Built On The Wrong Apostle

[amadeus]

BTW.... I am "simply following God" and he told me you are wrong. How can we know for certain that those men were right? We never will, will we. We are forever in the dark and this is all a cruel trick by God. No one will ever know who is right and who is wrong....

Since I have already made up my mind on all these things???? What? Are you being serious??? Like you haven't already made up your mind on all these things???

No, I have not made up my mind on all the things you mean. My heart remains open to God and sometimes He speaks to me through people, even people who disagree with what I have believed.

What you really mean is your not going to change your mind and since you can't change my mind then you don't want to discuss it. ;)

No, I cannot change your mind as you cannot change my mind:

"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." I Cor 3:6-7

Always it is God who gives the increase to anyone if anyone receives an increase.

BTW... I don't care if you disagree. According to your theory my truth is just as valid as your truth. If I was to live by your theory as a Catholic I could tell the magisterium of the Catholic Church that they are wrong and I could be right....since nobody really knows The Truth. I could say murder is not a sin and I could be right.....since, according to your theory, nobody knows The Truth of scripture. Since God told me you were wrong and I was right I know I am right. Of course he also told you that I am wrong and your right so I suspect you THINK you are right also. Your theory kiddo, not mine.

I do not say that nobody knows the Truth. Again you are putting words in my mouth because you do not understand me and you really do not understand how God works. You presume that the magisterium of that church does.

God knows the truth and on any point where it is needed and a person asks, not amiss, of God that person will receive it. A person who is one of His sheep will hear His voice, but even with "ears to hear" a person must also pay attention and obey. Quenching the Holy Spirit of God will get anyone into trouble with God and leave them in their own confusion. This is what many people in many churches, including the Catholic, do altogether too regularly. So you find a whole lot of confusion in the churches. Are you confused now at my words?

I ASK YOU AMADEAUS: Does ANYONE know how to properly translate scripture and obtain The Truth from it???? If you can just answer that question with a logical answer I will be happy!!!

A nice clear answer would prevent me from putting words in your mouth....:)

Translate it? Probably not the word I would use. I would say interpret it. God always has the correct interpretation.

The Holy Spirit is able to give any person the Truth [the correct interpretation] from the dead words, that is, from the dead carcass. If the Holy Spirit quickens the dead words of scripture consumed by a person they then become the Word of God Alive in the person. People without the Holy Spirit in them or people who continuously quench the Holy Spirit in them can memorize the Bible and not know God at all. The answer I have given is clear and logical to anyone who has had it quickened in them by the Holy Spirit.

Have a great day...Mary

(I have a feeling I won't get a clear answer)

Sorry for the confusion. God is NOT the author of the confusion which is why after Jesus was resurrected the Holy Spirit was sent, but you cannot quench the Spirit and receive a clear answer.

 

[epostle1]

This is a myth that never seems to die. The ecumenical council of Nicea (325 AD) didn't address the canon of Scripture. The first councils to do so were the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). If you would like to see for yourself, I'm providing a link to Philip Schaff's History Of The Christian Church. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

If you want to skip right to the description of the council go to the section entitled: § 120. The Council of Nicaea, 325.

The first councils to do so were the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). It's true they were regional councils of north Africa but their findings were sent to the transmarine church (Rome) for final ratification. That is when the Pope canonized the holy books.
C of Nicae had a lot of clergy reforms. Do you agree they were needed at the time?
CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)

 

[epostle1]

Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars

Matthew 16:18

A. New Bible Dictionary

“. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (4: 972)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)

“The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of `petra’ to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: `On this rock will I build.’ Again, Christ is the great foundation, the `chief cornerstone,’ but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

“Equally untenable is the explanation which refers `petra’ to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . .

“The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14,37; Acts 3:2; 4:8; Acts 5:15,29; Acts 9:34,40; Acts 10:25-6; Gal 1:18.” (11; v.1: 91-92)

C. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985)

“Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.” (1)

D. Wycliffe Bible Commentary

“Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter . . . is the rock.” (7: 959)

E. New Bible Commentary

“Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.” (6: 837)

F. Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann)

“In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter’s authority to `bind’ or `release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” (2)

G. Robert McAfee Brown

“Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the `rock’ on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.” (3)

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)

“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . .It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be `rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for `rock’, `petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine `petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form `kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the `rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . .

“Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (4)

I. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (D. A. Carson)

“On the basis of the distinction between `petros’ . . . and `petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere`stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the `rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken `rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .

“The Greek makes the distinction between `petros’ and `petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine “petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .

“Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been `lithos’ )`stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun – and that is just the point! . . .

“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (5)

 

[epostle1]

J. Peter in the New Testament
“Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of `Kepha’/`kepha’, there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference `Petros’/`petra’? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . . ; K. Stendahl in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p.787.” (6)

K. Richard Baumann

“Luther . . . took his rejection of the Petrine office from his erroneous interpretation of Christ’s saying in Matthew 16 . . . But today we recognize Luther’s error and give it up. `Anti-Catholic polemic has done violence to the Lord’s saying because it defines the Rock upon which Jesus builds His community not as Peter but as his faith and confession . . . What is spoken of, however, in Matthew 16 is the man to whom Jesus entrusts His work, (7)’ writes the Protestant theologian Adolf Schlatter.” (8)

2. The “Keys of the Kingdom” (Matthew 16:19)

A. New Bible Dictionary

“In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

“So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be `God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p. 205).” (4: 1018)

B. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary

“In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church.” (5: 622)

C. New Bible Commentary

“The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. `And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7).” (6: 837)

D. New Bible Dictionary

“In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is `over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: `epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and `oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from `oikos’ (`house’) and `nemo’ (`to dispense’ or `to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility.” (4: 1216)

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

i) “Master of the palace” JB (188:vs)/ NAB
ii) “In charge of the palace” NIV
iii) “Master of the household” NRSV
iv) “In charge of the royal household” NASB
v) “Comptroller of the household” REB
vi) “Governor of the palace” MOF

E. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary (On Isaiah 22)

“[The steward is] `the king’s friend,’ or `principal officer of the court’ (1 Ki 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chron 27:33, `the king’s counsellor’) . . .

“Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of `David,’ of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [“. . . and the government shall be upon his shoulder . . .”]. In Revelation 3:7, the same language as the latter clause is found (cf. Job 12:14).” (9: 536)

F. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

“As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.” (8: 581)
Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars

 

[Nomad]

Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars

Such a desperate argument. Sorry, but the giving of one's opinion 'verifies' nothing. There are just as many, if not more commentaries that disagree with the ones you list here. I disagree and I explained why previously. I've been through this with you already: Built On The Wrong Apostle

 

[epostle1]

Such a desperate argument. Sorry, but the giving of one's opinion 'verifies' nothing. There are just as many, if not more commentaries that disagree with the ones you list here. I disagree and I explained why previously. I've been through this with you already: Built On The Wrong Apostle

That's not a rebuttal, it's an excuse to cling to a dead rotten albatross around your neck. There is a difference between a qualified opinion and a conjured opinion and I don't think you can tell the difference. You wanna hang on to Luther's interpretation errors, that's your business, but what you are doing is insisting that YOUR OPINION carries more weight than a list of Protestant scholars who author reference texts, thus you claim to be more educated than any of them (at my expense) That's PRIDE, with a capital "P".
No, my material is new but for 1-2 paragraphs, and you dismiss a list of Protestant scholars as a desperate argument with nothing but empty polemics.

Quote from a published reference that you wrote that I can find in a library that refutes any of the scholars that I have used thus far. Then I may take you seriously.

 

[epostle1]

G. New Bible Commentary

“Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called `my servant’ (v.20; cf. `this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be `a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .

“The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The `shutting’ and `opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).” (6: 603)

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)

“Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of `keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a `delegation’ of God’s sovereignty.” (11)

I. Oscar Cullmann

“Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people.” (12)

J. Peter in the New Testament

“The prime minister, more literally `major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew `the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

“The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.” (13)

3. The Power to “Bind and Loose” (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 “. . . Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

A. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary

“In conferring upon Peter authority as head of the Church (Matt 16:19), Jesus uses the rabbinical technical terms `to bind’ . . . and `to loose’ . . . In rabbinic usage the terms mean `to forbid’ and `to permit’ with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily `to condemn’ or `place under the ban’ and `to acquit.’ Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life (by virtue of revelation and the subsequent leading of the Spirit; Jn 16:13) and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament (cf. Is 22:22).” (5: 158)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)

“No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of `binding’ and `loosing.’ They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (Jn 20:23) . . .

“`This legislative authority conferred upon Peter can only wear an offensive aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary character, and as being in no way determined by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connection with the rest of the apostles . . .’ (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).” (11; v.1: 96-97)

C. New Bible Commentary

“Most commentators . . . believe that the keys represent internal authority in the church rather than the power to open it up to outsiders. If this is so it would give Peter, and the apostles associated with him (18:18), not only the power to preach the `kerygma’ [proclamation of the gospel] but also to formulate the `didache’ [doctrine].” (6: 837)

D. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)

“This verse . . . probably refers primarily to a `legislative’ authority in the church, though clearly such decisions must have direct implications as to what may or may not be forgiven . . . An early instance of Peter’s exercise of this authority was when he was chosen to pioneer and authorize the church’s acceptance of Gentile converts (Acts 10-11; cf. Acts 15:7-11) . . . It is not that heaven will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.” (14)

E. Richard Baumann

“Matthew 16 indicates that the one took precedence, through God’s own intervention and purpose, in revealing the everlasting and orthodox doctrine. Others can never proclaim revealed doctrine contrary to his definition, but only in union with him, no matter how God may give it to them. This is the status and relationship of the one, commanded by God and established in history.” (12: 170) (15)

F. Peter in the New Testament

“In Matthew 16:18, when Jesus speaks of building his church, certainly `church’ cannot be interpreted to refer simply to the local Matthean community, in isolation from the other Christian communities . . . But Matthew also knows of `ekklesia’ [`church’] applied to the local community (18:17). It is interesting that the binding/loosing power given to the disciples (18:18) is mentioned in the context of the latter, while the binding/loosing power given to Peter is mentioned in the context of the former.” (16)

 

[epostle1]

4. Peter Commanded to “Feed My Sheep” (John 21:15-17)

John 21:15-17 “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

“He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

“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.”

E. Richard Baumann

“Matthew 16 indicates that the one took precedence, through God’s own intervention and purpose, in revealing the everlasting and orthodox doctrine. Others can never proclaim revealed doctrine contrary to his definition, but only in union with him, no matter how God may give it to them. This is the status and relationship of the one, commanded by God and established in history.” (12: 170) (15)

F. Peter in the New Testament

“In Matthew 16:18, when Jesus speaks of building his church, certainly `church’ cannot be interpreted to refer simply to the local Matthean community, in isolation from the other Christian communities . . . But Matthew also knows of `ekklesia’ [`church’] applied to the local community (18:17). It is interesting that the binding/loosing power given to the disciples (18:18) is mentioned in the context of the latter, while the binding/loosing power given to Peter is mentioned in the context of the former.” (16)

A. New Bible Commentary

“There are slight differences . . . in the three exhortations to Peter. The first and third use the word `feed,’ whereas the second uses the word `tend’ (Gk `poimaino’) which involves all the responsibilities of shepherding the sheep.” (6: 966)

B. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

“Our Lord . . . seems to intimate [in v.16] that it is not sufficient merely to offer the Bread of Life to the congregation of the Lord, but he must take care that the sheep be properly collected, attended to, regulated, guided. Every spiritual shepherd of Christ has a flock, composed of lambs – `young converts’ – and sheep – `experienced Christians’ – to feed, guide, regulate, and govern.” (8: 955)

C. Richard Baumann

“In John 21 the form of the order of authority, with the one at the helm, is clearly discernible as a revelation of enduring significance . . . As the `keeper of the keys’ was the successor of King David and the custodian of his everlasting throne, so too the Shepherd is the ruler of the nation forever. The promised Messiah was also described as the one who would feed the people of God (Mt 2:6; Jn 21:15). Jesus therefore handed His pastoral staff to one of the disciples in order that all the redeemed might be one flock under one shepherd. There must be one who guards and protects us all from the devil who is one persecutor. The one must watch over the weak and the small, and direct those who are strong, serving all men so that they may have life and full happiness in the Lord. The shepherd’s service is consequently an act of love, a return of love to Him who first loved Christ and all mankind. It is the bond of Jesus’ love, and of the love of God and the brethren, which holds the entire Church together indissolubly. This all-embracing service of the Shepherd is also extended to his fellow pastors, the priests and bishops of the Church.” (12: 172-173)

D. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (W. E. Vine)

“`Poimaino’: to act as a shepherd . . .(b) metaphorically, to tend, to shepherd; said of Christ, Matt 2:6 . . .; of those who act as spiritual shepherds under Him, John 21:16 . . .; so 1 Pet 5:2; Acts 20:28 . . .

“In John 21:15,16,17, the Lord, addressing Peter, first uses `bosko’ [`feed’] (ver.15), then `poimaino’ (ver.16), and then returns to `bosko’ (ver.17). These are not simply interchangeable (nor are other variations in His remarks); a study of the above notes will show this. Nor, again, is there a progression of ideas. The lesson to be learnt, . . . is that, in the spiritual care of God’s children, the feeding of the flock from the Word of God is the constant and regular necessity . . . The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals . . .” (143; v.2: 87-8)
Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars

 

[pia]

Are you confused now at my words?

Sorry to jump in here, it just seems to me that this lady has done nothing but tell us that we are all wrong, but she is right ! She claims God told her that you are wrong ( as she has done with others on the forum also)....This is utter nonsense...You KNOW what you have been enlightened about, as do I and others who have received any revelation...
She speaks of how no one can know the truth...That may be so, but that doesn't mean that Jesus cannot show us truth pertaining to a particular thing...No one as yet have all the truth, but some most assuredly are open enough to receive some....

 

[FHII]

Shooting off the hip here... Mat 16 gives a lot of great honor and praise to Peter. But that the Church would be built on him alone is not one of them. If Eph 2:20 isn't enough to convince you... Probably the rest of the evidence I can submit won't convince you either.

With some in the Christian community... Its the same thing with dealing with Mary. Mary and Peter are elevated to god-like standards that folks like me got to knock them down.

And I don't like doing so.

Peter was not the leader of the apostles. Jesus was. And always will be. He was their unofficial spokesman. He got that title by having the biggest mouth and being the most vocal and brash of them.

When the disciples had a stupid question to ask... They went to Peter. He was the most qualified to ask stupid queations!

Yea... Thats unfair. True, but unfair. All the stupid questions were needed neede. Peter was just the guy who had the gonads to bring them up (sorry to the crude reference).

This made Peter effective and the leader (the spokesman) of the apostles. The apostles were all great men. But they were human and only Peter was bold enough to ssaythings that needed to be said. The rest were often scared. That changed when Paul came around.

But to say the Church was built on Peter instead od the revelation and ttruth that Jesus was the Christ is rediculous.

 

[amadeus]

Sorry to jump in here, it just seems to me that this lady has done nothing but tell us that we are all wrong, but she is right ! She claims God told her that you are wrong ( as she has done with others on the forum also)....This is utter nonsense...You KNOW what you have been enlightened about, as do I and others who have received any revelation...
She speaks of how no one can know the truth...That may be so, but that doesn't mean that Jesus cannot show us truth pertaining to a particular thing...No one as yet have all the truth, but some most assuredly are open enough to receive some....

Of course you are right on this Pia, but sometimes I push a little more hoping that a little light will come on and she really will see something from God so that she can also move out as a living soul.

 

[H. Richard]

What blinds people is that Jesus said, in His own words, that He did not come except to the lost sheep of Israel. How a person can continue to say He came to the Gentiles too is beyond me.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Paul said: Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

A person has to be blind to read the scriptures above and then say Jesus came to the Gentiles too.

It was only AFTER He was killed on the cross that His shed blood paid for the sins of the whole world. Jesus only came to the Jews to set up their promised kingdom. That is all. Peter never said Gentiles were exempt from the law until his encounter with Cornelius. Only Paul said we are saved by faith in Jesus' shed blood on the cross. Peter never did.

 

[Marymog]

This is sometimes the reason that people sin. When they are being led by the Holy Ghost they are kept from sin. When they lead themselves they cannot help but sin.
"Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." James 3:10-12
It is ought not to be so, but until we have overcome all of the obstacles between us and being the overcomer that Jesus is, we remain in a measure "double minded" and therefore in that measure unstable.
"Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." James 4:8
I will try to answer, but only because I would like to help you. I may know the answers or some of my answers may seem wrong because I live by faith rather than knowledge. That means that sometimes I really do not know... but that's OK because God does and it is Him in whom I place my faith:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
If you think by forcing a question on a person you will solve something, you are in error and may even be tempting God. Only God give any increase in the things of God.
You are using strange words to me. I don't live by opinion or by dogma when I am serving God correctly but by having faith in God and by following the lead of the Holy Ghost.
The Bible without the Holy Spirit quickening it to a person is dead, so I do not trust it alone until it is quickened within me. When or if I quench the Holy Spirit then I cannot get it all right.

Hi,

How do you know when your being led by the Holy Ghost or leading yourself into a false belief? According to your theory, You don't know. Only God knows.

You "MAY" know the answers? Some of your answers MAY seem wrong? Sometimes you "REALLY DON'T KNOW"? Dear amadeaus: Your not "helping" me. Your confusing me. How can you help me if you NEVER know if you are right or wrong or in violation of scripture or not? How can you help me when you lack the confidence to help yourself?

According to your own theory you can never be sure if the Holy Spirit has quenched you or you have been quickened. According to your theory it could be the Holy Spirit or maybe it isn't. Maybe your just confused that day. Only God knows. Heck, it could be Satan doing those things to you. And please don't tell me you know it isn't Satan. You already admitted; You don't know.... Only God knows.

You can't even help yourself...How are you going to help me?

Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope you eventually find The Truth.

Love, Mary

 

[Marymog]

No, I have not made up my mind on all the things you mean. My heart remains open to God and sometimes He speaks to me through people, even people who disagree with what I have believed.


No, I cannot change your mind as you cannot change my mind:

"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." I Cor 3:6-7

Always it is God who gives the increase to anyone if anyone receives an increase.


I do not say that nobody knows the Truth. Again you are putting words in my mouth because you do not understand me and you really do not understand how God works. You presume that the magisterium of that church does.

God knows the truth and on any point where it is needed and a person asks, not amiss, of God that person will receive it. A person who is one of His sheep will hear His voice, but even with "ears to hear" a person must also pay attention and obey. Quenching the Holy Spirit of God will get anyone into trouble with God and leave them in their own confusion. This is what many people in many churches, including the Catholic, do altogether too regularly. So you find a whole lot of confusion in the churches. Are you confused now at my words?


Translate it? Probably not the word I would use. I would say interpret it. God always has the correct interpretation.

The Holy Spirit is able to give any person the Truth [the correct interpretation] from the dead words, that is, from the dead carcass. If the Holy Spirit quickens the dead words of scripture consumed by a person they then become the Word of God Alive in the person. People without the Holy Spirit in them or people who continuously quench the Holy Spirit in them can memorize the Bible and not know God at all. The answer I have given is clear and logical to anyone who has had it quickened in them by the Holy Spirit.


Sorry for the confusion. God is NOT the author of the confusion which is why after Jesus was resurrected the Holy Spirit was sent, but you cannot quench the Spirit and receive a clear answer.

Thank you.

I apologize....I meant interpret NOT translate.

According to your theory if "the Holy Spirit is able to give any person the Truth [the correct interpretation]" then how do we determine who's interpretation is true when there are 2-3 interpretation's of the same passage from Scripture? How do you know my Truth is wrong?

How do YOU or WE know who the Holy Spirit has quickened?? How do YOU or WE know it isn't Satan quickening them??? How do you KNOW when it is clear and logical to anyone who has had it quickened in them by the Holy Spirit?

I know....I know...Only God knows. Since only God knows then isn't it possible your theory was given to you by Satan and not God?

Mary

 

[amadeus]

@Marymog
Thank you! A continuous connection with God will make a difference in the right direction. That is not a maybe. That's one of those possible impossibilities.

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog Thank you! A continuous connection with God will make a difference in the right direction. That is not a maybe. That's one of those possible impossibilities.

Your welcome.

According to your theory no one can EVER know WHEN or if they have "a continuous connection with God". I might think I have a connection with Him and you might think you have a connection with Him but we can never be sure because you may tell me something OPPOSITE of what God told me. So who really has the connection? Me, of course.;)

Mary

PS...The magisterium of The Church does know The Truth because it is the pillar and foundation of The Truth.....Just like scripture says. You think you know The Truth, so you are your own magisterium....which is opposite of what scripture says.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let's see if your reasoning holds water. Paul is mentioned 189 times in the NT. Maybe the title of your post should have been THE PRIMACY OF PAUL. It seems that your 'most mentioned' rule has already fallen apart. And when Paul speaks of Peter, James & John as "pillars" of the Church, he lists James first. That's quite a significant 'exception' if in fact the one mentioned first is 'supreme.' If there were a time when your 'first mention' rule would be paramount, it would be here where Paul is referring to the 'pillars' of the Church. Maybe Paul didn't get the memo.

Also, during the very first Church council in Acts 15, Peter speaks first, but James is the one who renders his judgement at the end of the proceedings. Whose judgement??? That's right, James' judgement. Peter didn't seem to realize that he was the first Pope. We also have that sticky little matter found in Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter "to his face because he stood condemned." That's one hell of way to treat the very first vicar of Christ. I'm afraid your 'primacy meter' is defective.

WRONG.
At the Council of Jerusalem, James REITERATES what Peter has ALREADY said. In other words - he agreed with Peter.

As for how many times Paul is mentioned apart from Peter - how many of those times was he mentioned by Jesus?
How many times did Jesus pray for him to strengthen the others?
How many times did Jesus give Paul the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven??
When did Paul work the first miracle after Pentecost?
When was Paul asked by Jesus to feed his sheep and tend His flock?
When was Paul ever referred to as "Protos" (first) over the other apostles?
And, while we're at it - WHO is recorded as having baptized the first Gentile??

Nope - hands down, Peter is the leader, as testified UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers and by Scripture.

As for Paul's admonishment of Peter in Gal. 2 - so what?? Peter is the leader but he is STILL just a human being capable of making errors in personal judgement. Peter wasn't practicing what he preached - he didn't preach what he wasn't practicing . . .

 

[epostle1]

Shooting off the hip here... Mat 16 gives a lot of great honor and praise to Peter. But that the Church would be built on him alone is not one of them. If Eph 2:20 isn't enough to convince you... Probably the rest of the evidence I can submit won't convince you either.

Eph. 2:20 is a quote from a Catholic book. We know what it means.

With some in the Christian community... Its the same thing with dealing with Mary. Mary and Peter are elevated to god-like standards that folks like me got to knock them down.

And I don't like doing so.

"god like standards"??? You guys never tire of inventing straw man fallacies and misrepresentations.

Peter was not the leader of the apostles. Jesus was. And always will be. He was their unofficial spokesman. He got that title by having the biggest mouth and being the most vocal and brash of them.

What you are saying is Jesus was powerless and had no authority to appoint a chief steward to run things while Jesus was in heaven. I suggest you throw out half your Bible.

When the disciples had a stupid question to ask... They went to Peter. He was the most qualified to ask stupid queations!

Yea... Thats unfair. True, but unfair. All the stupid questions were needed neede. Peter was just the guy who had the gonads to bring them up (sorry to the crude reference).

This made Peter effective and the leader (the spokesman) of the apostles. The apostles were all great men. But they were human and only Peter was bold enough to ssaythings that needed to be said. The rest were often scared. That changed when Paul came around.

But to say the Church was built on Peter instead od the revelation and ttruth that Jesus was the Christ is rediculous.

That is a straw man fallacy. Not once did I say the Church was built on Peter "alone". All the apostles were leaders, but Peter was leader of the apostles, as scripture repeatedly indicates. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, I never said it was Peter *alone*. You are being ridiculous. You also have no clue about the relationship between Peter (and his successors) and the other apostles.

Paul was always subject to the Church.

• Paul went to Peter, James, and John to verify the truth of his gospel.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Peter, James, and John did not go to Paul to check their gospel.
In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period.

 

[FHII]

It was only AFTER He was killed on the cross that His shed blood paid for the sins of the whole world. Jesus only came to the Jews to set up their promised kingdom.

Amen!

Only Paul said we are saved by faith in Jesus' shed blood on the cross. Peter never did.

Actually he did in 1 Peter chapter 1. Please see verses 2 as well as verses 19-21. This epistle, however, was probably written between 60 and 68 AD. This is well after Paul established the doctrine of grace through faith. Whether it was written to the gentiles or dispersed Jews in northern Turkey... I am not sure.

 

[FHII]

god like standards"??? You guys never tire of inventing straw man fallacies.

Well you missed the point. Would you feel better if I changed my wording? How about, "some members of the Christian community give more honor to Mary and Peter than the Bible allots to them." Feel better?

That is a straw man fallacy. Not once did I say the Church was built on Peter "alone".

Gee... Thats funny. I don't remember mentioning your name recently. I didn't even charge Catholics with this. But ok... You know the saying... If you throw a rock at a oack of dogs, the one who whines is the one who got hit.

Like I was telling Mary... There is just so much talk about how Peter is the leader of the Church... Yet no one mentions the other Apostles (at least in some circles). I hadn't heard anyone mention that the Church was built on all the apostles and prophets until I pressed the issue with scripture.

Furthermore... Look at the general tone. When I stated that the Church wasn't built on Peter alone, what was the general tone? After a lot of resistance, it wasn't wasn', "Yes, that's right". It was, "I never said that!"

do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so;

As opposed to a Catholic man-made tradition???

Besides... I am not a protestant.