I read the Book entitled "The Rock" long ago.
Unfortunately I have misplaced it.
In the book there were quite a few bible verses and passages that show that the Peter was appointed the leader and the other apostles recognized that and adhered to it.
I need to refresh those in memory.
:confused:So I ask what verses and passages in Scripture (and if you know some from sacred tradition) show that the other apostles treated Peter as their leader?:confused:
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Read more here (http://catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp).

Also see here (http://catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp).

Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).

Ordering of the names is a weak argument and is, at best circumstantial. Without any other specific evidence, such an argument will not stand. Further, there are notable exceptions to this also which suggest that this was not done intentionally to present a specific message of primacy, for example, John 1:44. A very significant example is Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. If Peter had primacy, certainly it should have been evident at the council, but Peter was neither the spokesman (Paul and Barnabas were), nor did he speak first, and typically the decision maker or chairman will be the last to speak to provide the summary as to what the decision is and what is to be done and that was James.


Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69),

Please recheck your references. It would be a stretech to say any of these were presenting Peter as a spokesman.


and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28).

Again, a very weak argument.


On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40),

Not true. They all were speaking prior to Peter, because they said that they heard them in their own languages.

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other
Tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
NKJV

Peter then spoke up to explain what was happening. The fact that Peter was the last one to speak (not the first) and gave the sermon does not imply anything with respect to leadership. The fact that all the apostles were speaking is also emphasized by the fact that crowd responded to them all, not just Peter:

Acts 2:37
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the
Rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
NKJV


and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

The first miracle in the New Testament was performed by Jesus, not any of the apostles (John 2:1-12). Numerous miracles were performed in the Gospels and by other disciples (not necessarily apostles) such as in Luke 10:17-20, so the miracles in Acts 3 were not even the first performed by believers in the New Testament. Even if the intent is to address the first miracles performed by the Apostles after Pentecost, this is still not accurate, because the first miracles performed after Pentecost were in Acts 2 and scripture does not record the specifics of the first.

Acts 2:43-44
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through
The apostles.
NKJV


It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17).

This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is found here:

1 Pet:5:1
The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of
The sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of
Constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of
A ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
Ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of
Glory that fadeth not away.

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
Preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
Made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
Blood.


An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7),

Actually, it was announced to the two Marys just prior to that and they were told to go tell the disciples.


and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Again, very weak. In fact it only says that he appeared to him. It does not say that Peter is the first person that He appeared to. And even if that were the case, that would not mean that he was leader.


He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26),

The suggestion here is that this was a meeting specifically for this purpose whereas scripture states that this was just one items which was raised during the meetings:

Acts 1:14-17
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women
And Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the
Number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 Men and brethren,
This Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of
David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he
Was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
NKJV

Peter, in a middle of what was essentially a prayer meeting came forward with a recommendation. Not everyone who makes a recommendation during a prayer meeting is the leader; indeed this is more often than not, not the case.


and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).

This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.


He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11),

Yes, this is true. Just as it is true that when Peter was out of line on a doctrinal issue, Paul rebuked him.

Gal 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he
Was to be blamed; NKJV

If the ability to rebuke indicates positional authority, that would place Paul over Peter.


and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).

Again true, but being the first to do so does not make him leader.


He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).

This was mentioned earlier and is notable because Peter is recorded as one of the speakers who provided some key input but not the decision maker. Indeed, the decision was a joint decision and was not made by even the apostles alone, but also by the elders. The leader and the person who announced the decision was James who specifically states that it is his judgement / decision (Acts 15:19)

[quote]It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.

If this is the best argument that you have, it is incredibly weak. Indeed, using the same logic, a stronger argument could be put forward for Paul, or even James.

Hello, Fred -

Ok, look. Honestly, I cannot see the point of debating this really... I presume that you are pretty well dug in on your view so it's highly unlikely that anyone here is going to offer a compelling enough argument to sway your perspective on the matter... as well as the rest of the faithful lot of Catholics who have already posted (I don't mean that disparagingly, only factually).

I'm not saying this to be mean spirited but I do recall somewhere in another post that you were pretty upset at how often people challenged the idea that Peter was the first Pontiff. So, I guess I'm a little perplexed by this post because usually you seem to post questions here to solicit responses and dialogue for perhaps matters that you are chewing on. However, I do wonder if this matter isn't one you have already put to bed. So, I'm just asking for a little clarification of your motivation in posting this because... well, I don't know.

Any comments, Fred. Hey, I'm just trying to be real, that's all.

Hello, Fred -

Ok, look. Honestly, I cannot see the point of debating this really...I presume that you are pretty well dug in on your view so it's highly unlikely that anyone here is going to offer a compelling enough argument to sway your perspective on the matter...as well as the rest of the faithful lot of Catholics who have already posted (I don't mean that disparagingly, only factually).

I'm not saying this to be mean spirited but I do recall somewhere in another post that you were pretty upset at how often people challenged the idea that Peter was the first Pontiff. So, I guess I'm a little perplexed by this post because usually you seem to post questions here to solicit responses and dialogue for perhaps matters that you are chewing on. However, I do wonder if this matter isn't one you have already put to bed. So, I'm just asking for a little clarification of your motivation in posting this because...well, I dunno.

Any comments, Fred. Hey, I'm just trying to be real, that's all.

From the context of the question, Fred is asking Catholics for apologetical information.

Obviously, if you don't believe that Peter is the leader of the Apostles, you wouldn't respond to his question. Would you?

From the context of the question, Fred is asking Catholics for apologetical information.

Obviously, if you don't believe that Peter is the leader of the Apostles, you wouldn't respond to his question. Would you?

De Maria - sure, I agree that he is asking Catholics the question... yeah, I certainly wouldn't respond to the question, although I am considering laying out an argument for the contrary. Like I said, Fred seems to have a strong position already on the subject, but he's asking for apologetical information.

Again, I'm really not trying to be mean spirited here. To me, this question is akin to a Catholic vehemently defending the Catholic church as the true church, and then going over in another thread and asking other Catholics if the Catholic Church is the true church... implying that he may not be sure if it is. Hey, I've got no problem with the question, I was just hoping that Fred might divulge a little more about where the motivation for asking it is coming from, that's all.

De Maria, I presume that you and Fred have a good rapport in this forum so I respect the fact that you are defending him. But again, he need not be defended because I am not attacking him. Just an honest question, really.

Ordering of the names is a weak argument and is, at best circumstantial. Without any other specific evidence, such an argument will not stand.

Not really. It is customary in almost every culture to list the leader first. And we do have much more evidence.


Further, there are notable exceptions to this also which suggest that this was not done intentionally to present a specific message of primacy, for example, John 1:44.

He is listed first some 17 times. But you go by the exception?

And he is called first in Scripture:
Matt 10:2
The first, Simon, who is called Peter,


And he is singled out:
Acts 2:37
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles,

Mark 16:7
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:


A very significant example is Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. If Peter had primacy, certainly it should have been evident at the council, but Peter was neither the spokesman (Paul and Barnabas were), nor did he speak first, and typically the decision maker or chairman will be the last to speak to provide the summary as to what the decision is and what is to be done and that was James.

That isn't true. Typically the Chairman of the board sets the tone and direction of the meeting:
7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

This is what St. Peter did.


Please recheck your references. It would be a stretech to say any of these were presenting Peter as a spokesman.

But this one is pretty obvious:

Acts 5: 2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Obviously, Ananias didn't lie to God directly. He lied to Peter. Yet Peter says that he lied to God.

That is pretty much the Catholic Teaching. Lets review what Jesus said to Simon:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In other words, Jesus appointed St. Peter as God's representative.

Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And what did God do in the New Testament? God also selected a man to represent Him. Simon Bar-Jonah.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Christ is the Rock!

And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"

So God gave Simon the name that represents God.

2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.

Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:

Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thereby giving Simon the authority to save. He can open and close the door to heaven, therefore, he can save.

And so, St. Peter can say that Ananias lied to God when he lied to St. Peter.


Again, a very weak argument.

But its much stronger than yours.


Not true. They all were speaking prior to Peter, because they said that they heard them in their own languages.

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other
Tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
NKJV

Peter then spoke up to explain what was happening. The fact that Peter was the last one to speak (not the first) and gave the sermon does not imply anything with respect to leadership. The fact that all the apostles were speaking is also emphasized by the fact that crowd responded to them all, not just Peter:

Acts 2:37
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the
Rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
NKJV

Your own references prove you wrong. Note how the people singled out Peter. They addressed Peter as the spokesman for the Apostles.


The first miracle in the New Testament was performed by Jesus, not any of the apostles (John 2:1-12). Numerous miracles were performed in the Gospels and by other disciples (not necessarily apostles) such as in Luke 10:17-20, so the miracles in Acts 3 were not even the first performed by believers in the New Testament. Even if the intent is to address the first miracles performed by the Apostles after Pentecost, this is still not accurate, because the first miracles performed after Pentecost were in Acts 2 and scripture does not record the specifics of the first.

Acts 2:43-44
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through
The apostles.
NKJV

But the first miracle of the Church age is performed by Peter. What miracle was performed by the Apostles in Acts 2? That statement only affirms that many miracles were performed by the Apostles. The first of which was performed by Peter and listed in the next Chapter.


This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is found here:

1 Pet:5:1
The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of
The sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of
Constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of
A ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
Ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of
Glory that fadeth not away.

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
Preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
Made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
Blood.

It is unique to Peter. Jesus didn't direct these words to anyone else:
Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Jesus, the One who counts, directed these words to Peter. Not to any of the other Apostles. That's pretty unique.


Actually, it was announced to the two Marys just prior to that and they were told to go tell the disciples.

They were told to go to
Mark 16:7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Again, Peter is singled out.


Again, very weak. In fact it only says that he appeared to him. It does not say that Peter is the first person that He appeared to. And even if that were the case, that would not mean that he was leader.

But putting all the evidence together, it is what would be expected. And thus, his leadership role is again confirmed.


The suggestion here is that this was a meeting specifically for this purpose whereas scripture states that this was just one items which was raised during the meetings:

Acts 1:14-17
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women
And Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the
Number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 Men and brethren,
This Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of
David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he
Was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
NKJV

Peter, in a middle of what was essentially a prayer meeting came forward with a recommendation. Not everyone who makes a recommendation during a prayer meeting is the leader; indeed this is more often than not, not the case.

:confused: Finding the replacement for Judas, an apostle of our Lord Jesus, is a small thing?

Obviously, the one with the authority to make such a recommendation was the leader. Again, Peter fills the role, confirming yet again that he is the Prince of the Apostles.


this is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.

Sure it is. It is further confirmation of his leadership role.


Yes, this is true. Just as it is true that when Peter was out of line on a doctrinal issue, Paul rebuked him.

Gal 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he
Was to be blamed; NKJV

If the ability to rebuke indicates positional authority, that would place Paul over Peter.

1. It was not a doctrinal issue. But a behaviorial issue.
2. St. Paul did not punish St. Peter. He "rebuked" him. He brought to St. Peter's attention that he believed St. Peter was setting the wrong example.

In Acts 5, St. Peter punished Ananias with death. What sentence or punishment did St. Paul impose on St. Peter as a result of this rebuke?

I would also note that in this rebuke, Scripture reveals that St. Paul was not yet perfected, since he also had previously acted hypocritically when he circumcised Timoth due to pressure from the Jewish Christians:

Acts 16:3
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.


Again true, but being the first to do so does not make him leader.

Being first is one attribute of leadership.


This was mentioned earlier and is notable because Peter is recorded as one of the speakers who provided some key input but not the decision maker. Indeed, the decision was a joint decision and was not made by even the apostles alone, but also by the elders. The leader and the person who announced the decision was James who specifically states that it is his judgement / decision (Acts 15:19)

That is your Protestant twist on the issue. It is evident that St. Peter made the decision and the group ratified it.


It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.

Sure it is. If any other had claimed the God wanted to accept the gentiles into the flock, they would have been laughed to tears. That is why God elected the leader to first reveal this news.


If this is the best argument that you have, it is incredibly weak. Indeed, using the same logic, a stronger argument could be put forward for Paul, or even James.

If you could provide a stronger argument, you would have. The absence of such an argument from your quarter speaks volumes.

Answer: None

Mark 10:42-45
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(KJV)

Isn't that plain enough?

Answer: None

Mark 10:42-45
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(KJV)

Isn't that plain enough?

Not really; especially if the intent is to disprove the primacy of Peter. This doesn't say no chief. It says that the chiefest should be the servant of all. It doesn't say no great men, it says that great men are ministers. And, the greatest of the ministers was Christ who gave His live in service to mankind.

Do you not agree? If not then those who hold Martin Luther in great esteem would be well advised to hold him to the same contempt that Martin Luther held for the Pope.

JoeT

From the context of the question, Fred is asking Catholics for apologetical information.

Obviously, if you don't believe that Peter is the leader of the Apostles, you wouldn't respond to his question. Would you?
I would assume that if someone asks a question that they want real answers.

Not really. It is customary in almost every culture to list the leader first. And we do have much more evidence.

If that were the case here, then Paul would be the most obvious leader, but when read in context, that argument makes no sense. Let's look at this numbers game that is so often used.

Peter’s name is not always given precedence. Peter’s name is mentioned 158 times, Paul’s name 156 times. If we add the name Saul (Paul’s original name, we get Paul mentioned an additional 26 times for a total of 182, compared to Peter’s total of 179 (if we include Simon), making Paul the most prominent from a numerical perspective. In the book of Acts, Peter’s name is mentioned 57 times, while Paul’s is mentioned 127 times. Using this type of argument, the name of Israel is mentioned 2567 times throughout the Bible, whereas Jesus is only mentioned 980 times. Does that mean that Israel is more important than Jesus because Israel is given more prominence than Jesus?

These type of arguments prove nothing.


That isn't true. Typically the Chairman of the board sets the tone and direction of the meeting:

That is what Paul did, and James made the decision. Leaders make decisions. Peter was just one of the speakers at the meeting.



But this one is pretty obvious:

Acts 5: 2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Obviously, Ananias didn't lie to God directly. He lied to Peter. Yet Peter says that he lied to God.

He did not lie to peter. Nowhere prior to this are we told when Ananias made the commitment, and then Peter says that they lied to the Holy Spirit. So why do you assume that they lied to Peter?



That is pretty much the Catholic Teaching. Lets review what Jesus said to Simon:

Yes it is, but it is not found in scripture. So you stick with Catholic teaching on this point, and I'll stick with scripture.


Christ is the Rock!

Right, so why would you turn around and deny that the Rock is Christ by saying...


And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"

When the context says nothing of the sort and the word in Greek means stone, not rock.


Your own references prove you wrong. Note how the people singled out Peter. They addressed Peter as the spokesman for the Apostles.

Where? None of the references given say that.


But the first miracle of the Church age is performed by Peter. What miracle was performed by the Apostles in Acts 2? That statement only affirms that many miracles were performed by the Apostles. The first of which was performed by Peter and listed in the next Chapter.

So what? Paul wrote the largest part of the NT and Peter wrote only a small piece. Paul therefore set the direction for Christian teachings more than Peter. That would be a stronger argument for a leader, if in fact there even was a lewader other than Jesus (something that you have so far not even tried to show).



It is unique to Peter. Jesus didn't direct these words to anyone else:
Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

Many words were spoken to many people that were not spoken to others - so what?

The context of this is that Peter declared that he would never deny Christ and then proceeded to become the apostle who is most noted for his denial, 3 times of Christ, which is recorded immediately following this prayer. This would not be the “rock” upon which the church could be built because clearly Peter was not infallible.


John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is
Found here:

1 Pet:5:1 The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
Ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
Preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. 28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.


Jesus, the One who counts, directed these words to Peter. Not to any of the other Apostles. That's pretty unique.

If Jesus is the one who counts, why are you trying to make Peter the leader?


They were told to go to
Mark 16:7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Again, Peter is singled out.

So what? Paul is singled out in many places also, for example:

- Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).
- The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).
- Paul is the only apostle to indicate that he has authority in all the churches (1 Cor 7:17)
- Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle, more than Peter.
- Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.
- Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Cor 12:1-4)
- Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh. (2 Cor 12:7)

And Paul is the Apostle who rebuked Peter when he erred.

I could go on and on. Your arguments are not unique to Peter and hold no water.


:confused: Finding the replacement for Judas, an apostle of our Lord Jesus, is a small thing?


I see that you are confused. Perhaps if you go back and read what I said, you may be less confused. I did not say that was a small thing.

Obviously, the one with the authority to make such a recommendation was the leader. Again, Peter fills the role, confirming yet again that he is the Prince of the Apostles.


1. It was not a doctrinal issue. But a behaviorial issue.

And you don't think that doctrine has bearing on behaviour? Interesting.


I would also note that in this rebuke, Scripture reveals that St. Paul was not yet perfected, since he also had previously acted hypocritically when he circumcised Timoth due to pressure from the Jewish Christians:

Only your denomination claims that a man can be infallible.


Acts 16:3
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

But whether this indicates hypocrisy is very questionable. Many people are circumsized for many reasons. There is nothing wrong with circumcision. What is wrong is saying that is is mandatory, just as some today insist that outward rituals like baptism are mandatory. It may have been that his witness would be better accepted amongst the Jews if they knew that he was a circumsized Jew.

There is a Jewish evangelist who would not hesitate to eat pork, unless he knows that he will be seen doing so by unsaved Jews, because he knows that his witness to them will be weakened. It is not that he does not have the liberty to do so, but for the sake of his witness, he voluntarily avoids such things when it may be an offense to unsaved Jews.


That is your Protestant twist on the issue.

Leave your misrepresentations out of this. You know that I am not a protestant.



It is evident that St. Peter made the decision and the group ratified it.

There was no ratification. If you actually read Acts 15, you will see that we are specifically told that James decided. Here is James own statement:

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV

Jakester,
Please re-read my post.
I wanted to refresh my memory of those particular verses and passages for I have misplaced the book THE ROCK and can't locate it.
Maybe I loaned it to someone and forgot who.
That is why I asked the question

RickJ,
Thank you very much for all of that.
I will reserve it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria and Joe,
Thanks much for your help on this.
Your work is very profound.
Obviously Tj3's argument is extremely weak as you have well pointed out.
I appreciate you WORK for the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Jakester,
Please re-read my post.
I wanted to refresh my memory of those particular verses and passages for I have misplaced the book THE ROCK and can't locate it.
Maybe I loaned it to someone and forgot who.
That is why I asked the question

Hey, maybe you lent it to TJ3... :D

TJ, that was a joke... I doubt you'd have the book!

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. 28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

If Jesus is the one who counts, why are you trying to make Peter the leader?



I ask myself this same question, why would anyone follow man. And although I see the teaching that has caused this to happen. It is proven in scripture that it will happen. Our Father testified against it by written law..

I comprehend the act of following this is like closing the door which Christ stands at, waiting for it to open to Him.

In (Acts 2:31) Christ is shown to walk in the flesh infallible, not doing any corruption. This was sown by Our Father in oath that by the loins of Our Father's own fruit, that the flesh of Christ (the begotten Son of God) would raise up to sit on His throne. The throne of David is dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us this day in Christ, "The Rock," = " The Key of David." (Acts 2:32) says we are witness of this..The prophets wrote the doctrine of Christ by way of divine power breath on them. This divine power come from heaven to the feet of man having the Holy Spirit within them. = walking in Christ, Christ way shown to them by The Holy Spirit presence within them.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

What does both Lord and Christ mean? Lord is the God of all, and Christ is the anointed one. So we walk in Christ's way as did Christ walk in His Father's way. Christ was not corrupted by man's doctrine, shown in traditions of man. Christ brought forth the fulfill of His Father's Truth. = "The Word" (proof of John 1:1)

Christ said, (John 10:37 If " I " do not the works of my Father, believe me not.) However if " I " do, know by the works that " I " have done, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him = (proof of John 10:38)

In all power, it is divine power by the Holy Spirit. And Peter, as well as many others were given to walk in divine power. This is a walk in Christ, with the Holy Spirit present. Never is this power of their own self, but it is of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that walked within Christ.

Let's not forget "The Word" testifies of Our Father knowing that man would fail, and follow a false rock. A written law that we are to know, and were commanded to teach..to show us what Our Father would hold against those who failed to hear. (Deu 31:10-12) (31:19) (31:30) This law is known as The Song of Moses and it is written in (Deu 32). Those who overcome death/satan during their life here on earth are those who walk in Christ and they will be singing the Song of Moses..

Not really; especially if the intent is to disprove the primacy of Peter. This doesn’t say no chief. It says that the chiefest should be the servant of all. It doesn’t say no great men, it says that great men are ministers. And, the greatest of the ministers was Christ who gave His live in service to mankind.

Do you not agree? If not then those who hold Martin Luther in great esteem would be well advised to hold him to the same contempt that Martin Luther held for the Pope.

JoeT

If the Pope is the successor to Peter, then I will have to say that Peter would never approve of his conduct.

Matt 23:9-10
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
(KJV)

I am persuaded that Peter wound never allow himself to be called "holy father".

Acts 10:25-26
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
(KJV)

Peter refused to allow a man to bow to him. The Pope does.

I really think Peter would be disappointed in his successor, were it so.

The Pope is welccomed nearly everywhere on Earth, but the Apostles were hated everywhere.

The Pope lives surrounded by opulence, Peter died a martyr.

If the Pope is the sucessor to Peter, then I will have to say that Peter would never approve of his conduct.

Matt 23:9-10
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
(KJV)

I am persuaded that Peter wound never allow himself to be called "holy father".



I contend that this verse is allegorical or hyperbole. We better hope that it is. If not you and I have a real problem. The first of these problems is that it would render meaningless the term God being a Divine Father. But beyond that there is another problem. If we take this literally, then we should take Christ's words in Matt 5:29-30 literal also. To be honest, I'm not so concerned here for you, as I am for myself; following Matt 5:29-30 literally would leave me with very few body parts. Come to think of it, about the only thing I'd be left with would be the hair on top of my head; both of them. Consequently, it's more than reasonable to think that Christ wasn't speaking literally.


I contend, and I assume many Catholic believe, that 'Father' in this verse was intended to mean spiritual leader; founder of the faith followed. Just like many engineers call Euclid the father of geometry. Why? Well, just look out your window. Everything in the built environment owes it geometric founding to Euclid. Hence we call Euclid the father of geometry. I can see why certain Protestant Churches would object to this sense of the verse; it would put such Churches such as the Lutheran's in conflict with Scripture. Taken in this sense, Lutherans would be in direct conflict with the meaning of Scripture, wouldn't it? Not that I'd know, but don't they call Luther the father of their faith? Didn't they named their Church after him? So, do we take this verse literal or as hyperbole?


Looking for examples in the Scriptures we find that Joseph is called father to Pharaoh (Cf. Gen 45:8). Why? Because he was the spiritual father for the Pharaoh. And, what of Isaiah 22:21 where Eliakim is a father to Jerusalem. You can find some 4 to 6 equivalent references in the Old Testament. Accordingly, we can take Christ's words as allegorical in reference to this verse. So, in this same sense, I see it as a comforting thought that my day to day spiritual well being is being overseen by His Holiness the Pope; the Holy Father the “Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.” LUMEN GENTIUM, 23


The remaining parts of your argument are meaningless and meant to be scurrilous; and as such it's not relevant. But, we can go into them, in as much detail as you wish.


JoeT

It is very interesting to see the disputes going on here.

What does the Bible say?

Remember that most of what has been said above has been argued for about 500 years.

The key is that Christ's Church is 2000 years old, not 500 years old.

What has His church taught for 2000 years? What did the earliest Christians say, teach and believe?

Here's some help: The Christian Faith (http://catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp)

Just because I’m a cradle Catholic doesn’t mean I was raised in a barn painted with “See Rock City” on the roof! Arcura wants information and rick want good clean debate, so lets see what happens with this. I've posted this onece before. The primacy of Peter is clear in scripture, more so in Matthew than anywhere else; a clear appointment to Peter bestowed on him by Christ

Matt 16: 13-20 The Primacy of Peter (The first, Simon who is called Peter Matt 10:2)

V 18. Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. (That thou art Peter)

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was 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 wo 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.”

Only after 1520 some have asked why this reference is only found in one Gospel and not the others, Warren Carroll suggest the rather simple answer: “Why are Christ’s words to Peter found only in Matthew, and not in the other gospels? Because Mathew was there, with Peter and the Twelve, on the road to Caesarea Philippi in the summer of 29 A.D.: he heard the dialogue himself, in his own Aramaic language. Mark the Evangelist was not there; his information came from Peter, and we have very early testimony that out of humility Peter did not include Christ’s praise of him in his catechesis. John had the other gospels before him as he wrote, and rarely repeated what they had already reported.. . “ That the words don’t appear in Mark’s Gospel was influenced by Peter’s humility. It would be easy to suggest this as speculation however Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of Mark, mentions it as does Eusebius of Caesarea. Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 338. (see also footnote 139)

In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

V 13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the way of setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.

V 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can’t claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI

Verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.

V 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.


JoeT

Good points, Joe.

Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn't his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew's Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ's life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man's name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson's remarks on this passage in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ's play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn't he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew's Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

The above is pasted from here: Peter and the Papacy (http://catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp)

If that were the case here, then Paul would be the most obvious leader, but when read in context, that argument makes no sense. Let's look at this numbers game that is so often used.

Peter’s name is not always given precedence. Peter’s name is mentioned 158 times, Paul’s name 156 times. If we add the name Saul (Paul’s original name, we get Paul mentioned an additional 26 times for a total of 182, compared to Peter’s total of 179 (if we include Simon), making Paul the most prominent from a numerical perspective. In the book of Acts, Peter’s name is mentioned 57 times, while Paul’s is mentioned 127 times. Using this type of argument, the name of Israel is mentioned 2567 times throughout the Bible, whereas Jesus is only mentioned 980 times. Does that mean that Israel is more important than Jesus because Israel is given more prominence than Jesus?

But which Apostle is listed first most often? Which Apostle is singled out, even by Jesus Christ?

Peter.


These type of arguments prove nothing.

But they add to the evidence in favor or against an argument.


That is what Paul did, and James made the decision. Leaders make decisions. Peter was just one of the speakers at the meeting.

No. Read it again. It is Peter who made the decision. A decision which was ratified by the group and by James whose diocese they were in.


He did not lie to peter. Nowhere prior to this are we told when Ananias made the commitment, and then Peter says that they lied to the Holy Spirit. So why do you assume that they lied to Peter?

He did not lie with his words. He was supposed to bring the entire amount but hid part for himself. Then, being in front of Peter, he did not repent of his sin, but kept his silence. That is when Peter said, "you have not lied to men, but to God."


Yes it is, but it is not found in scripture. So you stick with Catholic teaching on this point, and I'll stick with scripture.

It is in both. I quoted the Scripture. Here's another:

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


Right, so why would you turn around and deny that the Rock is Christ by saying...
Quote:
And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"

Where's the denial? I'm simply affirming what Jesus said.


When the context says nothing of the sort and the word in Greek means stone, not rock.

Stone is rock.
Definitions of stone on the Web:

* rock: a lump or mass of hard consolidated mineral matter; "he threw a rock at me"
* building material consisting of a piece of rock hewn in a definite shape for a special purpose; "he wanted a special stone to mark the site"
* rock: material consisting of the aggregate of minerals like those making up the Earth's crust; "that mountain is solid rock"; "stone is abundant in New England and there are many quarries"...
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Where? None of the references given say that.

They illustrate it.


So what? Paul wrote the largest part of the NT and Peter wrote only a small piece. Paul therefore set the direction for Christian teachings more than Peter. That would be a stronger argument for a leader,

The Gospel of Mark is the disciple Mark's summary of St. Peter's teachings.


if in fact there even was a lewader other than Jesus (something that you have so far not even tried to show).

I have shown that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader.


Many words were spoken to many people that were not spoken to others - so what?

But these words conveyed authority. And they were spoken by Jesus.


The context of this is that Peter declared that he would never deny Christ and then proceeded to become the apostle who is most noted for his denial, 3 times of Christ, which is recorded immediately following this prayer. This would not be the “rock” upon which the church could be built because clearly Peter was not infallible.

Have you not heard that God uses the weakest instruments so that His glory will show forth all the more?


This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is
Found here:

1 Pet:5:1 The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
Ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
Preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. 28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Again, those words were directed by Jesus Christ directly to Peter:

Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


If Jesus is the one who counts, why are you trying to make Peter the leader?

Jesus made Peter the leader. I simply believe and obey Jesus.


So what? Paul is singled out in many places also, for example:

- Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

Acts 15:7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.


- The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:


- Paul is the only apostle to indicate that he has authority in all the churches (1 Cor 7:17)

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


- Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle, more than Peter.

Peter is listed first amongst all the Apostles. And Paul visits Peter when he is confused about hisministry:


- Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


- Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Cor 12:1-4)

Matthew 17:1
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.


- Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh. (2 Cor 12:7)

That can be taken two ways. As St. Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Since none of the other Apostles persecuted the body of Christ, it may be for that reason that St. Paul had to expiate his sin. And God permitted a demon to punish him.

2 Cor 12
7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.


And Paul is the Apostle who rebuked Peter when he erred.

As I said, this also showed that St. Paul was not yet perfected. Since he also acted hypocritically before the Jewish Christians, circumcising Timothy:
Acts 16:3
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Therefore, it is the humble man, Peter, who is exalted in that verse.


I could go on and on. Your arguments are not unique to Peter and hold no water.

Keep going. I'll just keep debunking your statements.


I see that you are confused. Perhaps if you go back and read what I said, you may be less confused. I did not say that was a small thing.

You characterized it as:

just one items

I assume you intended to say, "just one of the items". And that sounds to me as though you are belittling the issue.


And you don't think that doctrine has bearing on behaviour? Interesting.

Remind me again. Where is the doctrine that says one MUST eat with the Gentiles?


Only your denomination claims that a man can be infallible.

Apparently only the Catholic Church believes Christ's promises in that regard.


But whether this indicates hypocrisy is very questionable. Many people are circumsized for many reasons. There is nothing wrong with circumcision. What is wrong is saying that is is mandatory, just as some today insist that outward rituals like baptism are mandatory. It may have been that his witness would be better accepted amongst the Jews if they knew that he was a circumsized Jew.

There is a Jewish evangelist who would not hesitate to eat pork, unless he knows that he will be seen doing so by unsaved Jews, because he knows that his witness to them will be weakened. It is not that he does not have the liberty to do so, but for the sake of his witness, he voluntarily avoids such things when it may be an offense to unsaved Jews.

It is hypocrisy because he did it feeling the pressure of the Jewish Christians. Whereas he in turn rebukes St. Peter for similarly feeling the pressure.


Leave your misrepresentations out of this. You know that I am not a protestant.

I know that you are.


There was no ratification. If you actually read Acts 15, you will see that we are specifically told that James decided. Here is James own statement:

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV

Let's see what St. Peter said prior to that:
7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he says that the Gentiles are his responsibility.

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

And he says that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Sounds very much like what James repeats later.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I contend that this verse is allegorical or hyperbole. We better hope that it is. If not you and I have a real problem. The first of these problems is that it would render meaningless the term God being a Divine Father. But beyond that there is another problem. If we take this literally, then we should take Christ’s words in Matt 5:29-30 literal also. To be honest, I’m not so concerned here for you, as I am for myself; following Matt 5:29-30 literally would leave me with very few body parts. Come to think of it, about the only thing I’d be left with would be the hair on top of my head; both of them. Consequently, it’s more than reasonable to think that Christ wasn’t speaking literally.


I contend, and I assume many Catholic believe, that ‘Father’ in this verse was intended to mean spiritual leader; founder of the faith followed. Just like many engineers call Euclid the father of geometry. Why? Well, just look out your window. Everything in the built environment owes it geometric founding to Euclid. Hence we call Euclid the father of geometry. I can see why certain Protestant Churches would object to this sense of the verse; it would put such Churches such as the Lutheran’s in conflict with Scripture. Taken in this sense, Lutherans would be in direct conflict with the meaning of Scripture, wouldn’t it? Not that I’d know, but don’t they call Luther the father of their faith? Didn’t they named their Church after him? So, do we take this verse literal or as hyperbole?


Looking for examples in the Scriptures we find that Joseph is called father to Pharaoh (Cf. Gen 45:8). Why? Because he was the spiritual father for the Pharaoh. And, what of Isaiah 22:21 where Eliakim is a father to Jerusalem. You can find some 4 to 6 equivalent references in the Old Testament. Accordingly, we can take Christ’s words as allegorical in reference to this verse. So, in this same sense, I see it as a comforting thought that my day to day spiritual well being is being overseen by His Holiness the Pope; the Holy Father the “Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.” LUMEN GENTIUM, 23


The remaining parts of your argument are meaningless and meant to be scurrilous; and as such it’s not relevant. But, we can go into them, in as much detail as you wish.


JoeT

Of course. If it disagrees with dogma, it is hyperbole. You do not use that standard in reference to the Eucharest do you?
And no, the last parts were not intended to be abusive, just a comparison that should be considered for a fair discussion.

Of course. If it disagrees with dogma, it is hyperbole. You do not use that standard in reference to the Eucharest do you?
And no, the last parts were not intended to be abusive, just a comparison that should be considered for a fair discussion.


Well Ok, how then are we to understand the term Divine Father? Do we call our own fathers 'dad' instead. But, wouldn't that just be another word for 'father' so that the transgression is being made? Seriously, you can't take this as an objection to one being Catholic?

father = bad thing
Divine Father = divien bad thing (surly not!)


JoeT

Well Ok, how then are we understand the the term Divine Father? Do we call our own fathers 'dad' instead. But, wouldn't that just be another word for 'father' so that the transgression is being made? Seriously, you can’t take this as an objection to one being Catholic?

JoeT

The context that Jesus used was completely different that that of a biological father/son relationship. Jesus also said they should not be called "rabbi" thus telling them that they needed no title greater than that of messenger.

I do indeed object to any human claiming the title of "holy father". You may use it, of course, that is your prerogative, but I do not see even Jesus claiming that title for Himself. He used "son of man" and always kept the distinction clear betweem Himself and The Father.

But that is another discussion, of course.

The context that Jesus used was completely different that that of a biological father/son relationship. Jesus also said they should not be called "rabbi" thus telling them that they needed no title greater than that of messenger.

I do indeed object to any human claiming the title of "holy father". You may use it, of course, that is your prerogative, but I do not see even Jesus claiming that title for Himself. He used "son of man" and always kept the distinction clear betweem Himself and The Father.

But that is another discussion, of course.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/christs-two-natures-324729.html, so join the discussion.

Then too, what about taking the saying 'cut off your hand' if it makes you sin. Was this also literal? How then do we account for 2,000 years of Catholic History with each generation of Popes being referred to as Holy Father? Wouldn’t it be more honest to say that it’s the Catholic Church you object to, not ‘Holy father’?

JoeT

But which Apostle is listed first most often?

It makes no difference. You seem to think this important, but it is irrelevant. If being listed first is more important, then Jesus is less important than Israel.

If you notice me ignoring many of your comments, it is because they were already addressed previously. Simply repeating the same old same old does not make it a stronger argument than it was.


But they add to the evidence in favor or against an argument.

Using the same approach, the arguments are stronger for Paul. Why do you ignore that?



No. Read it again. It is Peter who made the decision. A decision which was ratified by the group and by James whose diocese they were in.

Your Bible has clearly been modified if it reads that way. I notice that you also claim that your Bible reads differently that the rest regarding Ananias.


It is in both. I quoted the Scripture. Here's another:

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Did you notice that it says a STONE, not a ROCK?


Stone is rock.

Throughout scripture, men are referred to as stones (piece of a rock) whereas Jesus is referred to as the Rock.


I have shown that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader.

That is your claim contrary to scripture.


But these words conveyed authority. And they were spoken by Jesus.

You deny 2 Tim 3:16?

You quotes in response to Paul qualifications only further endorses the fact that no one man was made leader. Jesus remained leader.


I assume you intended to say, "just one of the items". And that sounds to me as though you are belittling the issue.


If that is your opinion of what scriptural says factually.


Remind me again. Where is the doctrine that says one MUST eat with the Gentiles?

Twisting words again? Show me where I said that one must.


Apparently only the Catholic Church believes Christ's promises in that regard.

Really? Show me where scripture says that ANY man is infallible, other than Jesus.


It is hypocrisy because he did it feeling the pressure of the Jewish Christians. Whereas he in turn rebukes St. Peter for similarly feeling the pressure.

You are calling it hypocrisy because you are making assumptions.

Some folk seem to think that piling it on think is a good substitute for a factual response. I am not one of those. When you have something of substance, please feel free to provide it.

I believe we are told to build our house upon "The Rock" Christ Jesus


Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as "one" having authority, and not as the scribes.


"The Rock" of our salvation (Psalms 31:2 Psalms 62:2 Psalm 62:6 Psalms 62:7 )

1 Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Tj3,
I see that once again you have CLAIMED to not be a protestant, this time to De Maria who responded. "I know that you are".
I have also told you that to make that claim is false for you are a protestant.
The evidence of your attacking and protesting the Catholic Church and her teaching is overwhelming on this and several other boards.
If you do not want to be a protestant there is a remedy for that.
Repent and quite protesting and attacking the Catholic Church and her teachings.
Until you do that you will always be KNOWN as a protestant.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
I see that once again you have CLAIMED to not be a protestant, this time to De Maria who responded. "I know that you are".

The fact that some folk continue misrepresent who and what I am despite having been repeatly informed otherwise says more about their integrity than about me.

It makes no difference. You seem to think this important, but it is irrelevant. If being listed first is more important, then Jesus is less important than Israel.

That doesn't make sense. Jesus and Israel aren't listed together. They are presented in chronological order.

The Apostles are not listed in Chronological order. If they were, John would be listed first.


If you notice me ignoring many of your comments, it is because they were already addressed previously. Simply repeating the same old same old does not make it a stronger argument than it was.

I wish you would take your own advice.


Using the same approach, the arguments are stronger for Paul. Why do you ignore that?

If that were true, I'm sure you have presented those arguments. I'm not ignoring them, they don't exist.


Your Bible has clearly been modified if it reads that way. I notice that you also claim that your Bible reads differently that the rest regarding Ananias.

Another say so argument without any foundation.


Did you notice that it says a STONE, not a ROCK?

As stone is a rock.


Throughout scripture, men are referred to as stones (piece of a rock) whereas Jesus is referred to as the Rock.

Where do you get that from? Abraham is here regarded as a Rock:

Isaiah 51:1
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. 2Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.


That is your claim contrary to scripture.

I've proven it by Scripture.


You deny 2 Tim 3:16?

You'll have to explain how 2 Tim 3:16 has anything to do with what we are talking about.


You quotes in response to Paul qualifications only further endorses the fact that no one man was made leader. Jesus remained leader.

Nope. Jesus appointed Simon the leader. That's why He renamed him, Cephas, Rock, to show that Simon now represented Jesus.


If that is your opinion of what scriptural says factually.

My opinion is that the Peter gathered everyone to make one decision. Not many as you insinuate:

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


Twisting words again? Show me where I said that one must.

Good, then you admit that it isn't a matter of doctrine. Because doctrine says what one must do.


Really? Show me where scripture says that ANY man is infallible, other than Jesus.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


You are calling it hypocrisy because you are making assumptions.

Assumptions based on Scripture.


Some folk seem to think that piling it on think is a good substitute for a factual response. I am not one of those. When you have something of substance, please feel free to provide it.

That's what people say when they've been rebunked.

sndbay,
Jesus built HIS Church on a rock called Peter and the gates of heal have not prevailed against it for 2000 years as Jesus promised.
I do believe what Jesus said and did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay,
Jesus built HIS Church on a rock called Peter and the gates of heal have not prevailed against it for 2000 years as Jesus promised.

Jesus is the foundation of the church that I am a member of, and it has lasted for 3 centuries more than your denomination.

Jesus is the foundation of the church that I am a member of, and it has lasted for 3 centuries more than your denomination.

And here it is again. Kindly justify your assertion that the Catholic Church originated not in the first century but in the fourth. What event or events of the fourth century lead you to suppose that it was then that the Catholic Church was founded?

That doesn't make sense. Jesus and Israel aren't listed together. They are presented in chronological order.

You cannot play it both ways. Either number of references matter or they don't.


If that were true, I'm sure you have presented those arguments. I'm not ignoring them, they don't exist.

I presented many of them and there are many more. However, the ones that I presented I did not to make the claim that Paul took over Jesus role as head of the church, but to point out that your claimed arguments for Peter having done so are not unique.


Another say so argument without any foundation.

You told me that you Bible said something that I do find in any other version of the Bible. If I take you at your word as an honest person, I must assume that your Bible actually reads differently.


As stone is a rock.

Deny what the English dictionaries and Greek lexicons say if you wish.


Where do you get that from? Abraham is here regarded as a Rock:

I see people take references which can be interpreted more than one way and try to interpret everything else around their interpretation of that one verse. But the proper way to understandscripture is to look at the passages which are clear and read those which are less clear in that light:

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had surrendered them?
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!

NKJV
2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock,
"Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment;
O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

That is where I get it from. The word of God. That is the Rock that I stand on - not a fallible man.


I've proven it by Scripture.

I've seen no such proof. Just your claim.


You'll have to explain how 2 Tim 3:16 has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You seem to think that some parts of scripture are more authoritative than others, thus suggesting that not all are inspired by God.


My opinion is that the Peter gathered everyone to make one decision.

I am glad that you concede that it is your opinion. I prefer to accept what God's word says, but you are welcome to your opinion.


Good, then you admit that it isn't a matter of doctrine. Because doctrine says what one must do.

You are twisting my words. I never said what you claimed. It was a doctrinal matter.
Honesty in our discussions is important.


Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This says nothing about infallibility.


Assumptions based on Scripture.

That means that they are simply assumptions based upon yopur interpretation of scripture. I prefer to accept God's word as face value.

You cannot play it both ways. Either number of references matter or they don't.

St. Peter is listed first amongst the Apostles in all but one of the lists. Jesus and Israel are never listed together.


I presented many of them and there are many more. However, the ones that I presented I did not to make the claim that Paul took over Jesus role as head of the church, but to point out that your claimed arguments for Peter having done so are not unique.

Because you couldn't . Jesus didn't rename Saul, Cephas, the Rock. He gave His name to Simon.


You told me that you Bible said something that I do find in any other version of the Bible. If I take you at your word as an honest person, I must assume that your Bible actually reads differently.

You are not only twisting Scripture but my words as well.


Deny what the English dictionaries and Greek lexicons say if you wish.

I only deny what you say.


I see people take references which can be interpreted more than one way and try to interpret everything else around their interpretation of that one verse. But the proper way to understandscripture is to look at the passages which are clear and read those which are less clear in that light:

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had surrendered them?
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!

NKJV
2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock,
"Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment;
O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

That is where I get it from. The word of God. That is the Rock that I stand on - not a fallible man.

No one denies that God is the Rock nor that Jesus is the Rock. You however deny that God called Abraham the Rock and the Jesus renamed Simon the Rock. Therefore you deny Scripture.


I've seen no such proof. Just your claim.

Riiiight.


You seem to think that some parts of scripture are more authoritative than others, thus suggesting that not all are inspired by God.

On the contrary, it is you who deny that Jesus gave Simon His name. It is you who deny that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. It is you who deny that we are to keep Scripture and Tradition. So it is you who deny Scripture.


I am glad that you concede that it is your opinion. I prefer to accept what God's word says, but you are welcome to your opinion.

I notice that you ignore the Scripture in so saying.


You are twisting my words. I never said what you claimed. It was a doctrinal matter.
Honesty in our discussions is important.

You have just admitted that there is no such doctrine. But again, show me the doctrine which says we must eat with Gentiles.


This says nothing about infallibility.

Sure it does. God ratifies every decision made by Peter.


That means that they are simply assumptions based upon yopur interpretation of scripture. I prefer to accept God's word as face value.

In other words, you read the letter of the word. But Scripture is quite clear:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

St. Peter is listed first amongst the Apostles in all but one of the lists. Jesus and Israel are never listed together.

Same old, same old. Already addressed. You also seem to think that this has something to do with leadership, a second point that falls flat. Just stating something that is your opinion does not make it true.



Because you couldn't .

But I did.


You are not only twisting Scripture but my words as well.

What claimed scripture says is not even found in scripture,a and is significantly different from that which is found in scripture.


I only deny what you say.


I quote from dictionaries and lexicons.


No one denies that God is the Rock nor that Jesus is the Rock.

Good - then we agree -it is Jesus who is the Rock.


On the contrary, it is you who deny that Jesus gave Simon His name.

Not at all. I just acknowledge what it actually was that Jesus said, and what he actually called Peter.



So it is you who deny Scripture.

Can we keep this honest?


You have just admitted that there is no such doctrine.

Like I said, can we keep this honest? If you must lie about me to defend your beliefs, are they worth defending?



But again, show me the doctrine which says we must eat with Gentiles.

Did you even read what I said?


God ratifies every decision made by Peter.

So, God is the servant of Peter and must obey everything that Peter says.

Good luck with that!! :D :p

Tj3,
Please quit twisting what others ans Scripture says.
I've asked you to stop doing that for years.
You don't hold a candle to De Maria's knowledge of Scripture as have been proven yet You ether refuse to accept that of twist what he and Scripture says.
Please stop.
Fred

Tj3,
Please quit twisting what others ans Scripture says.
I've asked you to stop doing that for years.
You don't hold a candle to De Maria's knowledge of Scripture as have been proven yet You ether refuse to accept that of twist what he and Scripture says.

Fred,

False accusations do not enhance your credibility. If you have nothing of value to add, then it might be best to just read the posts.

Akoue,
You asked this of Tj3, "And here it is again. Kindly justify your assertion that the Catholic Church originated not in the first century but in the fourth. What event or events of the fourth century lead you to suppose that it was then that the Catholic Church was founded?" Others have asked the same thing of him but he cannot produce anything that overturns what Holy Scripture and actual history says though he has tried to do so.
I doubt that he will try to do so with you or De Maria, or Rickj.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
I make NO false accusation and never have.
You twisted what De Marian said and he pointed that out to you.
Fred

Akoue,
You asked this of Tj3, "And here it is again. Kindly justify your assertion that the Catholic Church originated not in the first century but in the fourth. What event or events of the fourth century lead you to suppose that it was then that the Catholic Church was founded?" Others have asked the same thing of him but he cannot produce anything that overturns what Holy Scripture and actual history says though he has tried to do so.
I doubt that he will try to do so with you or De Maria, or Rickj.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It is not the topic of this thread and Akoue seems to fear starting a new thread. I have, however, posted information on this topic before on this and other boards.

Tj3,
I make NO false accusation and never have.
You twisted what De Marian said and he pointed that out to you.
Fred

Fred,

Falsely accuse if you wish. I believe that the truth is more God honouring.

Tj3,
I'll say it one more time.
I DO NOT make false accusations.
Not only is it wrong to do so it is also a sin.
That is why I do not make them.
The best I can do it to tell the truth so that is what I do.
Like it or not.
Fred

Tj3,
I'll say it one more time.
I DO NOT make false accusations.
Not only is it wrong to do so it is also a sin.

Just saying that you don't means little when you just did so.

I am glad that you agree that it is a sin.

Tj3,
Please go back to discussing the OP.
I asked it and those are the answers I want.
Thanks,
Fred

It is not the topic of this thread and Akoue seems to fear starting a new thread. I have, however, posted information on this topic before on this and other boards.

You have spent more time dodging this question than it would have taken you to answer it. And no, you have never answered it for me. When I was first a member you made the same claim and I asked you about it then. De Maria was part of the discussion and he also encouraged you to explain yourself. Since then I have asked you many times, and each time you have hidden from it. You insist, quite doggedly, that others substantiate their claims. I wonder why you resist playing by your own rules.

And no, I'm not going to start a thread on this topic since you know that the mods would promptly delete it. Lots of similar thread topics have been deleted or radically altered in recent months. If I know that, then surely you know it too, and so your "challenge" is a hollow one.

If you're ashamed to bring it into the light of day maybe you could PM me with it sometime. Although it does seem a shame to deny others the entertainment of reading it.

Throughout scripture, men are referred to as stones (piece of a rock) whereas Jesus is referred to as the Rock.




Where do you get that from? Abraham is here regarded as a Rock:

Isaiah 51:1
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. 2Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

This verse in ( Isaiah 51:1) is actually enforcement of the " rock" that Christ comes through.. His birth right. It is the very verse that brings forth Our Father's truth of "The Key of David" .. Note: The church of Phiadelphia in (Revelation 3:7) is shown to remain true, and has The Key of David which opens a door that no man can shut..And shuts what no man can open.. This Key of David is the rock birth hertiage of Christ.



Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Scripture of verse 16:19 of Matthew, shows indeed that Peter was given the keys of heaven, it was reveal by God to Peter... Those keys are The Way, The Light which are in Christ = The Key of David.. Peter's love for Christ was shown in evident indenity and was the greatest of all in stedfast faith in Christ...

The representation of a name such as Peter, was worn as his birth given integrity. To remain solid as a rock in his love for Christ was stedfast belief, and unity in Christ... This was all given to Peter by God revealing His own truth to Peter.

We build our house upon that Truth, the love for Christ.. And knowing hear as the verses in (Matthew 7:22-26) tell us. Note: posted in # 29 ..

It is important to open the door to Christ, His name known to represent the " Anointed One"

sndbay,
Jesus built HIS Church on a rock called Peter and the gates of heal have not prevailed against it for 2000 years as Jesus promised.
I do believe what Jesus said and did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you hear Christ, and His Way, His Light is the Life... Peter accepted Christ, and loved Christ.. Peter followed Christ... The House of God is for thankfulness and praise to Christ the Anointed One, our Saviour and Lord. Your faith is the Christian faith that Peter proclaimed. Do we agree?

Matthew 18:18-19 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

I will address TJ3 report of this,

As I told him, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck.

Or we can be told by our actions and beleifs.

I can state for a fact, the teachings of TJ3 are not Catholic, thus they have to be protestant,

I would say that if anyone is misrepresenting what they are it is TJ3 thierself

By the way this is closed