What is the one true Church?
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Are we discussing the Trinity?
Communal meal is a meal that includes the bread and wine ritual as Christ demonstrated with the Last Supper. Catholic Church above Christ?
I do not recognize any ruling from the Catholic Church.....definitely nothing from the Vatican......As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1st John 2:27
Correct as will as the wilderness and private homes.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
There was but one Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Great Schism happened, and the Orthodox splintered off. Finally, in the 16th century, Protestantism was begun and has continually splintered into more and more different-believing, doctrinally contradicting denominations, all based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture which St. Peter warns strictly against in 2 Peter 1:20-21.
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a (one) Church.
When St. Paul (Saul's Roman name was Paul), was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" (Acts 9:4) Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was, but "...why are you persecting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church and you persecute Christ!
St. Peter, the first Pope, appointed St. Ignatius of Antioch as bishop of Antioch. He was captured by the Romans and sent to Rome to be martyred for the faith. Along the journey (about 107 A.D.), he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans, in which he referred to the "Catholic Church" not as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand that about which he was writing.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the full letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a (one) Church.
When St. Paul (Saul's Roman name was Paul), was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" (Acts 9:4) Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was, but "...why are you persecting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church and you persecute Christ!
St. Peter, the first Pope, appointed St. Ignatius of Antioch as bishop of Antioch. He was captured by the Romans and sent to Rome to be martyred for the faith. Along the journey (about 107 A.D.), he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans, in which he referred to the "Catholic Church" not as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand that about which he was writing.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the full letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You got stuff going on here.
Christianity existed before the Edict of Milan.....the Church did not.
Christianity existed before the Edict of Milan....but they were not in agreement.
Christian congregations existed before the Edict of Milan but no church buildings.
The Catholic Church had no power or authority until after the Edict of Milan and that was because the Roman Empire backed them.
The oldest sustained church is the Coptic church out of Alexandria Egypt....established 40 ad. And the Coptic church is the only church to be prophesied in the Old Testament.
It is a shame that the Protestants were not more cautious about multiplying denominations.
It is a shame that Christ's Church was fractured into thousands of pieces.
But what choice did they have? The Catholic Church was guilty of the worst atrocities and corruptions ever seen on earth!
Martin Luther wanted to reform the Church but the amount of resistance he met caused the idea to morph into a schism and it got out of hand. But it had to happen, the Catholic Church had to be bridled and the teeth of the serpent pulled.....and that is from someone that loves Catholics and the Church.
Yes but it was not the Catholic Church.
Peter was not the first pope....the first person to be officially assigned to the office of pope.....that is producing official correspondence from the pope, with pope being part of the signature...The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century. Retro fitting the title to people does not count. I mean you can call Elijah an astronaut, but he did not hold the title.
Peter was not a Christian leader anymore than the other Apostles. James the brother of Christ was the leader of the Jewish-Christians and Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians. I mean they are all great but Peter did not take the helm of leadership. And in no way does the Catholic Church hold anymore connection to Peter or any of the Apostles more than any Christian....
The mission of the Church is to preach the Word of God.....authority is a slippery slope....once you think you have the authority of God, your demise is written on the wall. Total power corrupts totally and evil is on it coattails.
Last edited:
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Oh YES, Elohim is the Way the Truth and the Life =3x
Isaiah 43:10 -12
You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.
I have declared and saved,
I have proclaimed,
And there was no foreign god among you;
Therefore you are My witnesses,”
Says the Lord, “that I am God.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". - Gospel
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be MY witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
There has only been One True Church and it was never roman catholocism.
Denominations, especcially RCC, are man-made.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
The Edict of Milan was issued in 313 A.D. in order to make Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. It didn't start Catholicism. There is written proof of the "Catholic" Church as early as 107 A.D. There were no other Churches around then. The Coptics were part of the Catholic Church. They left, came back, left again, etc. There are still branches of the Coptic Church that are in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Peter was the first person to hold the office established by Christ in Matt. 16:18-19, and to whom He gave the "keys" which are symbolic of the office. Reference Isaiah 22:22 vis-a-vis the keys. In ancient times, the king always had a second-in-command to rule the kingdom when the king was away fighting wars, visiting other kingdoms, ill, etc. When the king returned, he upheld whatever the second-in-command had ruled. If the second-in-command died, he was replaced. In other words, the position was dynastic - it was ongoing with successors. This is the position Jesus, Our King, created, because He knew He would be ascending to heaven and needed a second-in-command here to govern His Church. And whenever we read a list of the Apostles, Peter is always mentioned first; Judas Iscariot is mentioned last. This is not a coincidence.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
History disagrees with you, heartily.
BTW, the official title of the Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, but simply, the Catholic Church. The Roman part was added by the Anglicans as a polemic centuries after the Catholic Church was in operation.
Did you read the letter by St. Ignatious of Antioch to the Smyrneaens in 107 A.D., where he referred to the "Catholic Church?" There were no other churches then.
In 1054 A.D., the Orthodox splintered off, but retained Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacrmanets. See an explanation of what happened here: Great Schism: The Bitter Rivalry Between Greek and Latin Christianity
Denominations actually started with Protestantism, which began 16 centuries after Catholicism and 6 centuries after the Orthodox. And it has been splintering ever since, into more and more and more denominations, all based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture, which the Bible warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21:
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Man made denominations began when the Apostles were still on earth.
the LORD Jesus Christ spoke of your 'catholicism' - Revelation ch2
"These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary. Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.
But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
Currently, your mind is under the sway of the worldview.
You see from that viewpoint.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Again, I refer you to 2 Peter 1:20-21. Using personal interpretation of Scripture is not supported. It's not that you get everything wrong, but you risk error. If there were any validity to Protestantism, there would be one Protestant denomination, all believing the same thing, not thousands, all disagreeing with one another. And you would have to explain how, 16 centuries after Christ established His Church, somehow Protestantism was visited by Jesus or an angel to give them a list of "corrections" to what had always been taught from the beginning.
Also, reference 1 Tim 3:15 that says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." It doesn't say the individual, reading his/her Bible and self-interpreting it for their own doctrines and beliefs is anything of the sort.
One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written, “As regards `Catholic,’ its original meaning was `universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . ” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).
My viewpoint is from the Church founded by Christ, which Christ promised to remain with until the end of the world and promised to never teach doctrinal error, and from history.
Also, reference 1 Tim 3:15 that says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." It doesn't say the individual, reading his/her Bible and self-interpreting it for their own doctrines and beliefs is anything of the sort.
One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written, “As regards `Catholic,’ its original meaning was `universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . ” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).
My viewpoint is from the Church founded by Christ, which Christ promised to remain with until the end of the world and promised to never teach doctrinal error, and from history.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
RCC is "personal interpretation" unto apostasy and fulfills our Lord's warning of "wolves in sheeps clothing."
the Vatican in Rome will burn with the fire of God's Judgment upon the Harlot
"HE will put it in their hearts to burn her with fire" - Revelation
the One True Church was never built by men's hands and there never was any earthbound building established/errected or dedicated to it.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Correct but the Catholic Church could and did not start until after that. Before the ecumenical councils Christianity existed as an unorganized religion with various beliefs.
I know your "proof" it is proof someone used the term, but no proof of an organized Church.
That is incorrect.
Totally wrong. The Coptic Church....lots of history....40 AD....the only organized Church that existed at the time and no Catholic Church to be involved with. The Catholic Church was not represented at the start of ecumenical councils.....the Coptic Church was represented. This is very simple.....brain on! If Christianity was organized and of one belief before the ecumenical councils, there would have been no need for the ecumenical councils. The only leader with authority at Nicaea was Emperor Constantine.
There is no office. These verse are a good example of people keying on a set of verses and literally basing their whole religion on it, completely taking it out of context and ignoring the storyline and how it all worked out.
Then a few verses later.....
But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Matthew 16:23 And we are all familiar with Peter denying Christ three times. Peter was not at the cross with Christ and when Christ appeared to the Apostles, Peter was among those that thought that it was more likely that He was ghost.....He did not believe in the resurrection. He was no rock for the Christians.....Cephas was was a nick name referring to his intelligence.
Peter never took on the role of leader in the Christian community. Christ's brother James....who was not an Apostle....was the leader of the Jewish-Christians and Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians. Peter teamed up with Paul and did some great things but at times they were at odds with each other.
Again Peter never took on the role as leader more than any of the other Apostles that saw James and Paul as leaders. The position that Christ created was set when He picked the twelve....the position was planned for all of them.
Peter and Mary Magdalene were listed first.....did that make Peter and Mary Magdalene the leaders of Christianity?....NO.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
- The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (sanctioned by the Pope) was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.
- That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.
- 218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:
- In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:
170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass):
“On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
“When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . . and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
“Then someone bring bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharstian) that we have been judges worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’
“When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give those present the “eucharsited” bread, wine and after and take them to those who are absent.”
- 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:
It is true. If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.” Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?
The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true.
Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.
See above.
The Coptic Church is one of many rites in the Catholic Church.
The Copts are descendants of pre-Islamic Egyptians, who spoke a late form of the Egyptian language known as Coptic. Such a descendant was identified in Greek as a Aigyptios (Arabic qibṭ, Westernized as Copt). When Egyptian Muslims later ceased to call themselves by the demonym, the term became the distinctive name of the Christian minority. After Copts began converting to Roman Catholicism (see also Coptic Catholic Church) and Protestant sects, Copts of the Oriental Orthodox communion began to call themselves Coptic Orthodox to distinguish themselves from other Christians of Coptic background.
Copt | Definition, Religion, History, & Facts
Copt, a member of Egypt’s indigenous Christian ethno-religious community. The terms Copt and Coptic are variously used to denote either the members of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the largest Christian body in Egypt, or as generic terms for Egyptian Christians; this article focuses primarily on...
www.britannica.com
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
The Early Papacy - 3 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the Great scion of David the King with Peter as his
www.patheos.com
This is the favorite "anti-Peter" verse abused by hostile anti-Catholics and has been addressed a million times, you keep ignoring it.
Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.
Then Jesus does what? He teaches about redemptive suffering.
Matthew 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
The very concept of redemptive suffering is totally absent in all of Protestantism.
Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles – “Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
Jesus prayed for Peter called Satan? Please, grow a brain cell.
Because he was afraid for his life, and his formation as leader of the Apostles was not yet complete. After the Resurrection:
John 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep".
Why did Jesus single out Peter, and no one else??? Is Jesus telling Satan to feed His sheep? Please, grow a brain cell.
No, but His mother was. Her pain was prophesied by Simeon when Jesus was a baby.
Luke 2:33 And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him. 34 Then Simeon[f] blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed 35 so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
Who are "the many"???
Here is a list of all the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles and saints whose soul was pierced:
Yes, ROCK means stupidity. It's all over the Bible.
You are cranking up your hostility because your foolish arguments are being demolished.Contrary to dozens of scriptures. THE PRIMACY OF PETER - Scripture Catholic
Seriously? A non-Apostle wrote the book of James? Interesting...
Wrong. Peter and Paul had no doctrinal differences whatsoever. Paul scolded Peter for his behavior in that instance, not his teaching. Popes have been scolded by saints throughout history, but that doesn't prove they have no authority.
Only the warped mind of an anti-Catholic says Peter was teaching and hiding at the same time.
In fact, Paul went to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was the same as theirs, not the other way around. See Acts 2.
Then explain why Peter was given the keys of the kingdom as an individual, and later, the Apostles as a collective. Peter's preeminence doesn't get much plainer than that, but not to blind anti-Peter morons.
You're getting more desperate. Peter and John raced to the empty tomb, but John won the race. John 20:4 He stopped to let Peter in first. John 20:5
You have no idea why.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL So you think that the only order of business at the first council of Nicaea was Arianism? So funny!
Back before the ecumenical councils the Catholic Church did not exist as an organized religion. No one "Church" represented or had authority over the seven churches of Asia minor or the Coptic Church. The Coptic church founded 40 AD was the first church to have distinct organized structure. Believed to have been founded by Mark the church did and does not recognize Peter as a leader under any title except Apostle.
The first church built after the Edict of Milan was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and it was not designated as Catholic.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You can call anyone in history Pope but which person was called Pope when they were alive. Why not Pope Moses....he had a closer connection to God than any Pope? And come to think about it, I have studied the Marian apparitions and miracles, do you know of a time she visited the Pope or recognized anyone as Pope? I have not found any.
The Bible is not anti-Peter! Truth is not anti-Peter! and I am not anti-Peter! And telling the truth is not anti-Catholic. If someone would say something like that to me I would slap the snot out of them.
You so funny.....Afraid for his life because he really did not believe......and all the women at the cross believed and had the courage to be there! Why? Because they knew Christ's mother and she knew who His Father was.
Site in the scriptures where the word leader is assigned to Peter.
That is true depending on your definition of Apostle.
1. The Bible says His family were not believers.
2. The Bible does not indicate that James joined Christ's ministry.
I mostly agree.
Christ did not hand Peter a keyring. It is symbolic and exactly what it meant cannot seen in motion in the scriptures. He never was called a leader and never took a leadership role.
You are the one that pointed out that being at the top of list meant something.
Last edited:
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Jesus giving the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter in Matt. 16:18 is an almost verbatim fulfillment of the promise God made to Eliakim, when He gave him the Keys to the House of David in Isa. 22:20-22.
The "Keys" symbolize SUPREME AUTHORITY.
Peter was absolutely in chare because the Bible says so.
NONE of you has been able to refute the following, which I have posted ad nauseam on this forum . . .
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.
b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.
c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.
d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??
e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??
f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??
g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??
h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??
i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??
j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??
k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??
l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??
m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I understand that.....it just did not happen.
Again I understand all that it just did not happen.
As far as the anathema in the Christian commune, I think any of the Apostles could have done that.
All I am asking you for is a scripture referring to him as a leader.
Now if you are saying that Peter was the only Apostle to perform miracles....we can talk about that.
Keeping things in perspective, I think Peter was a great Apostle.......Just no one you needed to form a Church or religion on.
Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??
I do not see the words leader or in charge here and don't thing this has anything to do with being a leader.
Now Christ picked Mary Magdalene to go proclaim His resurrection.....Now that was something that a leader would be blessed with........plus the fact that while the Apostles were hiding and the women came to the tomb might tell you something.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Hello Patrick,
On the contrary! In identifying Tradition as the correct context within to read scripture, one is affirming that Jesus gave to us, through the apostles, everything we need to live the Faith...
We know what we believe and LIVE, because we know from whom we have received it.
Our doctrine is not our own, but that of our brothers and sisters for 2000 years!
You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!
Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!
Similar threads
