Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isaiah45_9 said:
40.png
prodromos:
Ad hominems are the recourse of those with weak arguments.
Click to expand...
Which the inability to admit the wrongdoing only exarcerbates the situation and destroys credibility.
Click to expand...
Umm… do you guys know what ‘ad hominem’ means, anyway? :rolleyes:

An ad hominem argument would be “Isaiah45_9 is wrong because his religion is listed as ‘discerning’.” In other words, you refute the veracity of a person’s argument based on who that person is.

That’s not what Randy had said here. If he had said “House is wrong because he’s an ex-Catholic,” it would have been an ad hominem argument. That’s not what he did; rather, Randy was attempting to identify the motivation for House’s arguments. (That motivation may or may not be true – I don’t know.)

I think ya’ll can’t identify what an ‘ad hominem’ argument is because ya’ll are just silly poopyheads. (See? That’s what an ad hominem looks like… 😉 )
 
Gorgias said:
Umm… do you guys know what ‘ad hominem’ means, anyway? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You don’t need to reach a conclusion in order for an ad hominem argument to take effect.

Mr. Oxford says:

ADVERB& ADJECTIVE

1(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
[AS ADJECTIVE]: vicious ad hominem attacks
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2Relating to or associated with a particular person:

And Mrs. Merriam-Webster says:

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

:cool:
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
You don’t need to reach a conclusion in order for an ad hominem argument to take effect.

Mr. Oxford says:

ADVERB& ADJECTIVE

1(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
[AS ADJECTIVE]: vicious ad hominem attacks
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2Relating to or associated with a particular person:

And Mrs. Merriam-Webster says:

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

:cool:
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing. I’ve been keeping myself entertained reading back and forth here. Mostly because this reads like a lopsided debate where one side is actually using logic and scripture and the other side is just saying, “Well I just don’t agree with that.”

Now onto your little objection here. The problem is that you are simply wrong. Mathemagician powers activate. Everything that the OP has thrown out there has been answered. In fact, in reading through this I have really not seen many of the Catholic arguments thoroughly challenged - once again other than with dismissal - which is in fact not a valid form of argument.

Making an aside to try to figure out why someone is simply not answering but rather beating his fists against a wall is not attacking his position because his arguments have already been addressed. I mean, I could have told you after the first four pages of reading this that the House was in the realm of “Trololololo lolo lo lo!” He has not really answered most of the statements and instead went on a several page tirade against the analogy about the supreme commander. Really?

In terms of tone, etc. I would actually say that the very first post in this was the most attacking against character of anything else. I mean, it started by saying that we were just going to ignore it because blah blah blah (sorry but this is honestly just absurd at this point)
 
House_Harkonnen said:
We both know this is a half truth. The RC denomination does indeed teach that all bishops share and have authority. But what you neglected to say is that the denomination teaches that one bishop in particular is higher, and greater than all the other bishops. This is contra the teaching of the early church.

Nonsense. My denomination has loads of bishops, and I accept their authority. Many protestants have bishops. I don’t think you know very much about the “sons of the reformation”.
Click to expand...
Sure…but they appointed themselves as bishops, without proper authority to do so and ordain themself…🤷

If you do indeed follow the church tradition, both east and west, bishopric authority stems from the Apostolic churches…today’s protestant denoms have lost that apostolic connection…so your protestant bishops are bishops because they called themselves bishops…but devoid of any apostolic connection.
 
adrift said:
But He didn’t change any of their names. The claim is made that the rock is Christ and the name change is ignored.
Click to expand...
There would have been no need to change any of their names at that point because Peter’s profession of faith had already been made in front of the other disciples. John the Baptist had professed Jesus Son of God and Andrew (along with just one other) heard from the Baptist that Jesus was the Lamb of God. Then Andrew told his brother Simon Peter that Jesus was the Messiah. This is from Jn 1:29-41 and can be found here:

usccb.org/bible/john/1

Then Peter made the profession to the rest of the disciples in Matt 16. Yes only from God could Peter have known. But what Andrew had heard from the Baptist and then told Simon could have been from God. Jn 1:6 in the above link even says John was sent from God. So anyway once they all knew about Christ there was no need to change their names too. Peter’s name could have been changed because it so happened to be Peter who made this profession of faith to all the rest. And then upon his profession of faith that Christ was the Savior the Son of God, Christ’s Church could have been built. Not necessarily upon Peter. But just 2 different faith interpretations and beliefs is all we’re dealing with when it comes to Peter. It’s all a matter of faith and belief.
 
Sy_Noe said:
There would have been no need to change any of their names at that point because Peter’s profession of faith had already been made in front of the other disciples. John the Baptist had professed Jesus Son of God and Andrew (along with just one other) heard from the Baptist that Jesus was the Lamb of God. Then Andrew told his brother Simon Peter that Jesus was the Messiah. This is from Jn 1:29-41 and can be found here:

usccb.org/bible/john/1

Then Peter made the profession to the rest of the disciples in Matt 16. Yes only from God could Peter have known. But what Andrew had heard from the Baptist and then told Simon could have been from God. Jn 1:6 in the above link even says John was sent from God. So anyway once they all knew about Christ there was no need to change their names too. Peter’s name could have been changed because he happened to be the one who made the profession of faith to all the rest. And then upon his profession of faith that Christ was the Savior the Son of God, Christ’s Church could have been built. Not necessarily upon Peter. But just 2 different faith interpretations and beliefs is all we’re dealing with when it comes to Peter. It’s all a matter of faith and belief.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Or his name was changed as a sign that God would use him in a special way to lead when Christ left “Peter Feed my Sheep” “Peter feed my lambs” Jesus said those words to Peter alone.

And you want us to think “he’s just another guy, no big deal”. based on your analogy, perhaps everyone that professes faith should have their pastor assign them a new name.

This is the illogical nonsense and grasping at straws that historical revisionist HavE to do in order to justify their incorrect dictrine.

It goes like this,

Person A finds a church they like, learn things about God from the churches worldview and buys in. Then they ignore or dismiss certain “problem areas”. Then when confronted with the hard facts, they do whatever gymnastics they have to, no matter how illogical, to preserve their erroneous dictrine.

As one who used to hold such errors, I can say it’s much more fulfilling to just go where the truth plainly leads.
 
Jon_S said:
Seriously? Or his name was changed as a sign that God would use him in a special way to lead when Christ left “Peter Feed my Sheep” “Peter feed my lambs” Jesus said those words to Peter alone.

And you want us to think “he’s just another guy, no big deal”. based on your analogy, perhaps everyone that professes faith should have their pastor assign them a new name.

This is the illogical nonsense and grasping at straws that historical revisionist HavE to do in order to justify their incorrect dictrine.

It goes like this,

Person A finds a church they like, learn things about God from the churches worldview and buys in. Then they ignore or dismiss certain “problem areas”. Then when confronted with the hard facts, they do whatever gymnastics they have to, no matter how illogical, to preserve their erroneous dictrine.

As one who used to hold such errors, I can say it’s much more fulfilling to just go where the truth plainly leads.
Click to expand...
You make it sound as if the other apostles weren’t supposed to shepherd and feed their sheep too. And no I want you just as I want for anyone. To think and believe what you have faith in. A pastor doesn’t need to change my name. I already believe Peter’s profession. I’ve not found the fulfillment where you have. But I’m sure glad you have! And peace in your faith.
 
and the Lord said " Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you ,that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has returned again, strengthen thy brethen. Luke 22: 31-32.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. John 21 15-17.

I don’t think it gets more clear then the above passages; especially when He says strengthen thy brethren.

God Bless:)
 
Protestants so often want to tie us to just the scripture, but there is literally thousands of documents outside the Bible to support the Papacy and Church authority.

One has to ignore all that evidence to reject the pope and church authority Reading all those works should at least convince anyone of the Orthodox position (and I’d argue the Catholic position)
 
onenow1 said:
and the Lord said " Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you ,that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has returned again, strengthen thy brethen. Luke 22: 31-32.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. John 21 15-17.

I don’t think it gets more clear then the above passages; especially when He says strengthen thy brethren.

God Bless:)
Click to expand...
  1. There is no indication here of any sort of position over the others.
  2. Keep reading (as I said earlier in the thread). v22ff was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something along the lines of “there’s a good shepherd, Peter”. Instead Jesus chews him out for what seems to be Peter trying to do pastoral ministry. “What about this man?” Jesus essentially tells him that what happens to John is none of Peter’s business - just about the exact opposite of what you would expect of Jesus was putting Peter in a position over John. It is clear from this passage that Jesus was denying Peter such a place as it seems he coveted.
If this is true, then the papacy is a result of Peter’s carnal lust for power, not the will of God. I am surprised that Catholics are not tamely and docilely going along with this theory. I mean, it would overthrow much of what is regarded as Sacred Tradition and the church structure and hierarchy, so I expect you would take it calmly. Not much at stake.

I read that over and added the word “carnal” just to keep you happy. I am not sure it will, though.

Any objections?
 
Randy:

Quit spamming the thread. It is against Form Rules and is rude. I don’t and I won’t read posts that long. I just consider it trash you threw on the thread and it is not worth responding to.

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
pablope said:
Well, how do you know what Christ meant or what Christ’s idea was? Was this revealed to you via direct revelation? Or just your opinion?
Click to expand...
I explained above: post-Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect, for the purpose of this thread.

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.
Click to expand...
 
Tomyris said:
  1. There is no indication here of any sort of position over the others.
  2. Keep reading (as I said earlier in the thread). v22ff was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something along the lines of “there’s a good shepherd, Peter”. Instead Jesus chews him out for what seems to be Peter trying to do pastoral ministry. “What about this man?” Jesus essentially tells him that what happens to John is none of Peter’s business - just about the exact opposite of what you would expect of Jesus was putting Peter in a position over John. It is clear from this passage that Jesus was denying Peter such a place as it seems he coveted.
If this is true, then the papacy is a result of Peter’s carnal lust for power, not the will of God. I am surprised that Catholics are not tamely and docilely going along with this theory. I mean, it would overthrow much of what is regarded as Sacred Tradition and the church structure and hierarchy, so I expect you would take it calmly. Not much at stake.

I read that over and added the word “carnal” just to keep you happy. I am not sure it will, though.

Any objections?
Click to expand...
What a sad fantasy.
 
Tomyris said:
I explained above: post-Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect, for the purpose of this thread.

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.
Click to expand...
Problem being the post scriptural support for the Trinity and for determining what scripture to look at (what is scripture) is equally suspect to you.

So you just arbitrarily determine what to consider and what not. Perhaps you are infallible? Most Protestants are their own authority which is why they despise the papacy so much. It’s tough putting trust in God/the church as opposed to yourself.
 
Jon_S said:
Protestants so often want to tie us to just the scripture, but there is literally thousands of documents outside the Bible to support the Papacy and Church authority.

One has to ignore all that evidence to reject the pope and church authority Reading all those works should at least convince anyone of the Orthodox position (and I’d argue the Catholic position)
Click to expand...
The reformation was the blow that made the world and some Christians, follow their own whims under the guise of following the Hoy Spirit. Jesus said the road is narrow that leads to life ,and wide that leads to damnation.

God Bless:)
 
I’m thinking this could have started off with five threads, given the little response this has gotten so far.

Hey! Peter!

Why the name change?

It could have been that he was personally weak and foolish, and Jesus was turning him into a solid sort. He was certainly admirable and manly in the book of Acts, and his epistles are, well, inspired…

It could be synecdoche, in which Peter is playing the role of many in the body of Christ, and Christ was speaking not just to Peter as one but to many. If we make the confession that Peter made in Matthew 16 (the first one) wonderful things happen. If we set our minds and purposes on the world, we are of the devil.

If you name your daughter “Faith”, she does not become faith, but you desire her to have all the positive qualities of faith.

Peter was not full of the Holy Spirit one minute and five minutes later requiring exorcism. That is not plausible, to say the least.

The “sons of thunder” got called that, but people are not running around extracting Deep Theological Meaning from a few verses on THAT one.

Did Peter take a lead among the apostles? Yes. But he was an apostle to the Jews, while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Acts can be read as the eclipse of Peter by Paul. It would, on reading Acts, be more convincing to decide that Paul should have been the first pope, not Peter (if he was one, but that would be ANOTHER thread).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top