Different Gospels

[guanophore]

What is Luther’s theory? I am unaware of that except for what Luther found out by reading and translating the Bible himself and not relying on what he was told was in it. Do you not agree with most of his theses?

I think, if you want to discuss the theses, it should be done on another thread. Here you will already have your hands full trying to debunk our Apostolic Tradition!

You also asked me what would I think if Pope Benedict said something like what Luther said. Well I am sure you realize that I put no more faith in what a Pope would say than any other bishop, preacher or other man of God. I see no special position for a Pope.

Your inability to see it may be the result of the blinders you are wearing. In addition, the fact that you cannot see the Gospel that Jesus taught His Apostles or that He appointed Peter to shepherd His sheep does not change the fact that these things do exist.

Again, regarding Matthew, realize that it was also written about 20years or more after the resurrection, but I have no problem with anything he said.

If this is true, then you will have to accept that Jesus taught the Apostles that he would suffer:

Matt 16:21-22

21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised"

Why would it be any wonder to you that the Apostles laid the blame at the feet fo the “elders, chief priests, and scribes”, since Jesus already did this before it happened?

Rightlydivide

I believe the dispensation of grace began at the calling of Paul and still is in effect and will probably be until Christ returns for his people.

Grace be with you!

It is your privilege, of course, being made in the image and likeness of God, to believe anything you choose. Be aware that this is not the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul). Paul taught:

Eph 1:7-10
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 which he lavished upon us. 9 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."

Grace was revealed through Jesus, and not himself.

Furthermore, Jesus fulfilled the law, and the law never saved anyone. People prior to Jesus were also saved by grace, through faith. If you don’t believe that, read Heb. ch. 11 (if you are allowed, since it is not written by Paul).

 

[guanophore]

guanophore

Thanks for your response.

However you are way off on your dates. John was written about 20 - 30 years after Paul died.

Are you infering that John changed his teaching, abandoning what Jesus taught him, and conforming it to Paul’s teaching?

Acts was written about the time Paul was in prison in Rome a few years before he died. He had been preaching for over 25 years then.

Are you inferring that Luke did not accurately record what Peter actually said in Acts? Instead, he put words in the mouth of the Apostle, and represented his words through the lens of what Paul taught?

During the time of your quotes, however, Paul’s preaching and letters had been circulating for many years. You must remember that Paul was converted in approximately 35-37 A.D. He immediately started preaching his gospel.

It appears that you have much to learn about your family history.

Gal 1:17-19
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days."

Paul went on retreat, into Arabia, then remained three years in Damascus before contacting the Church, and starting his preaching ministry.

John was written about 80 - 90 A.D. Long after Paul had died.

Again, are you purporting that John was teaching the Gospel according to Paul, instead of what was taught to him by Christ?

 The writing of Acts began in about 62 AD and was written by Luke, a companion of Paul.  He knew Paul better than anyone and was with him for many years.

I don’t dispute that. I am asking if you think that means he put Paul’s words in Peter’s mouth.

Luke wrote Acts about Paul and Peter mostly but stops mentioning Peter after the conversion of Cornelius. We don’t know why.

According to your dispensationalism, wouldn’t that mean because his gospel was invalid and no longer needed?

 

[Janet_S]

Pure and simple, it’s a way to rationalize the *sola fide * he sees taught in Galatians and Romans while reconciling it to Christ’s moral teachings in the synoptic Gospels.

It’s definitely a trend that started with Luther who gave more weight to Paul’s epistles than to the synoptic Gospels.

 

[Old_Scholar]

guanophore

I don’t intend to debunk your theory of tradition. I have already done that starting with post #81 here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3071761#post3071761

In order to make something special out of Peter, you are really having to “stretch” the Scriptures. Strange how the RCC makes certain Scriptures read the way they want them to and then ignore others.

I agree that Jesus taught His disciples that He would suffer. Problem is that they didn’t want to believe Him. They never believed Him and all deserted Him until his resurrection, then they realized He was telling them the truth.

Are you saying that we are not in the dispensation of Grace now? The verses you quoted certainly said we have redemption through the riches of His grace. Read it again, please.

Hebrews chapter 11 is all about faith, not Grace. Unless you are saying it is the same thing???

You are quoting 2 Thess 2:15 and I am sure you realize that your Catholic Bible is the only one that reads that way. All other English versions read: 2 Thess 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.

That’s just another of those “little conveniences” to make the Scripture read RCC fashion.

In your next post, you asked if I thought John changed his teaching, abandoning what Jesus had taught him conforming it to Paul’s teaching. My answer is no, but John began to preach about Grace as did the other apostles after Paul received the salvation by grace gospel from Christ.

As you must know, Luke was a companion of Paul, not Peter. He had firsthand information. Luke was also in Palestine while Paul was imprisoned in Cæsarea. He had a great deal of time to compile information from eyewitnesses.

Luke did not write the acts of the apostles, or the history of the church. He wrote nothing about the churches in Galilee, or about the evangelizing of Egypt or Rome. He wrote only about three of the apostles, Peter, James and John and James and John are only mentioned. The book of Acts is really the acts of Peter and Paul. In addition, Peter is dropped from the book soon after the conversion of Cornelius, and Luke leaves us wondering what happened to him. Luke gives no explanation of the church elders, or how James became to the place of leadership in the Jerusalem church. Luke leaves out a great deal. His book seems to be telling a story rather than recording history. He skips over some events and elaborates on others. His story seems to be telling the main outlines of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome.

He uses two themes to tell this story of expansion. He talks about the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews and its reception by the Gentiles; and the treatment of the early church by local and Roman officials. It seems his main purpose is to explain to Theophilus how it came about that the Gospel which began with the promise of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, and ended with the Gentile church in Rome, distinct from Judaism. In order to understand Luke, you must utilize both his Gospel and the book of Acts. He actually doesn’t write much about Paul but seems to dwell on the conflict between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity.

I am offended by your statement that I have a lot to learn about my family history. I suspect I am as well informed as you are and maybe much more so, according to your posts. You don’t even seem to know very much about your own traditions, or else you would not have made some of the statements you made.

(more)

 

[Old_Scholar]

(cont’d)

For example, you say Paul did nothing for three years after being converted and went into retreat in Arabia. Well you need to read Scripture a little more. Paul actually began preaching immediately after Ananias healed his eyesight and he regained his strength.

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18) Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. 19) So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. 20) Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.
21) Then all who heard were amazed, and said, “Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?” 22) But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

And I am sure you know, by other Scriptures that he was preaching in Damascus for three years before he went to Jerusalem.

Yes, it is my belief that when Paul told Peter and the others what Christ had taught him, they began to preach the same Gospel. They knew that Paul was truthful and did not question his Gospel. You must realize that the apostles taught Christ crucified for our sins, and resurrected. Paul taught that it was by the grace of God that we will be saved and I believe your church teaches that as well as mine. Of course yours adds a little more to it…

As to whether the old Gospel was discarded, no it wasn’t. It was simply elaborated upon by the dispensation of Grace for salvation. Nothing had to change. Just grace added.

You asked about Luther and Paul. Lutherans believe that Martin Luther got Paul wrong. There were differences and perhaps to say Luther did not like Paul may not be correct. He disagreed with him on certain issues and did not want to include all his epistles in his translation of the Bible. Luther just *“ruled out” *Paul in the areas of his teaching on justification that is not in accordance with Luther. Lutherans want Paul to get Luther right rather than have Luther get Paul right…

I couldn’t help but note your little remark about “if I was allowed to read Hebrews.” Well I could very easily say that my church and my belief wants me to read the Scriptures and that is much more than you can say about the RCC belief. I know they would rather not have their people reading Scripture but whatever the church leaders have to say instead—so I don’t believe we want to get into that argument…

I hope you will visit the other thread and read what I have said about tradition.

In the meantime, May God Be With You and Yours! :harp:

 

[mercygate]

In order to make something special out of Peter, you are really having to “stretch” the Scriptures.

You’re serious, aren’t you?

Strange how the RCC makes certain Scriptures read the way they want them to and then ignore others.

Not half as strange as the way anti-Catholics do it – especially since the anti-Catholic twist requires severe mincing of the texts.

That’s just another of those “little conveniences” to make the Scripture read RCC fashion.

Since you don’t use the “quote” feature, I can’t figure out what you are responding to here but since the Catholic Church prodruced the New Testament, it makes sense that the Catholic Church interpret it and the chances are that the Catholic interpretation, received in an unbroken line from the Eleven, is the correct interpretation.

Luke did not write the acts of the apostles, or the history of the church.

Are you saying the Luke is not the author of the Acts of the Apostles – the book in our Bible? Or are you quibbling that the title of the book is incorrect because Acts focuses on Peter & Paul.

He wrote nothing about the churches in Galilee, or about the evangelizing of Egypt or Rome. He wrote only about three of the apostles, Peter, James and John and James and John are only mentioned. The book of Acts is really the acts of Peter and Paul. In addition, Peter is dropped from the book soon after the conversion of Cornelius, and Luke leaves us wondering what happened to him. Luke gives no explanation of the church elders, or how James became to the place of leadership in the Jerusalem church. Luke leaves out a great deal. His book seems to be telling a story rather than recording history. He skips over some events and elaborates on others. His story seems to be telling the main outlines of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome.

What’s the point of saying this? We all know Luke was Paul’s companion and focused on Paul’s story in Acts.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You’re serious, aren’t you?

**Certainly. How else can you build an entire religion on such an ambigious verse as Matthew 16:18? You have to make a big deal out of it, even though Christ gave the same thing to the other apostles as He did to Peter. Read Matthew a little further.

I know that you are aware that right after Christ called Peter a small stone, He also called him Satan. That’s why I say you really have to stretch the Scriptures to make Peter something special. Other than Judas, Peter was the only apostle that kept drawing Christ’s displeasure.

In addition, if Christ made Peter special, the entire Bible ignores it. In fact later on Christ was asked who was the greates apostle and Christ did not say Peter. He said they were all equal. Don’t you ever think of why there is no mention in Scripture of any special authority for Peter? Is it not unusual to have no mention of Peter being special and nothing said about it? It is said Peter was the first Bishop of Rome but Scripture doesn’t even place Peter in Rome. It is unlikely he was ever there!

Problem is that too much emphasis is placed on what someone else said hundreds of years later and not enough emphasis on what Christ and the apostles said. If Peter were something special, it is highly unlikely we would not read about it in the Scriptures. Instead we read of Christ berating him, calling him Satan and then him denying Christ when it counted most.**

Not half as strange as the way anti-Catholics do it – especially since the anti-Catholic twist requires severe mincing of the texts.
Since you don’t use the “quote” feature, I can’t figure out what you are responding to here but since the Catholic Church prodruced the New Testament, it makes sense that the Catholic Church interpret it and the chances are that the Catholic interpretation, received in an unbroken line from the Eleven, is the correct interpretation.

Sorry about the “quote”. At the time, I couldn’t get it to work so I couldn’t use it. It seems to work fine now. Since you say there is an unbroken line from the apostles, I suppose you could prove that??? And what’s this about the church giving us the New Testament? The New Testament was written by the apostles and eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry on earth. You have bet on the wrong horse. The only thing the Catholic Church had to do with the Bible was to declare what was already written and used in all the churches, as canon. The same 27 books of the New Testament were circulated among all the churches long before the Catholic Church considered them canon. They only did that in order to prove the heretics wrong. The Bible was already in use and had been for over 300 years when the Church canonized it.

Are you saying the Luke is not the author of the Acts of the Apostles – the book in our Bible? Or are you quibbling that the title of the book is incorrect because Acts focuses on Peter & Paul.

Just read what I wrote again and you would not have to ask that question. It was pretty clear what I said.

What’s the point of saying this? We all know Luke was Paul’s companion and focused on Paul’s story in Acts.

Someone asked didn’t I thing Luke wrote precisely what Peter told him to write. I simply gave an explanation of why Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts. If there was any influence in Acts by Peter, it doesn’t show, nor did Luke appear to say too much about Paul personally. The point was that Peter didn’t tell Luke what to write.

 

[mercygate]

Certainly. How else can you build an entire religion on such an ambigious verse as Matthew 16:18? You have to make a big deal out of it, even though Christ gave the same thing to the other apostles as He did to Peter. Read Matthew a little further.

No. All of the Apostles are given the power of binding and loosing. But only to Peter does Jesus promise the Keys. This is not amibguous at all. There is a mountain if NT evidence concerning the primacy of Peter. It has been dealt with elsewhere so I won’t go there.

quote]
**I know that you are aware that right after Christ called Peter a small stone, He also called him Satan. **Bah humbug! This “big stone” “small stone” business is a concoction unheard of in Helenistic Greek and imported from Attic Greek late in history solely to cobble up an argument against Petrine primacy. It is sheer nonsense and even Protestant scholars reject it.
Old Scholar:

That’s why I say you really have to stretch the Scriptures to make Peter something special. Other than Judas, Peter was the only apostle that kept drawing Christ’s displeasure.

**In addition, if Christ made Peter special, the entire Bible ignores it. In fact later on Christ was asked who was the greates apostle and Christ did not say Peter. He said they were all equal. Don’t you ever think of why there is no mention in Scripture of any special authority for Peter? Is it not unusual to have no mention of Peter being special and nothing said about it? It is said Peter was the first Bishop of Rome but Scripture doesn’t even place Peter in Rome. It is unlikely he was ever there! **The only thing I find “unusual” is that so-called “Bible” Christians reject such a clear point of Scripture.
Old Scholar:

Problem is that too much emphasis is placed on what someone else said hundreds of years later and not enough emphasis on what Christ and the apostles said. If Peter were something special, it is highly unlikely we would not read about it in the Scriptures. Instead we read of Christ berating him, calling him Satan and then him denying Christ when it counted most.

Yeah. The same guy Jesus later told to tend His sheep and feed His lambs. The guy Matthew refers to as “first” of the Apostles, even though we know he was not the first called. The guy whose name is always listed first when the Apostles are named. The guy whose name appears in the NT more than all the rest of the Apostles put together. The guy who speaks for the others on several occasions. The guy Paul thought enough of to consult with . . . But then, Paul wasn’t a “Bible Christian” because he hadn’t yet written the New Testament, so he didn’t know any better.

 

[mercygate]

**Since you say there is an unbroken line from the apostles, I suppose you could prove that??? **

Yup. We got a pretty good paper trail, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, who was evangelized by John the Evangelist and passed the faith on to Polycarp who handed on to Irenaeus. In Palestine there’s Justin Martyr – whole packs of early witnesses in communion with the rest of the Apostolic Churches, including Rome.

**And what’s this about the church giving us the New Testament? The New Testament was written by the apostles and eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry on earth. You have bet on the wrong horse. **

OK. So the Apostles, Luke, James & Paul were not members of the Church? You can’t mean that.

The only thing the Catholic Church had to do with the Bible was to declare what was already written and used in all the churches, as canon. The same 27 books of the New Testament were circulated among all the churches long before the Catholic Church considered them canon. They only did that in order to prove the heretics wrong. The Bible was already in use and had been for over 300 years when the Church canonized it.

You are suggesting that canonizing the New Testament is trivial? You don’t think it significant that the canon excluded the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Protoevangelion of James, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? Yes, all the books of the New Testament were in circulation – but not uniformly by any means. The oldest extant codex of the Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) includes The Shepherd of Hermas but not Revelation.

But setting the canon is merely incidental in the history of the Church?

And what happened to the Catholic Church after the canon was ratified? Did it STOP being that very same Church of the Apostles?

The mind boggles.

 

[mercygate]

**Certainly. How else can you build an entire religion on such an ambigious verse as Matthew 16:18? **Y’know, Catholics get really, reallly cranky when it is suggested that our faith – and Christ’s Church – are founded on anything other than the Person of Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church. Really, REALLY cranky.

 

[Old_Scholar]

No. All of the Apostles are given the power of binding and loosing. But only to Peter does Jesus promise the Keys. This is not ambiguous at all. There is a mountain if NT evidence concerning the primacy of Peter. It has been dealt with elsewhere so I won’t go there.

**So what do you think the keys are?

And the mountain of evidence for the primacy of Peter—I don’t blame you for not listing it because it simply isn’t there. Zilch!**

quote]
**I know that you are aware that right after Christ called Peter a small stone, He also called him Satan. **

Bah humbug! This “big stone” “small stone” business is a concoction unheard of in Helenistic Greek and imported from Attic Greek late in history solely to cobble up an argument against Petrine primacy. It is sheer nonsense and even Protestant scholars reject it.

You’re just not wanting to discuss it. The words used were: for Peter—petros, and for the confession of faith—petra
You should read what some of the early church leaders had to say about that. Most of them acknowledge that it was the confession of faith Peter showed that Christ said He would build the church on, not Peter the man.

The only thing I find “unusual” is that so-called “Bible” Christians reject such a clear point of Scripture.

What is the “clear point of Scripture” we reject?

Yeah. The same guy Jesus later told to tend His sheep and feed His lambs. The guy Matthew refers to as “first” of the Apostles, even though we know he was not the first called. The guy whose name is always listed first when the Apostles are named. The guy whose name appears in the NT more than all the rest of the Apostles put together. The guy who speaks for the others on several occasions. The guy Paul thought enough of to consult with . . . But then, Paul wasn’t a “Bible Christian” because he hadn’t yet written the New Testament, so he didn’t know any better.

**Wow! What great speculation and assumption. I guess that proves it huh?

You need to read the 21st chapter of John again so that you may understand why Christ said what He did to Peter. It isn’t difficult to understand. **

 

[mercygate]

Bah humbug! This “big stone” “small stone” business is a concoction unheard of in Helenistic Greek and imported from Attic Greek late in history solely to cobble up an argument against Petrine primacy. It is sheer nonsense and even Protestant scholars reject it.[/qupte]

You’re just not wanting to discuss it. The words used were: for Peter—petros, and for the confession of faith—petra
**You should read what some of the early church leaders had to say about that. Most of them acknowledge that it was the confession of faith Peter showed that Christ said He would build the church on, not Peter the man. ** Peter’s confession is the substance of our faith. However, we do not separate Peter’s confession from Peter himself. As I stated before, even Protestants reject the big rock/small stone theory as well as the idea that Jesus is referring to Peter’s confession apart from Peter the Apostle.
Old Scholar:

What is the “clear point of Scripture” we reject?

The weight of evidence concerning Peter’s position – For example, in Mt. 10:2, “first, Simon, who is called Peter” – where “protos” means "pre-eminent.’
Old Scholar:

mercygate:

Yeah. The same guy Jesus later told to tend His sheep and feed His lambs. The guy Matthew refers to as “first” of the Apostles, even though we know he was not the first called. The guy whose name is always listed first when the Apostles are named. The guy whose name appears in the NT more than all the rest of the Apostles put together. The guy who speaks for the others on several occasions. The guy Paul thought enough of to consult with . . . But then, Paul wasn’t a “Bible Christian” because he hadn’t yet written the New Testament, so he didn’t know any better.

Wow! What great speculation and assumption. I guess that proves it huh?

Well, you can add Luke 22:32 to the rest, it sure makes a whale of a case.

**You need to read the 21st chapter of John again so that you may understand why Christ said what He did to Peter. It isn’t difficult to understand. **

Agreed. One can never read John 21 enough. I have committed it to memory but still re-read it frequently. I agree that it isn’t difficult to understand? So why are you having so much trouble with it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yup. We got a pretty good paper trail, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, who was evangelized by John the Evangelist and passed the faith on to Polycarp who handed on to Irenaeus. In Palestine there’s Justin Martyr – whole packs of early witnesses in communion with the rest of the Apostolic Churches, including Rome.

**So you’re not following the normal RCC line of succession which says Linus, the first Bishop of Rome, succeeded by Anecletus, then Clement…

You are following the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox line of succession. That’s good. You say the church started in Antioch, then Smyrna and back to Antioch. You don’t make the claim that the first pope was in Rome.**

OK. So the Apostles, Luke, James & Paul were not members of the Church? You can’t mean that.

You know very well what I mean when I say the church didn’t give us the Bible. When you speak of the church, you are thinking of an institution, not the body of believers as I do.

You are suggesting that canonizing the New Testament is trivial? You don’t think it significant that the canon excluded the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Protoevangelion of James, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? Yes, all the books of the New Testament were in circulation – but not uniformly by any means. The oldest extant codex of the Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) includes The Shepherd of Hermas but not Revelation.

**The Gospel of Thomas was written by a group of early Christians who claimed the apostle Thomas as their founder. It is a collection of “sayings” that are attributed to Jesus and has never been accepted by any church.

The Epistle of Barnabas gives no clue as to who wrote it or when. It also has been totally disregarded.

The Protevangelion of James, often called the Gospel of James was written in the second century A.D. and certainly was not written by James. It is an apocryphal book that was widely read but never accepted as Scripture, nor was it ever even thought of being canonized. Most critics believe it is a composite of other works.

The Gospel of Mary is another of those books that we don’t know for sure who wrote it and it has so many contradictions to Scripture that it should never be considered as anything for reading or history.
**

But setting the canon is merely incidental in the history of the Church?

**Books like these were never even considered for the canon. Nothing written after 100 A.D. was even considered for the canon. And as I said before, everything that was canonized had been preached ever since they were written. **

And what happened to the Catholic Church after the canon was ratified? Did it STOP being that very same Church of the Apostles?

The mind boggles.

(cont’d)

 

[Old_Scholar]

(cont’d) space limitations

First, let me say that the “Catholic” church was simply the universal church. Not what we have today as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church today is the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has now become the Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and other non-Catholic Churches that don’t belong to the RCC.

If you will read the early church writers such as the ones I have already mentioned, you will see what happened to the Catholic Church. Gradually heretical things started creeping in. The false doctrines started being developed. Those that could not be verified by Scripture. The early church leaders fought against it but after the fir few hundred years, pagan rituals and rights as well as heretical beliefs infiltrated the church. That’s what started the splitting up of the church into so many factions. Constantine in 325, who was the Emperor, called the first church council, the council of Nicæa. His goal was to re-unite the church, even though he was not a Christian then, and try to get rid of the heretics. It succeeded to a certain degree but then Constantine himself started introducing paganistic rights and rituals into the church. He worked to get the church under the control of Rome and eventually succeeded and then later on the church began to control Rome.

It was round the 5th century when the first time a “Pope” was ever considered. The office was established and then they tried to get all churches under the rule of the Pope. It succeeded in many cases but there were always splinter groups who would not submit to the control of Rome. Eventually the Eastern Orthodox split over doctrinal issues and never would accept papal authority. They still don’t today.

I believe the church of the first couple of centuries was my church just as Roman Catholics today believe it was the beginning of theirs. There was no Roman Catholic control until about the 5th century and each church was self-sufficient. Oh there were regional Bishops, etc. in certain areas but they did not have control as is claimed by the RCC today. The early duty of the Bishops was to see that the churches had proper bishops, elders, presbyters, etc. No control was exercised.

Now if you are a Roman Catholic, I am sure you will see all this as Protestant lies but I urge you to search the Scriptures and search the writings of the early church writers and see what they had to say. You will find that the earliest of them went strictly by Scripture and would not go along with any traditions that could not be proved by Scripture. Most of them also did not consider the Apocrypha as Scripture but was of interest for reading only and the historical content. That’s the way it was until the Council of Trent.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Peter’s confession is the substance of our faith. However, we do not separate Peter’s confession from Peter himself. As I stated before, even Protestants reject the big rock/small stone theory as well as the idea that Jesus is referring to Peter’s confession apart from Peter the Apostle.

**I don’t know any protestants who reject the big rock small rock idea. The Greek words are there, they can’t be changed. I can show you writings of the early church leaders however who say that it was Peter’s confession the church was to be built upon, not Peter the man.

You must separate Peter’s confession from the man. Even Peter himself said that Jesus was the rock the church was built upon. Peter never claimed to be anything special either. Christ is called the rock throughout the Bible. There is little doubt who the church is built upon.**

The weight of evidence concerning Peter’s position – For example, in Mt. 10:2, “first, Simon, who is called Peter” – where “protos” means "pre-eminent.’

That is only naming the apostles as they were chosen. Peter and his brother were the first chosen. Nothing else can be inferred by that Scripture. The first meaning of Protos means first in time and place, not pre-eminent.

Well, you can add Luke 22:32 to the rest, it sure makes a whale of a case.

If you know this Scripture so well, then you know that Jesus was trying to pump Peter back up. He was so far down that Christ prayed that he would regain his faith and show it by helping the other apostles. That’s all that happens here.

Agreed. One can never read John 21 enough. I have committed it to memory but still re-read it frequently. I agree that it isn’t difficult to understand? So why are you having so much trouble with it?

Then you know that Peter was so ashamed that he could not even eat and did not want to have to face Christ. Christ was trying to show him that he had forgiven him and he made it a point to speak to him three times and tell him what he wanted him to do. He did it three times because Peter had denyed Him three times. He did not ask Peter to do anything that He had asked the other apostles to do. Christ simply wanted him back in the fold. You read far too much into this because you want it to fit a certain thought. Well it’s actually very simply. No need to make it complicated. It does not mean what you want it to.

 

[mercygate]

(cont’d)

Please use the quote feature properly. It is painfully time consuming to do the mechanical gymnastics required to respond to your posts. Suffice it to say for the moment that the Church the ratified the New Testament was the Universal Church Catholic. We agree on all that you say about those spurious gospels.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Church had the authority to set the canon implies “control.”

I do not follow an “eastern” line of succession because the Church of Ignatius and Polycarp and Irenaeus was undivided. It is the Catholic Church. Every one of 'em has a feast on the Calendar of the liturgical year.

The Petrine line – by the words of Christ himself – stands as the unifyng core of the Apostolic. The fact that the consolidation of Rome as a sine qua non of organizational authority emerged over time in no way negates tne necessity of that consolidationl, given the history of both Church and Empire at the time. As early as the late 1st century we see the Bishop of Rome intervening at the request of Corinth to settle a problem with their bishop – while John was still alive. Well before the 5th Century the Bishops of Rome are making decisions that affect the rest of the Church.

The invisible “body of believers” idea is a novel characterization of “church” unheard of before the Reformation.

 

[mercygate]

Then you know that Peter was so ashamed that he could not even eat and did not want to have to face Christ. Christ was trying to show him that he had forgiven him and he made it a point to speak to him three times and tell him what he wanted him to do. He did it three times because Peter had denyed Him three times. He did not ask Peter to do anything that He had asked the other apostles to do. Christ simply wanted him back in the fold. You read far too much into this because you want it to fit a certain thought. Well it’s actually very simply. No need to make it complicated. It does not mean what you want it to.

That is your infallible interpretation of the passage? You give new meaning to the word “eisegesis.”