 1:13-14 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

`spirit of love

sndbay

Mar 11, 2009, 01:20 PM

In so doing, Peter is given a title, “the Rock” on which He can ultimately rely on.

JoeT

Glad you retracted this by saying Christ is te Rock.. One has to holdfast to the Rock of Salvation.

Does the Catholic Church consider Christ as the Rock? Founder, foundation, even a rock if need be; yes!

I think it need be...

Akoue

Mar 11, 2009, 01:48 PM

[U]sound words, which thou hast heard

This refers to oral teaching, teaching that was spoken, not written (it doesn't say "which you have read"). This is oral tradition.

sndbay

Mar 11, 2009, 02:07 PM

This refers to oral teaching, teaching that was spoken, not written (it doesn't say "which you have read"). This is oral tradition.

Oh No... sound doctrine is of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error... of one who keeps the graces and is strong... otherwise it is fables and untrue.

Example:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 02:18 PM

Joe: I was not sure what the teaching of Magisterium was? What I found as: According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly . The Infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching under certain circumstances.

FYI:CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)

You may be interested in what Catholics view as “Tradition and Living Magisterium".

JoeT

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 02:21 PM

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 02:24 PM

Glad you retracted this by saying Christ is te Rock.. One has to holdfast to the Rock of Salvation.

Uhmm. I didn't retract that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church. When did I do that? Or, was it that your questions were 'trick' questions?

JoeT

Akoue

Mar 11, 2009, 02:40 PM

Oh No... sound doctrine is of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error... of one who keeps the graces and is strong... otherwise it is fables and untrue.

Example:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

It doesn't follow from this that sound doctrine is only found in the written texts of Scripture. We know that Christ and the Apostles taught orally, and fortunately much of what they taught orally has been preserved, some of it in the texts of the NT and some of it in the form of orally transmitted doctrine.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that we are bound by the whole of revelation, not just that portion of it that was written down and incorporated in the fourth century into the New Testament. Scripture is an absolutely vital and indispensable part of revelation, but it isn't the whole of it and never was. Remember that the earliest Christians didn't have the NT yet: The texts of the NT began to be composed in the early 50's and weren't complete until very near the end of the first century. It was another couple of hundred years before those books were canonized at Nicaea. When you appeal to the NT, you are appealing to a canon of Scripture that was assembled by Catholic-Orthodox bishops at the Council of Nicaea. Prior to that, there was no universally accepted canon of Scripture. Recall that for quite a long time, the Gospel of John was regarded by many as non-canonical. It was only provided that it was included along with the Johannine epistles that it was made part of the canon at all.

Oral tradition guided the composition, selection, and ratification of the books of Scripture. It wasn't until modern times that the importance of oral tradition was challenged. Early Christians regarded it as having equal standing with written tradition (i.e. Scripture) and as an essential guide to properly understanding what was written.

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 04:10 PM

Anyhow I discern that traditions are what I consider by all denominations the error of teaching. (The traditions of scripture doctrine verse man's doctrine. )

There is an incontrovertible truth that Christ transmitted His words to the Apostles to be taught to His Church. Having received the Word of God from the very mouth of Christ the Apostles were endowed with the Spirit to faithfully teach the Divine instruction taught to them. In my way of thinking, to deny this is to deny Christ; I'll try to explain. Non-Catholics will rely solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author’s Divine inspiration. Protestants and Evangelicals (non-Catholic) will deny the Apostles Holy inspiration which is to question the veracity of Scriptures themselves. This conflict forms a self-centered subjective theological conundrum which invariably must, must always deny the absolute teaching Authority of the Catholic Church because the very Word of Christ is questioned.

This is why you subjectively consider the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church error. As yet, I’ve never heard a convincing argument why the Word of Christ, as taught by the Apostles, and kept faithfully by their successors should be ignored in favor of a predetermined subjective reading of a book – which in essence will always evolve into the “opinion” of the reader. This seems counterintuitive because to do so is transfer the adoration of Christ to a book. And too, such readings confine God’s revelations to only those found in the Bible. For example, we would not have any understanding of the Holy Trinity or the two natures of Christ. As I figure it, by demanding ‘freedom’ from the Church is to deny Christ and to becoming chained to sin.

JoeT

Tj3

Mar 11, 2009, 06:10 PM

Does the Catholic Chruch follow Peter or Christ? The Church follows Christ through the teachings of the Magisterium.

This is a key point - the members of the denomination must believe and follow what the denomination teaches regardless of what is taught in scripture. They are therefore following the leadership of the church while claiming the authority of Jesus.

What would the Catholic Church consider as being betroth to Christ? The Church is the Bride of Christ!

Second issue - nowhere does scripture says that a denomination is the bride of Christ, but rather those who are saved are members individually.

Does the Catholic Church consider Christ as the Rock? Founder, foundation, even a rock if need be; yes!

"... even a Rock if need be"??

Tj3

Mar 11, 2009, 06:11 PM

How do you have a “sound doctrine” without a “sound Authority?” And too, I didn’t think y’all even looked to doctrine?

Believers were given a sound authority - the Bible.

Tj3

Mar 11, 2009, 06:12 PM

Uhmm. I didn't retract that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church. When did I do that? or, was it that your questions were 'trick' questions?

If I understand it, you are saying that Peter is the Rock, and Jesus only " if need be". Is that correct?

Akoue

Mar 11, 2009, 09:50 PM

Non-Catholics will rely solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author’s Divine inspiration.

Hi Joe!

Could I ask you to explain this? It may very well be my fault and not yours (in fact, it probably is my fault), but I'm not sure I followed you here.

Thanks.

arcura

Mar 11, 2009, 09:51 PM

sndbay
Peter is the Rock Jesus spoke of, the one on which Jesus will build His Church.
Jesus is the supreme Rock.
Jesus pick Peter to be His main servant on earth.
That is what the pope is yet today, a servant just a Jesus drected.
Matthew 20: 26. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
27. And whoever would be first among you must be your slave;
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Mar 11, 2009, 10:21 PM

sndbay
Peter is the Rock Jesus spoke of, the one on which Jesus will build His Church.

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Jesus is the supreme Rock.

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Eph 5:23
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Akoue

Mar 11, 2009, 10:29 PM

arcura

Mar 11, 2009, 10:50 PM

Akoue,
Right you are.
Besides that this question is FOR biblical and historical evidence that Peter was the leader of the apostles.
Tj3, has posted several times but not once has he answered the request.
He has offered no such evidence.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 11:28 PM

Non-Catholics will rely solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author's Divine inspiration.

Hi Joe!

Could I ask you to explain this? It may very well be my fault and not yours (in fact, it probably is my fault), but I'm not sure I followed you here.

Thanks.

The fault is far from yours. In an effort to be brief I failed to properly project my thoughts. I intended to express the opinion that those who believe in 'bible only' usually assign a subjective meaning to any passages you and I refer to as 'Catholic' such as the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude. This especially holds true for Matt 16:16-20. Over exaggerating of course, the exegesis of this passage is sometimes rendered so poorly by non-Catholics your left wonder whether Christ is in New York or Paris. It bears no resemblance to how the Catholics have held the verse for 2,000 years. More important, the reason for rendering such verses this way is to avoid lending any credence to the Authority of the Church; this is a direct threat to the ideals of Protestantism. If Rome has any Authority, then Protestantism becomes just that, a protest, i.e. schism. Consequently, non-Catholics are compelled to transfer this 'Authority' from the Pope. But to where? If it's to another entity, then you are simply left with another Pope like figure or a doctrinal driven organization whose authority lies simply in the power of persuasion. Thus we find the non-Catholic argument that the authority of one's faith lies in Holy Scripture; this stance is taken in the face of the Holy Scriptures' complete silence on the sole authority of one's faith is scriptural. Too, ignored is the fact that Holy Scriptures are part of the Tradition of Catholic Church. That's why so many times Catholic hear that the 'Church' wasn't founded until 400 A.D. – scriptures need to be in place prior to the founding of the Catholic Church so the rightful claim of Tradition in Scripture can't be applied.

I won't go into here, but we take our faith to be objective in the sense that it is revealed by God, and kept alive in the teachings of the Apostles. There is another element to faith which 'believes without seeing.” But either way, both take an objective rationality. Non-Catholic faith is based on subjectivity. That is, 'what I believe is true for me, and what you believe is true for you'. (It butchers the concept of absolute truth doesn't it?) In my opinion, this subjectivity turns inwardly for authority. The Catholic will look outwardly to conform to God's cosmic Truths. In contrast the non-Catholic is forced to look inwardly to form God to their predetermined 'subjective Truth'.

As history seems to witness since Luther, is that this eventually evolves into narrow-minded assertion of the individual's unconditional right to absolute independence from religion, society, social norms, and authority – authority of any type. These intellectual giants postulate “their” truth, free of the restraints formed principles or ethics; after all there are no respected authorities, so why should they be constrained.

Non-Catholics, must by their nature, proclaim themselves supreme arbiter of truth. This is quite often done by invoking the Holy Spirit. I know my understanding of Scripture is correct because the Holy Spirit tells me so. But, what's lost is the fact that their non-Catholic kinsman makes the same claim for a different truth. Which is correct? Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. The non-Catholic Christian trait is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God's will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; thus the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." This ideology becomes progressively independent of God's authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority. Tracking the liberal trait of autonomous authority over morality it can be seen to become asymptotic to atheism – and in short order. While still holding a Christian like caricature, this progresses to the point where God is no longer needed (or wanted); thereby God ceases to exist in the heart and mind.

Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic). (Liberalism Is A Sin by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886)

My statement 'solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author's Divine inspiration' might have been better rendered if I had said it as follows:

Solely on a subjective meaning of the Bible, one with a predetermined conclusion, while simultaneously is denying any outward Authority of Divine inspiration.

Well, I tried to clear it up!

JoeT

JoeT777

Mar 11, 2009, 11:39 PM

Akoue

Mar 12, 2009, 12:04 AM

Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.

When building, the name of the founder (the authority) is the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder’s Church; primarily because of his declaration of faith.

The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder.

Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.

JoeT

First, thanks for the clarification in your previous post.

Second: I find this talk about foundations to be a bit, well, odd. I wonder if people don't sometimes strain the metaphor past the breaking point. What I mean is that in one sense of "foundation" Christ is clearly the sole foundation of the faith and of the Church. And there is a sense in which Peter is the foundation of the Church. In other words, the two claims aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Christ is the head and foundation of the Catholic Church. But this doesn't preclude Peter from having been the leader of the Apostles. Nor does it preclude Peter from having been the "rock" on which Christ built his Church. Anyone who thought that the Catholic view is that Peter somehow supplanted Christ would be profoundly confused about Catholicism.

As I say, I think there are people who take the architectural metaphor in hand and just really run amok with it.

sndbay

Mar 12, 2009, 03:38 AM

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Eph 5:23
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Tom, that was worth repeating .. And I wanted to agree but it doesn't always let us.

The authority in scripture is God Himself... And Christ fulfilled the Spiritual Truth, that was indeed written by the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Peter loved Christ ...

How do you have a “sound doctrine” without a “sound Authority?” And too, I didn't think y'all even looked to doctrine?

My sound authority is The Holy Spirit.. I would not reject The Holy Spirit ..

sndbay

Mar 12, 2009, 04:01 AM

These men too are the rock that Peter was called. That rock held to the name given at birth..

"a rock or stone"

1) Peter was one of the apostles

2) Simon called Zelotes or the Kanaites

3) Simon, father of Judas who betrayed Jesus.

4) Simon Magus, the Samaritan wizard

5) Simon the tanner, Ac. 10

6) Simon the Pharisee, Luke 7:40-44

7) Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Christ

8) Simon the cousin of Jesus, the son of Cleophas

9) Simon the leper, so called to distinguish him from others of the same name

This does not make any of them The Rock of Salvation.

2 Samuel 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

It is God!
2 Samuel 22:51 [He is] the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 07:15 AM

JoeT777

Mar 12, 2009, 12:22 PM

[B]Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This along with 1 Cor 3:11 doesn’t bode well for the Luther and the Protestant movement. The reason should be obvious. Prior to 1500 A.D. there was but ONE foundation on which ONE building was laid for ONE Church in Christ. Since it was promised by God that this Church would prevail against the gates of Hell, its teaching authority bears the imprimatur of God Himself. Being that the teaching Authority lies with the Church then we are left with the question as to who is teaching unsound doctrine, who isn’t holding ‘fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me’?

JoeT

sndbay

Mar 12, 2009, 01:50 PM

It is interesting that at 1Cor.3.10, Paul says that he himself laid a foundation: "According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I LAID A FOUNDATION, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,

v.11: "for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ."

So either Paul is flatly contradicting himself--which I think we can rule out--or talk of laying a foundation means something different in v.10 than it does in v.11. If this is so, as it must be since Paul is not contradicting himself, care has to be taken over these verses.

EDIT:

I would argue that, as Fred has said, Christ is the "ultimate" foundation. But this doesn't run afoul of what has been said in the OP.

Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.

When building, the name of the founder (the authority) is the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder's wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder's Church; primarily because of his declaration of faith.

The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder.

Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.

JoeT

As Paul wrote in Galations he said: God knows I do not lie.. Paul's has exampled his steps through his converted belief into Christian fellowship. Not of his ownself, but by the grace of God. Paul felt he was least among others..

Example Paul's Calling
Called from the womb (Isaiah 49:1) predestined (Isaiah 49:5) to be a servant to God, a phophet of The Word (Jeremiah 1:5)

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

Noted the separation before birth ;2 calling, Acts 9; 3 setting apart for ministry, Acts 13:2-3 in fulfilling:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Bear Christ Name.. Why? I believe it is all about the fulfillment of God, Our Father as the Master of all creation.

Each are called by God grace.. God love is His grace... which is what Peter was asked 3 times.. Do you love Me? YES Lord!

~Rest on Christ

JoeT777

Mar 12, 2009, 03:38 PM

In earlier discussions somebody mentioned that there was no scriptural reference to the Church being the Bride of Christ. Notice that we aren't talking Churches (plural), that would make Christ a polygamist. Paul clearly points to the Church being the sole spouse of Christ.

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Eph 5:22,23

Paul is emphatic pronouncing the Church as the “Bride of Christ.” Further, don't miss that the Church is likened to the “Body of Christ” Thus the Catholic Church holds that Christ will never abandon his Bride or allow others to abuse His Body.

Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Eph 5:24.

That is s the wife is obedient to the husband so too MUST the Church be obedient to Christ.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: Eph 5:25, 26

And the Bride keeps her faith with baptism in the word of God, properly teaching to the world.

JoeT

JoeT777

Mar 12, 2009, 04:38 PM

I’ve always found family names to be interesting; such as Simon Bar-Jonah. I’ve suggested in the past that we, in some way, become defined by our name. Christ renamed Simon Bar-Jonah Peter in Greek Petra /petros or rock to signify the source and the strength of his faith.

SIMON
Gender: Masculine
Usage: English, French, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Slovene, Biblical
Pronounced: SIE-mən (English), see-MAWN (French), ZEE-mawn (German) [key]
From the Greek form of the Hebrew name שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim'on) which meant "he has heard". This was the name of several biblical characters, including the man who carried the cross for Jesus. However, the most important person of this name in the New Testament was the apostle Simon, also known as Peter (a name given to him by Jesus). Because of him, this name has been common in the Christian world. In England it was popular during the Middle Ages, though it became rarer after the Protestant Reformation. Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Simon (http://www.behindthename.com/name/simon)

BAR-JONAH
Simon Peter's surname. Peter was the son of Jonah. Jesus hailed him by his family name at the time he bestowed on him his new name. "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). (Etym. Greek bar ionas, from Aramaic bar yonah, son of Jonah; Hebrew yonah, dove.) Catholic Culture : Dictionary : BAR-JONAH (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32091)

Seeing that Simon has the Hebrew meaning, “he has heard” with the surname meaning “dove”, which in most cultures nuances of peace, Matthew 16:17 takes a special significance. Christ calls the son of peace who has heard the son of the living God a rock. Peter is made the living foundation (or cornerstone if you prefer that metaphor) of the Church. Even the location can’t be discounted; Caesarea Philippi is a region that has a large rock outcrop that forms a cliff. Christ’s intent is clear and his words have faithfully survived in His Bride for 2,000 years.

JoeT

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 05:48 PM

JoeT777

Mar 12, 2009, 07:35 PM

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 08:51 PM

Paul was speaking of the Church when he said, “ Now you are the body of Christ and members of member. And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.” 1 Cor 12:27. So not to be confused we see the Church, with hierarchy, apostles, prophets, doctors. A church represented as a body, a body that is “one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. 14 For the body also is not one member, but many.” (1 Cor 12:12)

Consequently we see that “church” is the body of Christ and it is made of many members, but first among these are the Apostles, prophets, and doctors. From my previous post we see that this the Church is also the Bride of Christ.

Actually, we know that an organized manmade denomination and/or church is made up of the saved and unsaved. Your interpretation above would suggest that because someone has a membership card issued by a denomination that God must give them a gift and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But that is not in agreement with scripture:

John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

So the unsaved cannot receive the Holy Spirit, therefore the unsaved, whether they carry a signed membership card in your denomination (or any denomination) do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, are not given the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are not members of the body of Christ.

Indeed, what does scripture say - that those who are accepted by a denomination are members of the body? Or those who God decided?

1 Cor 12:17-19
18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased.
NKJV

Yes, God set the members, not the membership roll of a church or denomination.

arcura

Mar 12, 2009, 09:15 PM

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 09:28 PM

Joe,
Thanks much for your clarification and your idea about founder and foundation.
I think of it this way as divine and human.
Jesus the divine founder and foundation Peter the human foundation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The problem with that, Fred, is that God says that there can only be ONE foundation:

1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

BTW, Jesus IS both God and man, divine and human.

JoeT777

Mar 12, 2009, 09:59 PM

arcura

Mar 12, 2009, 10:08 PM

Tj3,
Please offer whatever evidence you have that Peter was the leader of the Apostles that way you can stay on topic.
Fred

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 10:10 PM

Tj3,
Please offer whatever evidence you have that Peter was the leader of the Apostles that way you can stay on topic.
Fred

There is no evidence, because Jesus was the leader.

Heb 3:1-3
3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.
NKJV

Akoue

Mar 12, 2009, 10:11 PM

Actually, we know that an organized manmade denomination and/or church is made up of the saved and unsaved. Your interpretation above would suggest that because someone has a membership card issued by a denomination that God must give them a gift and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But that is not in agreement with scripture:

John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

So the unsaved cannot receive the Holy Spirit, therefore the unsaved, whether they carry a signed membership card in your denomination (or any denomination) do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, are not given the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are not members of the body of Christ.

Indeed, what does scripture say - that those who are accepted by a denomination are members of the body? or those who God decided?

1 Cor 12:17-19
18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased.
NKJV

Yes, God set the members, not the membership roll of a church or denomination.

Thing is, the Catholic Church isn't a demonination in the way you use the term "denomination", i.e. to refer to a "man-made" institution or organization. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. So, not man-made and so not a "denomination".

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 10:17 PM

Thing is, the Catholic Church isn't a demonination in the way you use the term "denomination", i.e., to refer to a "man-made" institution or organization. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. So, not man-made and so not a "denomination".

It is a denomination, and did not exist while Christ walked the earth in the flesh. Jesus did not found a denomination.

Akoue

Mar 12, 2009, 10:38 PM

It is a denomination, and did not exist while Christ walked the earth in the flesh. Jesus did not found a denomination.

You've said that a denomination is something man-made. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. Therefore it isn't man-made, therefore it isn't a denomination as you use that term.

arcura

Mar 12, 2009, 10:44 PM

Akoue,
I agree.
Tj3 will not.
So let' get back to EVIDENCE that Peter was the earthly leader of The Apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Mar 12, 2009, 10:49 PM

You've said that a denomination is something man-made. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. Therefore it isn't man-made, therefore it isn't a denomination as you use that term.

It did not exist in the first century, and no Jesus and the Apostles did not found a denomination.

arcura

Mar 12, 2009, 11:25 PM

Tj3,
Yes it did exist in the first century as evidence that had been CLEARLY been offered here on this board shows.
And Jesus Jesus did not found a denomination, He founded His Church.
Mankind founded the denominations hundreds of years later starting with Luther.
That is what real true history confirms.
And collecting that evidence is what this thread is all about.
Fred

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 05:00 AM

It did not exist in the first century, and no Jesus and the Apostles did not found a denomination.

Right, Jesus and the Apostles didn't found a denomination. They founded the Catholic Church.

A thread was recently opened in order to provide you ample opportunity to substantiate your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine. It can be found here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/history-church-325955.html

Now the only "evidence" you adduced in support of this claim--a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox--was a snippet from Newman which it was clearly demonstrated you had misunderstood. Since you fared badly in your attempt to justify your rather idiosyncratic historical claim there, it is odd that you would go so far out of your way to press another version of it on this thread, a thread which the OP has been at pains to point out is not addressed to your theory about the origins of denominations as you understand them.

Moreover, you appear to be in the grip of a false dichotomy, one which supposes that either Christ is the leader of the Church or Peter is the leader of the Church. But, of course, as the OP itself makes quite evident, Christ and Peter are leaders in different senses of the word. (It hasn't helped matters that you have oscillated between the words "leader" and "foundation", each of which needs to be handled with some care.) In any event, the sense in which Peter may be said to have been the leader of the Apostles is no threat at all to the claim that Christ was and remains the leader of the Church.

As has been pointed out many times, Catholics and Orthodox Christians adhere to the entirety of Divine revelation, not just that portion of it that was selected at the Council of Nicaea for inclusion in the canon of the NT (a Council, interestingly, which convened the very year that you claim saw the founding of the Catholic Church). It is for this reason that the OP asks for both Scriptural and historical evidence, and he has received both. You are, of course, at liberty to disregard extra-Biblical historical sources, so long as you bear in mind that many of us take the view that by doing so you are choosing to disregard important parts of God's revelation. As I say, you are free to choose to do so, but kindly stop insisting that the rest of us adopt your presuppositions as our own. This thread is not predicated on the assumption of sola scriptura. If you find that fact distasteful, well, that too is your right. Just kindly permit others to engage in conversation about matters that are of interest to them without constantly demanding that they knuckle under to your own theological proclivities. I don't begrudge you those proclivities, but I do begrudge your sustained attempt to force them upon me, all the more so as I have repeatedly and patiently explained to you why I believe them to be in error.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:40 AM

Right, Jesus and the Apostles didn't found a denomination. They founded the Catholic Church.

That is a claim, but not one supported by either history or, more importantly, scripture.

A thread was recently opened in order to provide you ample opportunity to substantiate your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine.

The thread quickly degenerated and was closed.

Now the only "evidence" you adduced in support of this claim--a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox--was a snippet from Newman which it was clearly demonstrated you had misunderstood.

If you feel that this is outside of historical scholarship, with all due respect, you should spend more time checking out what historical scholars are saying. This is one of your most common defense - just state it and therefore it must be accepted as true.

Second, another one of your common approaches is to simply tell the person that they are wrong. Again, not compelling. It is you who claims that your denomination was founded by Jesus - we should find evidence of that clearly in scripture, but we find nothing.

sndbay

Mar 13, 2009, 08:00 AM

Joe,
Thanks much for your clarification and your idea about founder and foundation.
I think of it this way as divine and human.
Jesus the divine founder and foundation Peter the human foundation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The Truth as it is written:

Eph 2:19-22Now 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.

1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

(This account written in scripture of man includes Peter)

Peter represents his love for God..

sndbay

Mar 13, 2009, 08:21 AM

Question?

Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

The Gospel.. Christ ... His Glory... The Church that is the House of God which is the habitation of God through the Spirit.

Note the Keys:
Luke 24:7 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Note Peter said: To "Him" give all the prophets witness, that through "His Name" whosoever believeth in "Him" shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

sndbay

Mar 13, 2009, 08:28 AM

Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Paul was know as least of the prophets

Those that are sanctify in Truth, in The Word, are not of this world.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

~In Christ.. His Way

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 05:35 PM

If you feel that this is outside of historical scholarship, with all due respect, you should spend more time checking out what historical scholars are saying. This is one of your most common defense - just state it and therefore it must be accepted as true.

Here are just a few of the most widely respected historians who don't endorse your claim:

Arnaldo Momigliano, Peter Brown, W.H.C. Friend, Manlio Simonetti, Jaroslav Pelikan, Henry Chadwick, R.M. Grant, Hans von Campenhausen, T.D. Barnes, Heinrich Dorries.

If you look them up, you'll find that these are indeed eminent historians. You can even read their work for yourself.

You've been asked dozens of times to provide the names of historians whom you have found to advance the claim that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The only people I know of who make this claim are fundamentalist revisionists, none of whom are well-respected scholars or academics, but writers of popular pulp. You claim to be in the know here, and that I am not, so please, simply provide a few names of eminent historians who share your view.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 05:53 PM

Here are just a few of the most widely respected historians who don't endorse your claim:

Arnaldo Momigliano, Peter Brown, W.H.C. Friend, Manlio Simonetti, Jaroslav Pelikan, Henry Chadwick, R.M. Grant, Hans von Campenhausen, T.D. Barnes, Heinrich Dorries.

If you look them up, you'll find that these are indeed eminent historians. You can even read their work for yourself.

Ho hum - do you want to play a numbers game? You claimed that belief in the historical and Biblical position is "...a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox".

You've been asked dozens of times to provide the names of historians whom you have found to advance the claim that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The only people I know of who make this claim are fundamentalist revisionists,

This is the problem. It is the same problem that occurs in every discussion that we have. Any scholar or source which disagrees with you, you automatically place demeaning labels on this, sight unseen. You even reject what one of your own cardinals stated. If I listed hundreds of the finest scholars, you would simply label them accordingly. So why should I waste my time further if there is no serious intent to consider the facts?

But I note that once again you distract from YOUR claim that YOUR denomination was founded by Jesus and the Apostles. If true, that should be found explicitly stated in scripture. The onus is not on me to prove what you claim is not true - the onus is on you to prove that it is.

JoeT777

Mar 13, 2009, 06:01 PM

That's funny I don't ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.

JT

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:02 PM

That’s funny I don’t ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.

Memory issues? :D

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:02 PM

You even reject what one of your own cardinals stated.

No, I very clearly explained how you had misunderstood what Newman was saying.

As it stands, you have provided the name of not one single reputable historian to back up your claim. If you are going to insist on making assertions that you know many find demeaning to their faith, you really ought at the very least to be prepared to substantiate those claims. Given the topic of this thread, there was no earthly reason for you to once again trot out your unsubstantiated revisionist historical claim about the origins of the Catholic Church. You did so, as you so often have, in order to advance your agenda of presenting the Catholic Church as a man-made institution that is at odds with Scripture. You are, in other words, being polemical--and, I'm sure, self-consciously so. I am well within in my rights to ask you to substantiate your polemicisms. So far, you have offered nothing but a misreading of a few lines of Newman.

Notice that I'm not even asking you to present the case for your claim. I no longer believe that you are able to do so. So just provide the names of those historians who share your view. I'll be happy to evaluate them on my own time.

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:05 PM

That’s funny I don’t ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.

JT

That's because Tom thinks that quotation is the same thing as substantiation. How else are we to explain his trotting out a quote from Newman--which he obviously misunderstood--to "substantiate" his claim?

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:08 PM

No, I very clearly explained how you had misunderstood what Newman was saying.

No, you claimed that it meant the opposite of what he said. Even most Catholics that I have spoken with understood immediately what he was saying. But you are one of the rare persons who thinks that he said the opposite.

Akoue, when I see you take anything seriously which disagree with you, maybe I'll put more effort into it. But I honestly don't care about even trying because you clearly will not consider anything other than that which agrees with you.

Now, as I said the onus is actually on you, and putting up a smokescreen does not change that reality. You have yet to show that your denomination was founded by Jesus. That is what started this, and you still have failed to validate the claim.

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:16 PM

No, you claimed that it meant the opposite of what he said. Even most Catholics that I have spoken with understood immediately what he was saying.
[QUOTE]

And I'm supposed to what, take your word for it? You never hesitate to accuse others of mendacity (in fact, you recently suggested that Wondergirl was lying about her profession, of all things). It's been my experience that people who readily suspect mandacity in others do so because they are themselves frequent perpetrators of it.

[QUOTE]Akoue, when I see you take anyting seriously which disagree with you, maybe I'll put more effort into it. But I honestly don't care about even trying because you clearly will not consider anything other than wthat which agrees with you.

Now, as I said the onus is actually on you, and putting up a smokescreen does not change that reality. You have yet to show that your denomination was founded by Jesus. That is what started this, and you still have failed to validate the claim.

Funny, I've had lots of really pleasant exchanges right here at AMHD with people with whom I disagree. But I notice that, once again, you're talking about me instead of posting those names.

As for the "onus": This thread is about Peter. Fred has repeatedly asked you to stay on topic and you have refused, reverting once again to specious historical claims, claims which you have been asked many times, by many posters (so it's not just me) to substantiate. When a little pressure is put on you you begin the passive-aggressive silliness. It's pretty transparent, and it gives many of us a good laugh. And yet for all that, you still haven't managed to come through with any historical evidence for your claim. Shoot, you haven't even come through with a few names of reputable historians who share your view. That doesn't leave your claim on a very firm footing.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:20 PM

And I'm supposed to what, take your word for it? You never hesitate to accuse others of mendacity (in fact, you recently suggested that Wondergirl was lying about her profession, of all things). It's been my experience that people who readily suspect mandacity in others do so because they are themselves frequent perpetrators of it.

Ah, so now we plan to take this personal, I see.

Akoue, because of the fact that you have never seriously discussed anything that I have posted that disagrees with you, I really do not care what your judgment is of anything. If you would take the time to consider the relative merits of the facts, then your opinion would carry weight.

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:30 PM

never seriously discussed anything that I have posted

Still more hyperbole.

Good night, Tom.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:31 PM

Still more hyperbole.

Good night, Tom.

It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

Alty

Mar 13, 2009, 06:36 PM

It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

Tom, it takes two to discuss.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:37 PM

Tom, it takes two to discuss.

Ah, coming on here to snipe now!

Alty

Mar 13, 2009, 06:38 PM

Ah, coming on here to snipe now!

Nope, pointing out the obvious.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:41 PM

Nope, pointing out the obvious.

Why don't you discuss the topic or are you only on here to snipe at me?

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:42 PM

It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

This might actually carry a little bit of weight if I hadn't already seen you say the same thing hundreds of times to dozens of people. It is a veritable Tomism. That's quite the persecution complex you're working on, Tom.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:43 PM

This might actually carry a little bit of weight if I hadn't already seen you say the same thing hundreds of times to dozens of people. It is a veritable Tomism. That's quite the persecution complex you're working on, Tom.

Ho hum. Do you have anything of substance Akoue, or are you just trying to shut down the thread?

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:44 PM

Why don't you discuss the topic or are you only on here to snipe at me?

Why don't YOU discuss the topic, as Fred (the OP) repeatedly asked you to do? The topic is: What Scriptural and historical evidence shows that Peter was the leader of the Apostles (i.e. the first among equals)? If you have no evidence, or think there is none, then why do you keep disrupting the threads?

Never mind, don't answer that. I know why.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:45 PM

Why don't YOU discuss the topic, as Fred (the OP) repeatedly asked you to do? The topic is: What Scriptural and historical evidence shows that Peter was the leader of the Apostles (i.e., the first among equals)? If you have no evidence, or think there is none, then why do you keep disrupting the threads?

I answered, and I have been engaged in the discussion as you have. Why don't you discuss the topic?

Akoue

Mar 13, 2009, 06:47 PM

Ho hum. Do you have anything of substance Akoue, or are you just trying to shut down the thread?

I've posted enough substance on this and a great many other threads that I don't worry that my contributions can fairly be accused of lacking substance. But some of us do get tired of your constant shenanigans and think it perfectly fair and reasonable to call you on it.

Tj3

Mar 13, 2009, 06:49 PM

I've posted enough substance on this and a great many other threads that I don't worry that my contributions can fairly be accused of lacking substance.

As you can see here, many feel that your contributions on this topic are not compelling.

But some of us do get tired of your constant shenanigans and think it perfectly fair and reasonable to call you on it.

But as always, you see fit to turn the thread into personal accusations.

Fr_Chuck

Mar 13, 2009, 06:59 PM

Closed as normal, you guys just don't play well together

Obviously each side believes what they do, you are never going to change the mind of the other, and both sides always attacks the others.
This is getting very old