Who founded your church?

[theefaith]

Dogma

Sacraments

162. The Sacraments of the New Covenant contain the grace which they signify, and bestow it on
those who do not hinder it.
163. The Sacraments work ex opere operato (simply by being done).
164. All the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer sanctifying grace on the receivers.
165. Three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders, imprint a character, that is, an
indelible spiritual mark, and for this reason cannot be repeated.
166. The Sacramental Character is a spiritual mark imprinted on the soul.
167. The Sacramental Character continues at least until the death of its bearer.
168. All the Sacraments of the New Covenant were instituted by Jesus Christ.
169. There are Seven Sacraments of the New Law.
170. The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind.
171. For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the
Sacramental Sign in the proper manner.
172. The minister must further have the intention at least of doing what the Church does.
173. In the case of adult recipients moral worthiness is necessary for the worthy or fruitful reception of the Sacraments.

Baptism

174. Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
175. The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
176. Baptism confers the grace of justification.
177. Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal.
178. Eve if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an
indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot
be repeated.
179. Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary
for all men without exception, for salvation.
180. Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
181. Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
182. The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.

 

[mjrhealth]

Dogma

Sacraments

.
182. The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.

Mens doctrines and fables for those who love Fairy stories, written by men for men, the blind leading the blind,

 

[theefaith]

Mens doctrines and fables for those who love Fairy stories, written by men for men, the blind leading the blind,

Acts 2:39

 

[mjrhealth]

Acts 2:39

And that has what to do with your religion?? All you seek to do is glorify your religion, not Christ, and what has Christ to do with a harlot??

1Co 6:15

 

[jaybird]

No James is as just an apostle / of the local church at Jerusalem peter is the head of the universal church on earth in place of Christ who is the head but assended to heaven really it is Christ continuing His ministry thru His church and peter and the apostles

no there are many historical documents that James the just was the leader.

"The leader of the first Church was James. He had gladly been given this honour, immediately on joining the Church, obviously because he was Jesus' brother. After James' death, a cousin of Jesus was chosen to be his successor, presuppose."

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS.PDF

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 acts 9 eph 2:20

MT 16 18 the rock is Jesus, Jesus is the foundation of the church. Peter was married and popes do not marry.
we also knnow that more than half the popes were nothing more then men driven by greed who bought their position with money like simon magis, thats not something that Jesus would set up.

James is the "righteous" one and the DSS leader was the teacher of righteousness

Hegesippus (2nd century), in the fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem but he does not mention by whom: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem.

Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John:


"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."


Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John:


"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."


Gospel of Thomas confirms that Jesus, after his resurrection, names James as a leader of his disciples:


The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'Where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence

 

[theefaith]

And that has what to do with your religion?? All you seek to do is glorify your religion, not Christ, and what has Christ to do with a harlot??

1Co 6:15

Christ founded our religion Matt 16:18

Acts 2:39 baptism of infants

 

[theefaith]

no there are many historical documents that James the just was the leader.

"The leader of the first Church was James. He had gladly been given this honour, immediately on joining the Church, obviously because he was Jesus' brother. After James' death, a cousin of Jesus was chosen to be his successor, presuppose."

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS.PDF




MT 16 18 the rock is Jesus, Jesus is the foundation of the church. Peter was married and popes do not marry.
we also knnow that more than half the popes were nothing more then men driven by greed who bought their position with money like simon magis, thats not something that Jesus would set up.

James is the "righteous" one and the DSS leader was the teacher of righteousness

Hegesippus (2nd century), in the fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem but he does not mention by whom: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem.

Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John:


"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."


Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John:


"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."


Gospel of Thomas confirms that Jesus, after his resurrection, names James as a leader of his disciples:


The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'Where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence

jerusalem is a local bishoprick not universal church Matt 16:18 Jn 21:17

church built by Jesus Matt 16:18 upon the apostles eph 2:20 of which peter is the first matt 10:2 and the rock Matt 16:18

you do not give the keys (authority) to a confession but to a person, our holy father of which peter is the first

James is a cousin not brother
Mary has only one son Jesus

 

[jaybird]

jerusalem is a local bishoprick not universal church Matt 16:18 Jn 21:17

church built by Jesus Matt 16:18 upon the apostles eph 2:20 of which peter is the first matt 10:2 and the rock Matt 16:18

you do not give the keys (authority) to a confession but to a person, our holy father of which peter is the first

James is a cousin not brother
Mary has only one son Jesus

i think the Judeo/Christian world considers Jerusalem more than just another town

keys do not mean pope

James is a brother but if you think cousin it does not change the fact that He is a relative.

 

[FHII]

you made a mistake in the very first one, i thought i would bring it to your attention. Peter was never made head of any church. James was made leader of the first church, and the first church was in Jerusalem not rome.

That's an interesting statement, Jaybird. I partially agree, but cannot fully agree as we simply don't know from reading the NT.

I have spoken much in the past about whether Peter was the leader of the Apostles. My conclusion was and still is that he never officially received such. He was, however, the "Alpha male" of the group. He was the boldest of the bunch. It got him in a heck of a lot of trouble with Jesus, but it also was beneficial to him. In short, Jesus never officially made him the leader, but when the other disciples were too scared to act, they tended to lean on Peter. I think Jesus recognized this..

Peter again is the boldest in the first 8 to 11 chapters of Acts. In the 9th chapter Paul starts to come onto the scene. In the 12th chapter, Peter disappears. He comes back at a crucial time in chapter 15. Then, except for Paul mentioning him in Galatians, he's not heard of again until his 2 epistles which many scholars believe (and I agree) where written in Rome sometime between 60 to 68 AD.

Two things are clear: 1. Peter disappears for a very long time from the scripture; and 2. He is never noted as starting a church. Antioch? Well it started as a grass roots movement. Barnabas was there and he got Paul to come in. Yet history outside the Bible says Peter was the first leader. Rome? pretty much the same thing MOST LIKELY. In fact, there is a verse that says Jesus needed Paul to testify in Rome.

The problem is we have to look at Luke's activities. Assuming he wrote Acts, he was there. He wrote about Peter because he was around Peter. Then Paul came on the scene and he followed Paul. He was basically a reporter without the internet, telegraph or telephone. He had no idea what Peter was up to.

That doesn't mean Peter wasn't active. That doesn't mean he didn't start Churches. It only means we didn't hear of them.

Other writers have described Peter visiting Corinth, being the first leader at Antioch (he wasn't; Paul was, but that doesn't mean Peter didn't labor there) and Rome. The latter is claimed that he was the leader for 25 years, which is seriously doubtful. Timelines certainly make it impossible that he stayed in Rome that long and its doubtful he developed any strength in Rome because Jesus had to send Paul.

Bottom line: while the Bible doesn't document Peter starting any Churches, I cannot imagine that is true. He simply didn't have a Luke to document it. I believe he may have had a ministry in Northern Turkey based on his opening statements in 1 Peter and other statements in his second epistle.

As for Rome... I believe he was there but late in his career. I believe Rome started as a grass roots movement, were strengthened by Paul's letter, further strengthened by Paul's arrival. I believe Peter arrived shortly thereafter and being much wiser than in 34 AD electrified Christians even further with his presence and words.

Granted, this is my theory. Its based on theGospels, Acts and the Epistles as well as other historical documents. I didn't give any verses, but someone with a willing and humble spirit will be rewarded if they ask.

 

[theefaith]

i think the Judeo/Christian world considers Jerusalem more than just another town

keys do not mean pope

James is a brother but if you think cousin it does not change the fact that He is a relative.

what do the keys mean?
As long as none are sons of Mary ever Virgin except Jesus

 

[theefaith]

That's an interesting statement, Jaybird. I partially agree, but cannot fully agree as we simply don't know from reading the NT.

I have spoken much in the past about whether Peter was the leader of the Apostles. My conclusion was and still is that he never officially received such. He was, however, the "Alpha male" of the group. He was the boldest of the bunch. It got him in a heck of a lot of trouble with Jesus, but it also was beneficial to him. In short, Jesus never officially made him the leader, but when the other disciples were too scared to act, they tended to lean on Peter. I think Jesus recognized this..

Peter again is the boldest in the first 8 to 11 chapters of Acts. In the 9th chapter Paul starts to come onto the scene. In the 12th chapter, Peter disappears. He comes back at a crucial time in chapter 15. Then, except for Paul mentioning him in Galatians, he's not heard of again until his 2 epistles which many scholars believe (and I agree) where written in Rome sometime between 60 to 68 AD.

Two things are clear: 1. Peter disappears for a very long time from the scripture; and 2. He is never noted as starting a church. Antioch? Well it started as a grass roots movement. Barnabas was there and he got Paul to come in. Yet history outside the Bible says Peter was the first leader. Rome? pretty much the same thing MOST LIKELY. In fact, there is a verse that says Jesus needed Paul to testify in Rome.

The problem is we have to look at Luke's activities. Assuming he wrote Acts, he was there. He wrote about Peter because he was around Peter. Then Paul came on the scene and he followed Paul. He was basically a reporter without the internet, telegraph or telephone. He had no idea what Peter was up to.

That doesn't mean Peter wasn't active. That doesn't mean he didn't start Churches. It only means we didn't hear of them.

Other writers have described Peter visiting Corinth, being the first leader at Antioch (he wasn't; Paul was, but that doesn't mean Peter didn't labor there) and Rome. The latter is claimed that he was the leader for 25 years, which is seriously doubtful. Timelines certainly make it impossible that he stayed in Rome that long and its doubtful he developed any strength in Rome because Jesus had to send Paul.

Bottom line: while the Bible doesn't document Peter starting any Churches, I cannot imagine that is true. He simply didn't have a Luke to document it. I believe he may have had a ministry in Northern Turkey based on his opening statements in 1 Peter and other statements in his second epistle.

As for Rome... I believe he was there but late in his career. I believe Rome started as a grass roots movement, were strengthened by Paul's letter, further strengthened by Paul's arrival. I believe Peter arrived shortly thereafter and being much wiser than in 34 AD electrified Christians even further with his presence and words.

Granted, this is my theory. Its based on theGospels, Acts and the Epistles as well as other historical documents. I didn't give any verses, but someone with a willing and humble spirit will be rewarded if they ask.

Peter head day of the church on earth!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

Matt 17:27
Jesus and Peter are one:
Jesus even works a miracle to make this point. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mt 16:18 Peter received the keys of the kingdom: (jurisdictional authority of the universal church) and the power to bind and loose:

Mt 17:27
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter:

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:

Matt 10:2
Peter is the prince of the apostles, head of the universal church on earth!

Jn 20:21-23
Peter and the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins:

Acts 1:15 1:17 1:26
Peter declares Judas office of apostle valid and vacant and chooses a successor:

Acts 2:14
Peter preaches the first sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 2:38
Peter requires baptism as the outward sign and initiation into the new covenant!

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

Acts 5 authority of the apostles verified by them being stricken dead by God verifying Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and the apostles have the light of the Holy Spirit!


1 Tim 1 Paul is Timothy’s spiritual father.
1 Jn 2:1 little children are adult Christians, John is their spiritual father.

Apostles have Care for our souls
(Acts 20:28 Jn 21:17 Heb 13:17)

———

The successors of Moses having kingdom authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose Mt 23 was taken from them Mt 21:43 and given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: Mt 16:18 Mt 18:18 and Jesus says this power and authority is to be obeyed!

Rom 13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(If it applies to civil authority, how much more to religious authority)

Mt 28:18-20
all authority is given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors requiring obedience, rom 1:5 obedience to the faith!
And Jesus say to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: behold I am with you even until the end of the world!!!
So the apostles have to remain until the end!

Lk 10:16 He who hears you hears me...
(The apostles and their successors)

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Without a central authority there can be no unity of the spirit, no obedience to the faith!
God - Christ - Peter - the apostles - the apostles successors - the people

Hierarchy is the nature of authority!

God always establishes order in obedience to hierarchical authority!

 

[jaybird]

That's an interesting statement, Jaybird. I partially agree, but cannot fully agree as we simply don't know from reading the NT.

I have spoken much in the past about whether Peter was the leader of the Apostles. My conclusion was and still is that he never officially received such. He was, however, the "Alpha male" of the group. He was the boldest of the bunch. It got him in a heck of a lot of trouble with Jesus, but it also was beneficial to him. In short, Jesus never officially made him the leader, but when the other disciples were too scared to act, they tended to lean on Peter. I think Jesus recognized this..

Peter again is the boldest in the first 8 to 11 chapters of Acts. In the 9th chapter Paul starts to come onto the scene. In the 12th chapter, Peter disappears. He comes back at a crucial time in chapter 15. Then, except for Paul mentioning him in Galatians, he's not heard of again until his 2 epistles which many scholars believe (and I agree) where written in Rome sometime between 60 to 68 AD.

Two things are clear: 1. Peter disappears for a very long time from the scripture; and 2. He is never noted as starting a church. Antioch? Well it started as a grass roots movement. Barnabas was there and he got Paul to come in. Yet history outside the Bible says Peter was the first leader. Rome? pretty much the same thing MOST LIKELY. In fact, there is a verse that says Jesus needed Paul to testify in Rome.

The problem is we have to look at Luke's activities. Assuming he wrote Acts, he was there. He wrote about Peter because he was around Peter. Then Paul came on the scene and he followed Paul. He was basically a reporter without the internet, telegraph or telephone. He had no idea what Peter was up to.

That doesn't mean Peter wasn't active. That doesn't mean he didn't start Churches. It only means we didn't hear of them.

Other writers have described Peter visiting Corinth, being the first leader at Antioch (he wasn't; Paul was, but that doesn't mean Peter didn't labor there) and Rome. The latter is claimed that he was the leader for 25 years, which is seriously doubtful. Timelines certainly make it impossible that he stayed in Rome that long and its doubtful he developed any strength in Rome because Jesus had to send Paul.

Bottom line: while the Bible doesn't document Peter starting any Churches, I cannot imagine that is true. He simply didn't have a Luke to document it. I believe he may have had a ministry in Northern Turkey based on his opening statements in 1 Peter and other statements in his second epistle.

As for Rome... I believe he was there but late in his career. I believe Rome started as a grass roots movement, were strengthened by Paul's letter, further strengthened by Paul's arrival. I believe Peter arrived shortly thereafter and being much wiser than in 34 AD electrified Christians even further with his presence and words.

Granted, this is my theory. Its based on theGospels, Acts and the Epistles as well as other historical documents. I didn't give any verses, but someone with a willing and humble spirit will be rewarded if they ask.

i agree with a lot of this. my personal opinion favors the three elders, James, Peter and John. these are the ones that went up the mountain, this is the way the Qumran community was set up. however Qumran did have a teacher of rightiousness but this position was nothing like a bishop or pope, it was a leader in more of a position of Honor.
however if you weigh all the evidence to suppot a single person as leader it would have been James. James lead the church at Jerusalem, James went into the most Holy place, and all the early church fathers have James as the leader, but again, i dont think this position was anything like a bishop, pope, seat of authority type of position.
there are more historical documents written on James than anyone else in the NT days of Jesus. most of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus comes from the writings on James as they are always to the effect "brother of Jesus" when he is referenced.

 

[theefaith]

i agree with a lot of this. my personal opinion favors the three elders, James, Peter and John. these are the ones that went up the mountain, this is the way the Qumran community was set up. however Qumran did have a teacher of rightiousness but this position was nothing like a bishop or pope, it was a leader in more of a position of Honor.
however if you weigh all the evidence to suppot a single person as leader it would have been James. James lead the church at Jerusalem, James went into the most Holy place, and all the early church fathers have James as the leader, but again, i dont think this position was anything like a bishop, pope, seat of authority type of position.
there are more historical documents written on James than anyone else in the NT days of Jesus. most of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus comes from the writings on James as they are always to the effect "brother of Jesus" when he is referenced.

only to Peter

Peter head day of the church on earth!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

Matt 17:27
Jesus and Peter are one:
Jesus even works a miracle to make this point. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mt 16:18 Peter received the keys of the kingdom: (jurisdictional authority of the universal church) and the power to bind and loose:

Mt 17:27
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter:

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:

Matt 10:2
Peter is the prince of the apostles, head of the universal church on earth!

Jn 20:21-23
Peter and the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins:

Acts 1:15 1:17 1:26
Peter declares Judas office of apostle valid and vacant and chooses a successor:

Acts 2:14
Peter preaches the first sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 2:38
Peter requires baptism as the outward sign and initiation into the new covenant!

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

Acts 5 authority of the apostles verified by them being stricken dead by God verifying Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and the apostles have the light of the Holy Spirit!


1 Tim 1 Paul is Timothy’s spiritual father.
1 Jn 2:1 little children are adult Christians, John is their spiritual father.

Apostles have Care for our souls
(Acts 20:28 Jn 21:17 Heb 13:17)

———

The successors of Moses having kingdom authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose Mt 23 was taken from them Mt 21:43 and given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: Mt 16:18 Mt 18:18 and Jesus says this power and authority is to be obeyed!

Rom 13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(If it applies to civil authority, how much more to religious authority)

Mt 28:18-20
all authority is given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors requiring obedience, rom 1:5 obedience to the faith!
And Jesus say to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: behold I am with you even until the end of the world!!!
So the apostles have to remain until the end!

Lk 10:16 He who hears you hears me...
(The apostles and their successors)

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Without a central authority there can be no unity of the spirit, no obedience to the faith!
God - Christ - Peter - the apostles - the apostles successors - the people

Hierarchy is the nature of authority!

God always establishes order in obedience to hierarchical authority!

 

[jaybird]

what do the keys mean?
As long as none are sons of Mary ever Virgin except Jesus

keys open locked doors.
as for as establishing a line of popes to rule europe, your gonna need more hard evidence than that.

popes burned people alive, sent roman legions to destroy towns full of women and children, authorized inquisitions, ordered their churches to strike when the kings would not bow down to them which caused great suffering for the common people, they had strings of lovers, used money to buy their positions, etc etc.
these are not examples of anything Jesus would have done. pope succession is a result of church corruption.

 

[jaybird]

only to Peter

Peter head day of the church on earth!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

Matt 17:27
Jesus and Peter are one:
Jesus even works a miracle to make this point. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mt 16:18 Peter received the keys of the kingdom: (jurisdictional authority of the universal church) and the power to bind and loose:

Mt 17:27
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter:

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:

Matt 10:2
Peter is the prince of the apostles, head of the universal church on earth!

Jn 20:21-23
Peter and the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins:

Acts 1:15 1:17 1:26
Peter declares Judas office of apostle valid and vacant and chooses a successor:

Acts 2:14
Peter preaches the first sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 2:38
Peter requires baptism as the outward sign and initiation into the new covenant!

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

Acts 5 authority of the apostles verified by them being stricken dead by God verifying Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and the apostles have the light of the Holy Spirit!


1 Tim 1 Paul is Timothy’s spiritual father.
1 Jn 2:1 little children are adult Christians, John is their spiritual father.

Apostles have Care for our souls
(Acts 20:28 Jn 21:17 Heb 13:17)

———

The successors of Moses having kingdom authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose Mt 23 was taken from them Mt 21:43 and given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: Mt 16:18 Mt 18:18 and Jesus says this power and authority is to be obeyed!

Rom 13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(If it applies to civil authority, how much more to religious authority)

Mt 28:18-20
all authority is given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors requiring obedience, rom 1:5 obedience to the faith!
And Jesus say to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: behold I am with you even until the end of the world!!!
So the apostles have to remain until the end!

Lk 10:16 He who hears you hears me...
(The apostles and their successors)

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Without a central authority there can be no unity of the spirit, no obedience to the faith!
God - Christ - Peter - the apostles - the apostles successors - the people

Hierarchy is the nature of authority!

God always establishes order in obedience to hierarchical authority!

none of these have anything to do with a pope succession, and none name Peter as any leader.

 

[FHII]

i agree with a lot of this. my personal opinion favors the three elders, James, Peter and John. these are the ones that went up the mountain, this is the way the Qumran community was set up. however Qumran did have a teacher of rightiousness but this position was nothing like a bishop or pope, it was a leader in more of a position of Honor.
however if you weigh all the evidence to suppot a single person as leader it would have been James. James lead the church at Jerusalem, James went into the most Holy place, and all the early church fathers have James as the leader, but again, i dont think this position was anything like a bishop, pope, seat of authority type of position.
there are more historical documents written on James than anyone else in the NT days of Jesus. most of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus comes from the writings on James as they are always to the effect "brother of Jesus" when he is referenced.

Well, I am not entirely sure I understand your position. My belief is that the Apostle James was not the same as the James in Acts 15, whom I believe to be the half brother by blood of Jesus. My belief is that the Epistle of James was not that of the Apostle James, but of the half brother of Jesus.

If so, I like James. I believe he was a martyr. I believe he was a God fearing man. I believe he is a saint, but I believe he was in contrast to Paul, and Acts bears me out.

 

[mjrhealth]

Christ founded our religion Matt 16:18

Acts 2:39 baptism of infants

No He didnt, He has nothing to do with mens religions,, will you forever slander His name and attach Him to thing which are not His, men love to do that.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

They cant help themselves.

 

[FHII]

Mt 17:27
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

No. This verse doesn't say anything line that.

Matthew 17:27 KJV
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece s of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

You make a lot of good points that scripture does "seemingly" support. Peter was a great apostle! I will never demy that! Like I said, he was the boldest of them. He suffered the most abuse from Jesus and gained the most.

The problem is you don't have your ducks in a row. Get back to me when you do.

You may want to start with Luke 22:32.

 

[theefaith]

No He didnt, He has nothing to do with mens religions,, will you forever slander His name and attach Him to thing which are not His, men love to do that.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

They cant help themselves.

matt 16:18 days Jesus builds a church? What church?

 

[theefaith]

Your right I had the wrong verse
Lk 22:32 Peter commanded to strengthen the other apostles