A compelling non-Catholic argument

[CentralFLJames]

Why not? Did not Jesus Who was God in the flesh touch and hang out with sinners without Himself becoming contaminated by them?
Does not the Scriptures teach in I Corinthians 5:21 that Jesus so indentified with our sin that He became our sin?

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Borrowing from a rich repository of Catholic Teaching to answer your question on Corinthians 5:21:

Jesus is neither a sinner nor sin, personally, but as a member of a sinful family, with which he identifies himself. He was sacrificed for our sins (Is 53:10) and bore the penalties for our sins and transgressions (Is 53:4-6). But He Himself was without sin, being God, in Whom no sin can dwell. It is not possible for God (even the incarnate God) to “be a sinner” since God can not deny His own Nature. It is utter heresy and blasphemy for any to claim that Christ “became sin” in the literal sense. No, it’s more literally correct to say “Christ was made as sin” in the sense of the sacrifice. There is no substitution of persons, but solidarity of action. Sin is not transferred from men to Christ. But sin proceeds from men to embrace Christ as the representative of human nature, just as the justice of God is not transferred from Christ to men, but proceeds from Christ to embrace men, when the latter, by filial adoption, are clothed with the divine nature. If Paul had meant Jesus was literally sin then why didn’t the other Apostles say the same to condemn Jesus when He spoke **“Which of you convicts me of sin”? (John 8:46). **

Paul does not intend to make Jesus look bad. He wants to make us look bad. He says Jesus became like us, and if you are human, sin is part of your life. To become human is to partake in sin. Paul’s statement means nothing more than “the Word became flesh,” but he states it more alarmingly than John did: Jesus became sin. The most problematic aspect of Paul’s statement is its implications for us - sinners are losers. If we are sinful by nature, how can any of us spread the Good News? The answer is that this is really a message about the sacrament of reconciliation!

Also, it is on account of our union with him who is justice itself that we participate in his ‘justice.’ Jesus, being by his nature impeccable, cannot be made a sinner by his contact with sinners, while our moral union with the Just One renders us really just ourselves. And this justice, because it comes from grace and not from us, is rightly called the ‘justice of God.’

Here are what some of the Fathers explained about 2 Corinthians 5:21
**===============================================
**
Ancient Christian Commentary (general editor Thomas C. Oden, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998 - ):

Ambrosiaster: [Commentary on Paul’s Epistles]
In view of the fact that he was made an offering for sins, it is not wrong for him to be said to have been made ‘sin,’ because in the law the sacrifice which was offered for sins used to be called a ‘sin.’

St. John Chrysostom: [Homilies on the Epistles of Corinthians]
God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins.

St. Cyril of Alexandria: [Letter 41.10]
We do not say that Christ became a sinner, far from it, but being righteous (or rather, righteousness, because he did not know sin at all), the Father made him a victim for the sins of the world.
St. Ambrose: [The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 6.60]
So, was the Lord turned into sin? Not so…
Eusebius: [The Proof of the Gospel 4.17]
He embraced death for us with all willingness and ‘became a curse for us,’ holy and all-blessed though he was.

St. Gregory Nazianzen: [Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 101]
. . . it is said that he was made sin or a curse for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these - how could he be?

St. Augustine: [Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love 13.41]
He Himself could commit no sin. But because of the likeness of the flesh of sin in which He came, He was Himself called sin…

Ambrosiaster: [Commentary on Paul’s Epistles]
By sending Christ God used sin to condemn sin . . . For Christ was crucified by sin
St. John Chrysostom: [Homilies on Romans 13]
For Christ did not have sinful flesh but flesh which, though it was like ours by nature, was sinless. From this it is plain that flesh is not sinful by nature . . . he allowed the flesh to keep its own nature, giving it the crown of victory and after its resurrection life immortal.
St. Augustine: [Sermons for Easter Season, Homily 233.3]
The apostle calls the assumption of mortal flesh ‘sin’ even if it was sinless, because when the Savior died he was made sin, so to speak.
[On Romans 48]
What does sinful flesh have? Death and sin. What does the likeness of sinful fleesh have? Death without sin.
Ambrosiaster: [Epistle to the Galatians 3.13.1-2]
Jesus was made a curse in the way that under the law a victim offered for sin is said to be sin . . . Thus he did not say ‘cursed for us’ but ‘made a curse.’

St. John Chrysostom: [Homily on Galatians 3.13]
Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.

James

 

[guanophore]

I have shown the scripture. The underlined point, is that Paul did not get any instruction from the Apostles. NONE. NOTHING. NADA. ZERO. His teaching was not from the result of the Laying on of hands. The verse that talks about Ananias, is talking specifically about the laying on of hands TO HEAL.

I agree about the healing at his baptism, but I don’t think it is accurate to say that he did not get instruction from the Apostles. On the contrary, I think he had a great deal of instruction, from the Apostles and other disciples. All he said was that they didn’t “add” anything. This means that what was revealed to him was completely consistent with what Jesus had revealed to the other Apostles. this is what the Catholic Church still teaches about direct revelation. If one listens to the HS, one will always be led into unity with the teaching we have from Jesus through the Apostles.

Bingo. Uncertainty. But the fact remains, that Paul went to Jeruselam a second time, and was excepted as an Apostle then. Why would he have done this, if he had already been accepted 11 years before?

I agree.

Ye I do. Yet Scripture never made the claim that such a position even existed. When does it say in scripture, that the Apostolic gifts were to be handed to a successor? When does scripture say that Timothy was anything more than a Disciple? Other than the 13 origional Apostles, when does scripture call anyone else an Apostle? Does scripture say that Barnabus was an Apostle(SPECIFICALLY)? Or Titus, or anyone?

The Apostolic Succession is in scripture.

Yes, there were other Apostles mentioned in scripture. But, after the resurrection, it was no longer possible to meet the criteria for becoming an apostle, so their successors were called bishops.

Rom 16:6-7
7 Greet Androni’cus and Ju’nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Scripture indicates that the origional sin is passed down from the seed of the Father. Thus, I recieved the origional sin from My dad. Christ was without the origional sin, because he was not a decendant of any earthly man. It had nothing to do with Mary. Christ was created in Mary’s womb in a unique way. There was no sperm joined to an egg. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit. It does not say that he was concieved by the HS and Mary, JUST THE HS. You have taken something so sacred and humanized it so that you can say you understand it. The conception of Christ is something that no man is capable of explaining, other than it was a miracle from the HS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY.

You may be taking this too literally. Sin is passed on through procreation. Otherwise, now that they know how to make human beings without a sperm cell, are the female offspring still without original sin? I think not.

I am sorry, but the conception of Jesus really did have something to do with Mary. God prepared this before the foundation of the world, and He created Mary especially for the purpose of gestating, birthing, an raising a Divine Son. She was an active participant in all these things. She is not like some garden hose through which divinity was splashed into the world.

And yet you can not show conlusive scriptural evidence.

We can see conclusively that he adhered to, and promulgated the decisions of the Apostles. We know that he received the Sacred Traditions.

The writer was the Holy Spirit. the vessels he chose, were just vessels.

NO! The Holy ones who penned the scriptures gave their lives for what they believed. They were not garden hoses, but faithful disciples, apostles and prophets.

Not after the Great Commision. Thus even by the standards of the Catholic Church, he was not yet a Pope. Therefore, this argument is null and void.

I think not. I think his commission began when he was given a new name. Next, Jesus promises to pray for him. Then, after the Resurrection, Jesus specifically told him to feed and protect the flock. All these happened before the great commisssion.

Mary was not just a 'vessel".

And what scripture do you get that from? Cite chapter and verse for this, please.

Not all of Apostolic Teaching is found in the Bible, ja4. We get our undertanding on the hypostatic nature of Christ after heresies arose over his humanity and divinity. When the Church clarified this doctrine it resulted in Marian doctrines by extension. It derives from the nature of Christ being fully human, and fully God. Two distinct natures in one Person.

Yes.

Wow. Why do you think that Jesus did not descend from Mary according to the flesh? How is he a descendent of David, according to the flesh?

 

[guanophore]

I think it is more difficult than that.

1- Christ was with God at the begining. - How could Mary’s genes have anything to do with that.

2- Christ was born in flesh - he was succeptable to the same temtation as man, and he suffered the pains of his crucifiction.

3- Christ’s geneology was traced through Joseph although Joseph was not his true father.

Its difficult to say exactly the circumstances of Christs birth, or the depth that he was considered of the line of David. I dont see why God would go through the process of the Virgin birth without a relevant reason.

The only things that I have said, that I know for sure to be true, are the fact that Mary was unrighteous, yet Christ was righteous.
I think that even though he had flesh through the birth from Mary, I don’t necesarily think that his genes were from Mary. Did the HS contribute the other 22 chromisomes? or did he contribute all 46? There are no specifics on this. Therefore, we can only speculate. In reality, I ddont think that it is possible to truly understand.

I am not saying that I know either way, I am offering an opposing view. The important part is that Christ was born and died a sinnless man. The same is not said of Mary. It is only speculation. This is why I dont understand why many are so set in stone on the issue. I see Mary like I see Moses or any of the Apostles. They were all chosen by God to serve Gods purpouse. None of them where asked, they were told.

Ok, now we are over the line right into Nestorian heresy!

 

[guanophore]

That is interesting. Are you saying that the way you interpret scripture is that Jesus did not get his 100% complete Human nature form Mary?

No other Protestant Denomination I know of has taught that. That would be one of those unigue things to your particular church or to you alone. Now I can’t speak for every Protestant denomination or non-denom. But I do know the doctrinal position of at least 20 + on that particular issue. No unity.

I believe that he was a decendant, in that he was the son of Joseph, son of… etc. But I do not believe that he was made from the biological genes of Mary or Joseph. I think that when it says consecrated (set apart for a holy purpouse) it points to something as unique as the creation of Adam

Did we just witness the birth of yet another Protestant sect today?

Wow. No, this is actually a very early heresy. It stems from gnosticism, which considers flesh to be evil, or cursed by God.

Adam bore the responsibility. He was the one created by God, in Gods image. Eve was created of man.

Gen 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

It requires both male and female to represent the image of God. It is a little different to say that the woman is the “glory” of man.

It was through his birth that he was made in the flesh. His birth was typical, his conception was not.

What about between conception and birth? what happened? In other cases, the fetus takes all of his flesh from the body of the mother. So what do you believe happened in this case?

I think it is more difficult than that.

1- Christ was with God at the begining. - How could Mary’s genes have anything to do with that.

2- Christ was born in flesh - he was succeptable to the same temtation as man, and he suffered the pains of his crucifiction.

3- Christ’s geneology was traced through Joseph although Joseph was not his true father.

Its difficult to say exactly the circumstances of Christs birth, or the depth that he was considered of the line of David. I dont see why God would go through the process of the Virgin birth without a relevant reason.

The only things that I have said, that I know for sure to be true, are the fact that Mary was unrighteous, yet Christ was righteous.
I think that even though he had flesh through the birth from Mary, I don’t necesarily think that his genes were from Mary. Did the HS contribute the other 22 chromisomes? or did he contribute all 46? There are no specifics on this. Therefore, we can only speculate. In reality, I ddont think that it is possible to truly understand.

I am not saying that I know either way, I am offering an opposing view. The important part is that Christ was born and died a sinnless man. The same is not said of Mary. It is only speculation. This is why I dont understand why many are so set in stone on the issue. I see Mary like I see Moses or any of the Apostles. They were all chosen by God to serve Gods purpouse. None of them where asked, they were told.

Ok, now we are over the line right into Nestorian heresy!

 

[guanophore]

He was not yet Man. He gets his human nature from Mary; not his divine nature. (But she gave birth to one person who had two natures - human and divine - this is why she is called the Theotokos - the Mother of God.)

The Holy Spirit did not contribute any chromosomes. Jesus’ flesh is entirely from Mary.

Well, the HS must have contributed something biological, because a female cannot produce a male. It is the male seed that determines the sex of the child. Cloning has also made it clear that failure to mix the DNA (taking it all from one source) creates an unhealthy offspring.

If Mary was without sin, then she would have been righteous. Myt problem with this is that it goes against what the scriptures teach about righteousness.

Really? You give an example of Elijah being righteous enough to go straight to heaven in a chariot. (Enoch was also assumed). Scriptures dont “teach”. People teach. What have you been taught about biblical righteousness?

The reformation was not in any way against what Christ had originally founded. That is a ridiculous argument! The reformation was against the apostasy that had corrupted what Christ had founded.

What apostasy was that, and when did it happen?

 

[sodak]

Wow. No, this is actually a very early heresy. It stems from gnosticism, which considers flesh to be evil, or cursed by God.

Ok, now we are over the line right into Nestorian heresy!

I’m going to have to do some research on the different heresies the Church has protected us from over the years. Every time a different protestant comes in challenging us with his or her version of their “truth”, then I’ll know which classification they go into. Every one of them thinks they are the first to think of these things too!

Sounds to me like there are some folks who should spend more time studying history along with studying the Bible…

 

[jmcrae]

What is grace? It is a gift of God. It is non specific.

Grace is to sin as light is to dark. If you say that something is “full of light” it means that there is no darkness in it. In the same way, to be “full of grace” is to be without sin.

Elijah was taken up to heaven by a chariot of Fire, and yet Mary was not.

She was, however, assumed into Heaven, body and soul.

This was the inverse of the Resurrection, where St. Thomas was the only one to observe her Assumption, and the others had to believe him on faith (although, obviously, her body was not in her grave, and it has never been discovered or found), whereas at the Resurrection, Thomas was the only one who was not present when Christ appeared to them.

In fact I think that Elijah is the only one spoken of in scriptures to leave the Earth in that manner, other than Christ.

According to the Tradition, Enoch also left the earth in this way. (I think it is also alluded to somewhere in the New Testament, but I don’t recall exactly where.)

Would you say that Elijah was not full of grace? He had many gifts that he recieved from God.

I don’t recall that he was ever described as “full of grace,” but for sure, he cooperated with God’s grace at least most of the time.

 

[jmcrae]

I am so much more at peace in the Catholic Church without all the doctrinal confusion of the Protestant world

Welcome home!!

 

[jmcrae]

I’m going to have to do some research on the different heresies the Church has protected us from over the years. Every time a different protestant comes in challenging us with his or her version of their “truth”, then I’ll know which classification they go into. Every one of them thinks they are the first to think of these things too!

Get yourself a copy of This is the Faith, by Canon Francis Ripley. (TAN Publications) He has a handy little appendix in the back that lists the chief heresies and their main characteristics, along with the years, founders, and the Councils that refuted them. Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma (Loreto Publishing) has the actual Councils themselves, so you can look up what the arguments were, and how they were resolved by the Church.

Sounds to me like there are some folks who should spend more time studying history along with studying the Bible…

Yes. St. Jerome said, “If you do not know the Bible, you do not know Christ,” and I was reading where someone said, “If you do not know history, then you cannot know the Bible.” I think it was Ian MacLean (Secret Agent Man), but I don’t remember for sure, and I also don’t know if he was quoting someone else at the time - but it struck me as being very true - I think one mistake that many people make is to assume that the Bible was written with 21st century North American preconceptions about how the world works.

 

[guanophore]

I think one mistake that many people make is to assume that the Bible was written with 21st century North American preconceptions about how the world works.

I agree. I think without history it is impossible to undertsand the Sacred Writings. It is not just our modern world view, but that together with a lack of understanding of history is how we get these newfangled ideas such as Jesus having uterine siblings.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Get yourself a copy of This is the Faith, by Canon Francis Ripley. (TAN Publications) He has a handy little appendix in the back that lists the chief heresies and their main characteristics, along with the years, founders, and the Councils that refuted them.

I think we are well beyond heresies now. We have a composite monster on our hands thats running around the planet springing illicit babies from its loins and giving them all Christian names.

I really think the hydra of Religious Pluralism is the gravest form of heresy ever facing The Church today.

My personal opinion is that ecumenicalism is related to Pluralism through the disingenuous and secular assumption that “reasonable” men can all come to the buffet table of the lord to pick and choose their favorite fractional truths to attain salvation; as if salvation is to be gained through the camaraderie of the gathering and through a legion of teachings.



James

 

[jmcrae]

I think we are well beyond heresies now. We have a composite monster on our hands thats running around the planet springing illicit babies from its loins and giving them all Christian names.

I really think the hydra of Religious Pluralism is the gravest form of heresy ever facing The Church today.

I think so, too. Unfortunately, pluralism has the appearance of being so reasonable and tolerant, and thus, is very attractive to the many who have that lethal combination of converted hearts (and want to love everyone unconditionally just like Jesus), but unconverted minds (don’t know exactly for sure what Jesus taught, really).

My personal opinion is that ecumenicalism is related to Pluralism through the disingenuous and secular assumption that “reasonable” men can all come to the buffet table of the lord to pick and choose their favorite fractional truths to attain salvation; as if salvation is to be gained through the camaraderie of the gathering and through a legion of teachings.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hydra_04.jpg/180px-Hydra_04.jpg

James

My own difficulty is that I don’t really know what “ecumenism” is supposed to be, according to the Church. My sense of it is that the goal is to have everyone convert to the Catholic faith, eventually - en masse, preferrably.

But my experience of it in practice is that either it makes us look arrogant (someone recently changed my wording in a document from “Catholic” to “Christian” in which I was describing something that is unique to Catholicism; the intent of the change in wording was to promote ecumenicalism - I didn’t point out, because the person is my superior, and because I sense God’s hand in the change of wording, that it now appears as if the only people who are really Christian are those who do these uniquely Catholic things that are being referred to in the document. Which conforms to my personal beliefs, anyways - I had put “Catholic” out of consideration for the fact that there are many people who see themselves as fully “Christian” who would never consider participating in these sorts of activities - I thought my way was actually more ecumenical. However, it hardly matters, since the people who will be reading these documents have only the most hazy notion of the existence of Protestantism, anyway - no Protestant will ever read them, for sure. ) - or (to now continue my parathetically interrupted sentence) - it makes us look like Universalists, who think that it doesn’t matter what people believe, as long as they come together to pray and to do good works.

 

[elt1956]

I’m going to have to do some research on the different heresies the Church has protected us from over the years. Every time a different protestant comes in challenging us with his or her version of their “truth”, then I’ll know which classification they go into. Every one of them thinks they are the first to think of these things too!

Sounds to me like there are some folks who should spend more time studying history along with studying the Bible…

I’m going to have to re-check gnosticism too. The way I remember, gnostics believed in two “Gods”? per se, one good, one evil. The Evil one created the world, therefore anything of this world was evil. Can’t remember how they reconciled that. But I do remember a bit of the history of the Cathars of the Languedoc region of France. They were the last holdouts against King ??? of France and Pope??? As I said I have to review my info. on this. Peace.

 

[Subrosa]

Moses was a murderer? Not sure I am following this one.

**Exodux 2:**11 On one occasion, after Moses had grown up, when he visited his kinsmen and witnessed their forced labor, he saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, one of his own kinsmen. 12 Looking about and seeing no one, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

Moses was a murderer.

Saul did not teach while he was persecuting Christians. Thus this point has nothing to do with the question. Saul turned from his sin and thus his name was changed to Paul. After this he no longer persecuted christians.

Again, this was before he began his teachings. He was not yet an Apostle either. So again, this is irrelevant to the question.

It’s nice to believe that some things are irrelevant. Saul, before his conversion, killed christians. This makes him a sinner, period. He didn’t suddenly become immaculate just because he converted.

The point is that we are all sinners: popes, bishops, protestant preachers, preachers wives and children, you and I. There are no exceptions.

And yet Christ tells us that we should know who are true followers according to thier fruits.

Have you yet read Deus Caritas Est? Please tell us if this real christian fruit or not, in your opinion.

Sub

 

[Bad_Dog]

If there were to be no successors to be head of the Church, then why did Jesus set up Peter as the head of the Church in the first place?
Christ must have foresaw a continuation of the primacy of Peter’s position, otherwise appointing Peter as head of the Church would have been short sighted, to say the least.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If there were to be no successors to be head of the Church, then why did Jesus set up Peter as the head of the Church in the first place?
Christ must have foresaw a continuation of the primacy of Peter’s position, otherwise appointing Peter as head of the Church would have been short sighted, to say the least.

Most rational people can agree with you. Even an atheist could agree with the premise in concept since its logical. The problem we have is that some people both non-Christians and those calling themselves Christians have such an irrational mind or have one that is so blinded by the false fundamental doctrines of men that they can’t see it. There is an utter blindness that extends from sin and hubris that Jesus warned us about (‘let they that have eyes see and ears hear’). Such can not accept any truth that competes with their own vision of the way things “should be”. They have scales on their eyes just like the murder Saul did before God revealed himself to make him St. Paul. The blindness makes if very obvious to those in The Truth that such are deficient either in mental facilities, spiritual facilities or both. All we can do is pray for God to heal them.

James

 

[justasking4]

If there were to be no successors to be head of the Church, then why did Jesus set up Peter as the head of the Church in the first place?
Christ must have foresaw a continuation of the primacy of Peter’s position, otherwise appointing Peter as head of the Church would have been short sighted, to say the least.

No doubt Peter was a leader in the NT church. The question though was he the only head? What is the evidence that he alone was the supreme head of the entire church and all the other apostles spoke of him this way?
If you study the scriptures you won’t see an affirmative answer to these questions. In fact Peter in his 2 letters never makes such a claim for himself either.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No doubt Peter was a leader in the NT church. The question though was he the only head? What is the evidence that he alone was the supreme head of the entire church and all the other apostles spoke of him this way?
If you study the scriptures you won’t see an affirmative answer to these questions. In fact Peter in his 2 letters never makes such a claim for himself either.

Well I must say Pope JA IV you are certainly bouncing all over CA today spreading confusion and false teaching again aren’t you?

There is no effective intellectual debate that is left standing that has Peter not accepted as THE SINGLE EARTHLY HEAD (as Vicar of Christ) of the Church. No matter how much you want to think it - God did not create a Church resembling some kind of multi-headed “hydra” like creature that we arrive at in the legion of Protestantism’s 30,000+ sects. Even a fundamentalist like yourself can’t ignore Peter’s own words in Ga. 2:1-10.

…after much debate(NAB),Peter stood up and said to them,"My brothers, you are well aware that from the early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. After they had fallen silent James in agreement with Peter gave his opinion.

There are many threads on CA that decisively dispel all arguments against Peter as head of the church. Spend a little time searching them rather than jumping around trying to hijack threads to rehash the same arguments all over again.

Here is a more recent discussion if you dare to step in and try to use fundamentalist arguments. Be able to speak Greek if you want to participate though…

James “ruled” in Acts 15:19

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3438590]
Originally Posted by justasking4
No doubt Peter was a leader in the NT church. The question though was he the only head? What is the evidence that he alone was the supreme head of the entire church and all the other apostles spoke of him this way?
If you study the scriptures you won’t see an affirmative answer to these questions. In fact Peter in his 2 letters never makes such a claim for himself either.

CentralFLJames
Well I must say Pope JA IV you are certainly bouncing all over CA today

I do what i can for the truth…

spreading confusion and false teaching again aren’t you?

There is no effective intellectual debate that is left standing that has Peter not accepted as THE SINGLE EARTHLY HEAD (as Vicar of Christ) of the Church. No matter how much you want to think it - God did not create a Church resembling some kind of multi-headed “hydra” like creature that we arrive at in the legion of Protestantism’s 30,000+ sects. Even a fundamentalist like yourself can’t ignore Peter’s own words in Ga. 2:1-10.

It is Paul who wrote Galatians. Paul states that he was going to meet not just with Peter but 2 other leaders.

…after much debate(NAB),Peter stood up and said to them,"My brothers, you are well aware that from the early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. After they had fallen silent James in agreement with Peter gave his opinion.

Read further on in Acts 15:19 where we read that it was James who made the decision and not Peter.

There are many threads on CA that decisively dispel all arguments against Peter as head of the church. Spend a little time searching them rather than jumping around trying to hijack threads to rehash the same arguments all over again.

There are just to many catholics confused on this issue like yourself that tells me it needs to be continually discussed.

Here is a more recent discussion if you dare to step in and try to use fundamentalist arguments. Be able to speak Greek if you want to participate though…

James “ruled” in Acts 15:19

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

It is Paul who wrote Galatians. Paul states that he was going to meet not just with Peter but 2 other leaders.

Read further on in Acts 15:19 where we read that it was James who made the decision and not Peter.

I can’t get over how far you will go to make any personal interpretation you can, no matter how absurd it is, to try and make a case for anything that opposes Catholic Teaching. Why do you hate The Catholic Church JA4? Who put all the treachery and scorn for Catholics in your heart?

You know very well that when the ship captain calls his officers together in council that all these are leaders of the working crew of the ship but they are all unified under the captain’s command. No matter how much you like the idea of a democratic process the Early Church was not a majority rule of peers. Peter was the head. When Peter’s asserted his authority James immediately recognized Peter’s authority and shut his mouth and listened for instruction. Once Peter saw that James accepted his authority Peter concurred with James’ assessment and let him assert it with his concurrence. Peter is head of the church no matter how much that messes up your notion of a christian commune all sitting around the campfire while pointing at each other’s bibles and nodding and smiling at each other as they sing kumbaya.

There are just to many catholics confused on this issue like yourself that tells me it needs to be continually discussed.

What you mean is that you do not feel comfortable being left standing alone outside the church in the cold and dark with no one inside paying any attention to your private teaching.

James