 |
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.
Also see here.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Please recheck your references. It would be a stretech to say any of these were presenting Peter as a spokesman.Quote:
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69),
Again, a very weak argument.Quote:
and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28).
Not true. They all were speaking prior to Peter, because they said that they heard them in their own languages.Quote:
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40),
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
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.Quote:
and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
Acts 2:43-44
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through
The apostles.
NKJV
This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is found here:Quote:
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).
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.
Actually, it was announced to the two Marys just prior to that and they were told to go tell the disciples.Quote:
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7),
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.Quote:
and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
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:Quote:
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26),
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.
This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.Quote:
and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
Yes, this is true. Just as it is true that when Peter was out of line on a doctrinal issue, Paul rebuked him.Quote:
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11),
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.
Again true, but being the first to do so does not make him leader.Quote:
and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
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:
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
[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.
From the context of the question, Fred is asking Catholics for apologetical information.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.
Not really. It is customary in almost every culture to list the leader first. And we do have much more evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
He is listed first some 17 times. But you go by the exception?Quote:
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.
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:
That isn't true. Typically the Chairman of the board sets the tone and direction of the meeting:Quote:
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.
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.
But this one is pretty obvious:Quote:
Please recheck your references. It would be a stretech to say any of these were presenting Peter as a spokesman.
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.
But its much stronger than yours.Quote:
Again, a very weak argument.
Your own references prove you wrong. Note how the people singled out Peter. They addressed Peter as the spokesman for the Apostles.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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 unique to Peter. Jesus didn't direct these words to anyone else:Quote:
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.
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.
They were told to go toQuote:
Actually, it was announced to the two Marys just prior to that and they were told to go tell the disciples.
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.
But putting all the evidence together, it is what would be expected. And thus, his leadership role is again confirmed.Quote:
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.
:confused: Finding the replacement for Judas, an apostle of our Lord Jesus, is a small thing?Quote:
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.
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.
Sure it is. It is further confirmation of his leadership role.Quote:
this is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.
1. It was not a doctrinal issue. But a behaviorial issue.Quote:
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.
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.
Being first is one attribute of leadership.Quote:
Again true, but being the first to do so does not make him leader.
That is your Protestant twist on the issue. It is evident that St. Peter made the decision and the group ratified it.Quote:
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)
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.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 you could provide a stronger argument, you would have. The absence of such an argument from your quarter speaks volumes.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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
I would assume that if someone asks a question that they want real answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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 is what Paul did, and James made the decision. Leaders make decisions. Peter was just one of the speakers at the meeting.Quote:
That isn't true. Typically the Chairman of the board sets the tone and direction of the meeting:
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
That is pretty much the Catholic Teaching. Lets review what Jesus said to Simon:
Right, so why would you turn around and deny that the Rock is Christ by saying...Quote:
Christ is the Rock!
When the context says nothing of the sort and the word in Greek means stone, not rock.Quote:
And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"
Where? None of the references given say that.Quote:
Your own references prove you wrong. Note how the people singled out Peter. They addressed Peter as the spokesman for the Apostles.
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).Quote:
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.
Many words were spoken to many people that were not spoken to others - so what?Quote:
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:
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.
This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders isQuote:
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.
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.
If Jesus is the one who counts, why are you trying to make Peter the leader?Quote:
Jesus, the One who counts, directed these words to Peter. Not to any of the other Apostles. That's pretty unique.
So what? Paul is singled out in many places also, for example:Quote:
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.
- 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.
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.Quote:
: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.
And you don't think that doctrine has bearing on behaviour? Interesting.Quote:
1. It was not a doctrinal issue. But a behaviorial issue.
Only your denomination claims that a man can be infallible.Quote:
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Leave your misrepresentations out of this. You know that I am not a protestant.Quote:
That is your Protestant twist on the issue.
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:Quote:
It is evident that St. Peter made the decision and the group ratified it.
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
Hey, maybe you lent it to TJ3... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
TJ, that was a joke... I doubt you'd have the book!
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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..
If the Pope is the successor to Peter, then I will have to say that Peter would never approve of his conduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 AM. |