[Tj3]

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

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

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

So Paul is laying the foundation, as were all of the Apostles and that foundation is the same as the declaration of Peter, which is Jesus Christ and the one true Gospel. Or as Paul said:

1 Cor 2:1-3
2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
NKJV

Scripture is clear - there is no other foundation than Christ.

I see no contradiction. If you see a contradiction please clarify.

[JoeT777]

[B]

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

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

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

JoeT

[sndbay]

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

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

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

EDIT:

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

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

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

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

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

JoeT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


~Rest on Christ

[JoeT777]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoeT

[JoeT777]

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


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


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


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

JoeT

[Tj3]

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

Right. If you read the context it is NOT referring to your denomination or any other, but the body of all believers;

1 Cor 12:27
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV


"The church" is not a manmade church organization but rather a body of those who have been saved, over whom is the one and only head of the church, Jesus.

There are a few denominations (fortunately not many) who make the claim to be the Only True Church. That has always struck me as extremely arrogant and presumptuous.

[JoeT777]

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

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

How then if we are good solo-scripturists can we not see the Catholic Church? Of course when our faith fails objectivity we turn inwardly to subject God’s truth to the will.

JoeT

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

[JoeT777]

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

I agree.

JoeT

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

There is no evidence, because Jesus was the leader.

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

[Akoue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

[Akoue]

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

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

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

[arcura]

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

[Akoue]

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

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

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

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ch-325955.html

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

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

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