Peter 1st Pope

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ray Berrian, Oct 3, 2003.

  1. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part of the hoodwinking that is perpetrated on the Catholic laity is that Peter was the first vicar of Christ on earth and that he sat in Rome in all his pomp and ecclesiastical glory.

    The epistles of Peter portray quite another picture of the man. His authority rested on the fact that he saw Jesus with his own eyes and he was and is yet considered an apostle of Jesus Christ. Peter instead of walking about in a flowing, purple robe with a miter on his head, he rather calls himself ' . . . a servant of Jesus Christ.' [I Peter 1:1 & II Peter 1:1]

    In II Peter 1:1 he calls himself 'a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.' In verse fourteen he says that shortly {tachana} he will be dead because the Lord showed him that this was an impending event in his life. In the following verse he speaks of his death again and tells the Christians not to follow after 'fables.' A fable is 'a fictitious narrative or statement; a legendary story of supernatural happenings.' Soon after Peter's death people started theological errors and their add-on theology that has fastened on to the true church as the ages pass like unwanted barnacles.

    Without doubt Peter was not the vicar of Christ during the writing of the epistles or he probably would have alerted the saints to his highly elevated position in Rome. This being true when he is writing his second epistle he tells the people that soon he will be dead.

    Unless he was elevated to first pope right after he wrote two more chapters of II Peter, he never had this title conferred on himself. Once again the Scripture speaks louder than the alleged traditions of men.
     
  2. AngelforChrist

    AngelforChrist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roman Catholics hold that Peter was the first pope because of the verse in Matthew where Christ states "upon this rock" because they misinterpret what Christ was saying there and claim that Peter was the rock .
    The name peter means a peice of rock (moveable) not like petra (immoveable as in foundation). Christ was speaking of Himself when he said rock and that peters confession that Christ was messiah was thr foundation of the church.

    Here is a link to a collection of church Fathers who rightly call Christ and not Peter that rock.
    Church Fathers on the Rock in Matthew 16:18
     
  3. WPutnam

    WPutnam
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2122.jpg>

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    In fact, most of us Catholics picture Peter as being the least "best dressed" of those in Rome, for no other reason then to avoid being arrested on the spot!

    If Catholics are "hoodwinked" as you think, then the early church fathers were engaged in some might bigh conspiracy to perpetuate this from the very edge of the end of the apostolic era!

    Let's see what the fathers said:

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

    But there is more, so take your pick from the following:

    http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

    And from another source, Joe Gallego's web site, you have another discourse on the primacy of Peter, who was indeed, the fist pope:

    http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm

    Er, ah, Ray, Peter wore ordinary clothes of the times, sir, and the mitre was not invented yet!

    (I wonder if you have any idea what the mitre represents, or do you? The shape of it is a clue.)

    One of the titles of the pope is The servant of the servants of God. Did you know that?

    Nevertheless, Pope John Paul II is a most prideful man in your eyes, perhaps? If errors started popping-up in Church teachings immediately after Peter's death, why does a guy named Linus take his place as bishop of Rome? And if this is still error compounded upon error, where is the promise of Christ that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail agaist it" (church?

    It is without a doubt that Peter is all that we claim he was! More good reading for you:

    http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM

    And...

    http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ487.HTM

    Matt. 16:18-19; Luke 22:32 (strengthen the brethren);
    John 21:17 (given flock as chief shepherd);
    Mark 16:7 (Angel announcing to Peter the resurrection);
    Luke 24:34 (Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter); Acts 1:13-26 (Peter presides over election of Matthias);
    Acts 2:14 (led apostles to preaching on Pentecost); Acts 2:41 (received first converts); Acts 3:6-7 (Performed first miracle after Pentecost);
    Acts 5:1-11 (Inflicted first pnishment: Ananias & Saphira);
    Acts 8:21 (Excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus);
    Acts 10:44-46 (Received revelation to admit Gentiles into church);
    Acts 15:7 (Led first council in Jerusalem);
    Acts 15:19 (Pronounces first dogmatic decision);
    Gal 1:18 (After conversion, Paul visits chief apostle);
    Gal 2:11-14 ("I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocracy" - Important to show that even Peter is capable of sinning! Why mention Peter is he is only "one of the guys"?)
    Etc., etc., etc., mostly covered in a link above.

    And, of course, the testimony of the early fathers adequately show the primacy of Peter as the first pope of the Church, followed by Linus.....and a whole line of Bishops of Rome! [​IMG]

    God bless,

    PAX

    Bill+†+


    Lord, grant me the serenity
    to accept the things I cannot change,
    the courage to change the things that I can,
    and the wisdom to know the difference.
    Living one day at a time,
    enjoying one moment at a time;
    accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
    taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
    not as I would have it;
    trusting that you will make all things right
    if I surrender to Your will;
    so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
    and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
    Amen.
     
  4. A_Christian

    A_Christian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess that means that the Roman Catholic church
    will be the last in heaven, since they claim to
    be the first here on earth. ;)
     
  5. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to Jesus being the Rock! He is also the foundatoin of the Church. But so are apostles and prophets. Do you have any problem with that. Hope not. Mr. Webster does not understand Catholic theology at all or he would understand the fathers. He selectivily quotes without considering all the quotes from the father's. Augustine for instance identifies both Peter and Jesus as the rock. Some say he changed it to Jesus later in life, but this is nonsense if you study the incident of Zosimus later in his life in which he makes it quite clear that Zosimus is the successor of Peter.

    We know quite well that Peter was called Kepha in Matt 16:18. How? Well in his recollection of the same incident John in his gospel (1:42) calls him Cephas, a form of Kepha. The Apostle Paul also calls him Cephas. Kepha means rock.

    Blessings
     
  6. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first epistle from Peter was written ' . . . to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus . . . . Asia and Bithynia' for the most part Gentile populations. Robert Paul Roth, Ph.D. suggests that the authorship, date and destination of the second letter of Peter are extremely uncertain. This writing had a most difficult time becoming established in the canon of Scripture. The first time it was mentioned is by Origen, and this is to question it. From the observation of Jerome, many modern scholars find the Greek style significantly different from I Peter, and yet it was finally received as canonical and helpful to their and our spirituality.

    In neither the first or second epistle do we have Peter even hinting that he was elected or appointed as the first bishop of or from Rome. The first chapter of II Peter while writing on that first manuscript, Peter speaks of his death and departure from this life. One might assume that it did not take him more than two days to write two more chapters, as we know them, especially since the Lord told him that He was going to take him home to Heaven very soon. One might wisely conclude that because in verse eleven Peter speaks of ' . . . the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord' that he was going to that place; there is no hint of his first stop being Purgatory as I read the Word of God.

    So here we have Peter writing the epistles, he is soon to die and yet has not established himself as the bishop of all bishops, neither over the Apostle Paul or the flock from many nations.

    I believe thessalonian was speaking to me vicariously through Angel for Christ, so I will give more Biblically oriented definitions of a fable.

    The "Bible Dictionary" written by Smith/Peloubet, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, p.189 speaks of a fable in this way. 'A fable is a narrative in which beings irrational, and sometimes inanimate, are, for the purpose of moral instruction, feigned to act and speak with human interests and passions. . . . The fables of false teachers claiming to belong to the Christian church, alluded to by writers of the New Testament. {I Timothy 1:4; 4:7;Titus 1:14; II Peter 1:16}

    Merrill C. Tenney, Ph.D.,Dean of the Graduate School of Theology, "The Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary, p. 274 says,

    'In the N.T., 'fable' is found as the transliteration of (muthos) myth. It has the general meaning of fiction, that is, a story having no connection with reality.' Application: things like Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven are extra-Biblical concepts that cannot be backed up with holy Scripture.
     
  7. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simon means "grain of sand", and when Jesus renamed Simon to Kephas in John 1:42, he renamed this grain of sand to rock. In the OT, name changes signified a conferral of a special covenant role in salvation history. For example, Abram (exhalted father) became Abraham (father of a great multitude).

    "The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (1)

    "It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." (2)

    "This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.)." (3)

    1. Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968 ), 6:98, 108.

    2. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261.

    3. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195.
     
  8. A_Christian

    A_Christian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have no faith UNLESS it comes from the Father.

    Historically, the Roman Catholic church has done
    a terrible job of preventing idolitry, gambling,
    promoting salvation and not promoting "church"
    politics, building wise "Christians" and not
    fancy shrines. We have seen priests attacking
    children and bishops covering it up.
    If GOD has chosen the "Roman" Catholic church (and I don't believe it) as HIS CHURCH, then THAT
    church will have some explaining to do. There
    will not be just tables overturned this time...

    Look around you next time you go to your mass.
    Is it the statues, stain glass, pageantry, and
    show of opulence that draws you? Perhaps it
    is ONLY GOD's WORD that draws you? Remember that
    it is ONLY because of the REFORMATION that you
    NOW can hear some of the WORD in ANY language and not just Latin. The REFORMATION also gave to you
    the free option of reading the BIBLE for yourself.

    So just keep your selective literalism and go
    your merry way. GOD will not be mocked. [​IMG]
     
  9. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget, he was married.

    He not only sinned, he was leading other people astray.

    He also refused reverence, since he was a "mere man"

    ~Lorelei
     
  10. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    It amazes me how many old wives tales you guys take as Gospel truth.

    As for priests attacking children. How many times do I have to post this link before you guys get it. You have a problem in your churches too.
    And no I am not trying to justify it in the Catholic Church.
    www.reformation.com

    "Remember that
    it is ONLY because of the REFORMATION that you
    NOW can hear some of the WORD in ANY language and not just Latin. The REFORMATION also gave to you
    the free option of reading the BIBLE for yourself."

    This is simply a lie. The Catholic Church has always encouraged bible reading for those who could read. Read Gregory the VI, Leo XIII, Jerome, St. Catherine, etc. etc.. There were translations in the vernacular long before the KJV. Historical fact. Most Bible translations were in Latin because that was the language that people commonly knew.

    By the way can you show me where gambling is forbidden in scripture? You also pride yourself in judging what is going on in the hearts and minds of Catholics in Church. What the Deformation gave us is relativism and division. Plain and simple. Truth became secondary to man's pride in his own Biblical exegetical proess.
    Blessings
     
  11. JFS

    JFS
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    The word reverence and the word worshiped have two different meanings which affect greatly the meaning of this passage. Which is the correct translation?

    God Bless

    John
     
  12. A_Christian

    A_Christian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does BINGO belong at church? What nights do you
    play it? Latin wasn't the common language. Even
    in Christ's time it was Greek. People who went
    to the universities learned Latin. Farmers
    were not speaking Latin in the 1950's that I
    recall. I'd rather have division then all the
    apples going rotten in one handbasket!
     
  13. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi A_Christian,

    I would have to say that one of the largest misconceptions concerning Catholicism is the Catholic Church's view of Sacred Scripture. Throughout her history, it has been both her prerogative and concern to uphold the plenary inspiration and authority Sacred Scripture. Her canonical decisions concerning Scripture have had as their end the guarding of Scripture to keep all translations faithful to the extant manuscripts and available for the spiritual nourishment of the Christian faithful.

    "Today Latin is a dead language, but that was not always true. For centuries it was the universal language of Europe. Don’t forget that during this time most people were illiterate; they couldn’t read any language at all. But whoever could read, read Latin. Thus, the Church did not propagate the Bible in Latin in order to keep people from understanding it, but quite the opposite, they wanted to make sure that any literate person, from any country, could understand it. Pope St. Gregory I, who died in 604, wrote, 'The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.' Obviously, the Catholic Church wanted the Bible to be read by anyone who could read.

    "But didn’t the Church forbid translating the Bible into the vernacular? No, not at all. Contrary to the modern myth, translating the Bible into vernacular languages was not a Protestant innovation. For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions of the Bible appeared in High German, and five in Low German. From 1450 to 1550, there were more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the permission of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.

    "In the preface to the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, the translators (though they blasted the Catholic Church) acknowledged that translating the Bible into the common language was no new invention, but had been the common practice for centuries before the Reformation:

    "'To have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.'

    "The truth is, during the Dark Ages the only thing that kept the Bible from disappearing along with the rest of Western civilization was the faithful Catholic monks who tirelessly copied the Scriptures by hand. If the Catholic Church had not diligently and reverently preserved the Bible, you would not have it today. Even Martin Luther grudgingly conceded as much when he wrote, 'We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we would have no knowledge of it whatsoever.' (1) If the Catholic Church wanted to suppress the Bible, why did it single-handedly preserve it during the Dark Ages? Why not just let it disappear?"

    (1) Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John.

    - Gary Hoge (Atheist to Baptist to Catholic)
    http://www.CatholicOutlook.com
     
  14. AngelforChrist

    AngelforChrist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    PETER AS THE ROCK (Matthew 16:18, 19).

    The whole structure of the Roman church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19, Christ appointed Peter to be the first pope and so established the papacy. If we destroy the papacy of Peter, the foundation of the papacy is destroyed along with the whole Roman hierarchy. "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter (greek 1 Petros, 2masculine, 3a person, 4a large stone, 5a piece or fragment of rock such as a man might throw); and upon this rock (greek 1Petra, 2feminine, 3not a person, but a 4cliff, a mass of projecting immovable rock.) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and WHATSOEVER thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and WHATSOEVER thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Catholicism claims several false doctrines from this passage:


    1. Peter is the rock.

    2. Peter is the first pope, with special spiritual supremacy over the church.

    3. This same spiritual authority has always resided in the popes of rome, as being Peters successors (This idea is nowhere mentioned in Scripture).

    4. Christ built his church on Peter. This is contrary to God's Word which says: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus". I Corinthians 3:11.

    5. Christ gave Peter keys to admit into heaven only those who came through the Roman Catholic church.

    6. Those not coming through the Roman church would be bound in sin and unable to enter heaven.


    Each of these six can be shown to be false as follows:

    1. Peter is not the rock, because the 12 disciples, knowing well the Old Testament, recognised the Rock as a description or name for God.

    "He is the Rock, His word is perfect." Deuteronomy 32:4.

    "The Lord is my Rock, and my fortress." Psalms 18:2.

    "For who is a God save the Lord? Or who is a Rock save our God." Ps18:31


    We see here that there is NO OTHER ROCK than God, not even Peter. Jesus Christ is the foundation rock on which the church is built.


    a) The Old Testament prophets said so (Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 118:22).

    b) Jesus said so referring to Himself as "the stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner." Matthew 21:42.

    c) Paul said so, stating that "the rock that followed them was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4 and "other foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11.

    d) Peter said so, stating that Christ is "the stone ... which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other ... " Acts 4:11, 12.


    Catholicism is saying that salvation is not in Christ, but in Peter as the first of a succession of popes. Peter, however, contradicts this wrong idea by saying that, "Christ is the chief corner stone" in 1 Peter 2:4-8.

    "To whom coming, as unto a living stone. (v.4)

    Behold I lay in Zion a Chief corner stone ... he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (v.6)

    The stone which the builders disallowed is become the head of the corner. (v.7) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient." (v.8)


    Even if we allow Catholicism to believe that Peter is a foundation stone upon which Christ built His church, Catholicism has to admit that other New Testament apostles and Old Testament prophets make up the foundation equally as much as Peter does, because:

    "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." Ephesians 2:20.

    And the wall of the city had 12 foundations, and in them the names of the 12 apostles of the lamb." Revelation 21:14.

    Peter is given no greater importance than any of the other apostles.

    "Thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church." Matthew 16:18.

    Answer: In the Greek, the word "Peter" is Petros, a person, masculine, a rock or stone that a man might throw.

    In the Greek, the word "Rock" is "Petra", not a person, but a cliff, a mass of projecting, immovable rock. It refers not to Peter, but to Peter's declaration of Christ's deity "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."


    "PETROS" means a small, moveable stone, but "PETRA" means an immovable foundation, in this case, Peter's statement on Christ's deity, upon which Christ would build His church.


    Christ made two complete, distinct statements:

    He said: 1. Thou art Peter, and

    2. Upon this rock (change of gender, indicating change of subject) I will build my church."


    Peter was not characterised by a "PETRA" immovable foundation, as seen in these incidents:

    a) Peter soon tried to stop Jesus going to the cross, so Jesus gave him a stinging rebuke: "Get thee behind me, satan." (v.23) These are strong words to use against someone who has just been appointed pope.

    b) Peter slept in Gethsemene during Christ's agony.

    c) Christ rebuked Peter for rashly cutting off Malchus' ear.

    d) Peter boasted that he was ready to die for Christ.

    e) Peter then shamefully denied with curses that he knew Christ.

    f) Paul rebuked Peter for error and hypocrisy at Antioch in Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

    g) In Mark 9:33-35 the disciples argued as to who was the greatest among them. Had Jesus already given Peter the chief rank of pope, then Christ would have simply referred to His previous granting of power to Peter. Yet Jesus just said that the greatest shall be last and servant of all.

    h) Augustine and Jerome state that the Rock is Christ, not Peter. Mark's gospel was written by Mark, assisted by Peter, yet neither Mark's gospel or Peter's letters mention this incident. They would surely mention it if we needed to know it.


    God is called the "Rock" 34 times in the Old Testament. It was clearly a title of God. Every Jew would be shocked to call a man the "Rock". Therefore "Peter" and "Rock" are translated as two different words, with two different meanings.


    Note: In John 1:42 Jesus said "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called CEPHAS, which is by interpretation, a STONE." Cephas (2786) is a Syriac surname given to Simon, which is "Petros" in greek, not "Petra". Peter did not call himself by his Syriac name (Cephas), but by his Greek name (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1). The word for rock (Petra) in Matthew 16:18 is the same word used for the rock fortress at Edom, known as "PETRA". It is 1.4 kilometres long, 226 metres high, 457 metres wide. Jesus did not say that Peter was the PETRA rock fortress, but that Simon was Petros, a piece of rock. Only God is called "a ROCK." Jesus is just saying to Simon "I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."


    2. Peter is NOT the first pope, with supremacy over the Church because of these reasons:


    a) At the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:13-19, the advice of James not Peter was sought and followed. James, not Peter was the spokesman who handed down the decision.


    b) If Peter was the first pope, he would have had a greater position than the other disciples. When the disciples discussed which of them of the greatest in Mark 9:33-35, Jesus had a great chance to affirm Peter's headship as the first pope, but Jesus simply said that the greatest shall be a servant of all. Thus Jesus showed no special papal leadership to Peter. Nor should we.

    3. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Christian profession in the Church Age), only in the sense that it was Peter who opened the door of Gospel preaching opportunity to Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42), and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-46). Peter opened the door, and everybody who received Christ as Saviour went into the Kingdom of God through Christ.

    Excerpt taken from : Peter was not the First Pope
     
  15. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt you understand what idolatry is anyway. The Catholic Faith, found in both the Orthodox East and the Latin West, was responsible for the removal of pagan gods and foul pagan practices (such as the Aztec's ritual sacrifice of human beings) for hundreds of years. You really should read some history on the Church before you spout off your nonsense.

    What you think is idolatry is called "the communion of the saints". You should try it sometime.

    Show me, Mr. KJV Only, anywhere in the Bible which prohibits a little recreational gambling for the fun of it. Just one verse will be fine.

    Let's see what Jesus has to say about this:

    Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

    54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

    56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

    58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.


    So unless you have the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist in your rite, you DO NOT HAVE eternal life!! :eek:

    Don't like that? Take it up with Jesus. Those are His words, not mine.

    Again, you are a historical boob, sir. Why don't you excuse yourself from this forum until you get some smarts. Go study the history of the Church for the first 1000 years. See how the Church so impacted the world that all of Africa was Christian at one time. At one time, all of Russia was so imbued with the Faith that the priests complained that they couldn't even go to the fishmarket without the people wishing to engage them in discussions regarding the substance of the Blessed Trinity.

    You, sir, have NO IDEA what you are talking about. NONE.

    That is only in the last century that it became epidemic. Is the Church IMMUNE from having sinners in it? You show me ANYWHERE in the Catholic Catechism where the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS of the Church teach that sexual predation is allowable. The fact that those bishops and priests betrayed Christ and stabbed Him in the back does not mean that the Church itself in its official teachings permits or encourages such things. Those bishops and priests who are responsible are in a very horrible situation regarding the state of their souls before God.

    Again you show your ignorance. The Church is not "Roman" Catholic. She is "catholic", that is, She has ONE UNIVERSAL set of doctrines and practices from East to West. For the first 1000 years of Christianity, there was only ONE Church where ever you went in the empire.

    It was, and still IS, headed and ruled by the Roman Pontiff, who is the Prime Minister of Christ on earth.

    And since it IS Christ's Church, HE and NOT YOU, will clean it up on His own time table and schedule. Hope you are around to see it. When the splendor and the glory return, I hope I am around to see the flood of former anti-catholics like you filling the confessionals and the pews!!

    That was part of it. I got tired of worshipping the KING OF GLORY in a building that looked like a beer hall. A king lives in a PALACE, remember? And our King, the KING OF GLORY, Who is really and truly present in the Tabernacle next to the altar, deserves a palace in which He is to be worshipped, not some stupid looking building that used to house a Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Palour.

    That was the greatest part of my leaving Protestantism for the true Faith. Once I found the proper "key" to understanding the Bible, everything fell right in place.

    More's the pity. Latin is a beautiful language. but if I understand correctly, the Liturgy itself was in Latin, but the homily was in the vernacular tongue. The Liturgy doesn't have to be in the language of the people. I think it better that it not be...adds to the sense of the mysterious and glorious which is taking place upon the altar....Jesus is being confected in the Eucharist.

    Hogwash. The Bible wasn't available to the masses because they couldn't afford it. What the Protestant Rebellion did was to trash Germany and make it a moral cesspool, thanks to the teachings of Luther. It rent the Church into pieces and gave human beings the idea that every man has the right to be his own pope. Baaaaaad idea. Look at where that has gotten us now.

    Selective literalism? From a guy who no doubt will deny the very words of Christ Himself which I posted above regarding the need for the Flesh and Blood of Christ for eternal life?

    THAT is rich!!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [ October 03, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]
     
  16. AngelforChrist

    AngelforChrist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ive read lots of History and I think you know as well as I that they(the RCC) didnt remove them , they only changed their names for example , on idols of semaris and tamuz , they merely changed the names to Mary and Christ - the pagan celebration of ishtar(fertility goddess) became easter (the bunnies and eggs were from pagan fertility worship). Anyone who reads any RCC church history knows that the RCC under constantine , when he instituted christinanity as a state religion merely renamed the pagan idols and feast days to correspond to christian events to make them more comfortable because they didnt want to give up their idols and feasts. The RCC still explains it " as changing something bad into something good by making what was unholy something holy" . Renaming something doesnt make it right .
     
  17. AngelforChrist

    AngelforChrist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its seems you have missed a few things for context in John Chapter 6:
    27 Do not labor for the food which perishes , but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
    28Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
    29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

    Then you can also see this and know that Christ was not speaking of physical bread and wine , but of Spirital food which is the word of God (the truth of the gospel:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
    Then you can look at this part :
    60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
    61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

    Note it says some of them who do not believe , not some who wont eat his flesh , and he said the flesh profits nothing and his words were speaking to something SPIRITUAL , not physical .
     
  18. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "We see here that there is NO OTHER ROCK than God, not even Peter."


    Is 51: Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quaried, and to Sarah , who gave you birth;

    No other rocks in scripture?

    These cut and pastes jobs you do aren't cutting it. It is of course interesting that Abraham should be refered to as a Rock since God exalted him also because of his faith and like Abraham who was abram God changed Peter's name. Do you have any original material of your own?

    [ October 03, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]
     
  19. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Note it says some of them who do not believe , not some who wont eat his flesh , and he said the flesh profits nothing and his words were speaking to something SPIRITUAL , not physical . "

    So are you suggesting that the flesh that hung on the cross was of no value? Our flesh does not prophet from the Eucharist for it is food for the soul.
     
  20. AngelforChrist

    AngelforChrist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0


    Here is what the bible says about things not being understood by the people within the church:

    1 Corinthians 14
    19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. tongue means language , which in the RCCs case of Latin would be foreign to those in the church .
     

Share This Page

Loading...