Is It The Bible, Or Is It The Church?

[thecoach]

Change your Profile it’s offensive

wow, you really have nothing left to refute me with, do you? How is it offensive? I think I have more than proven my point here.

 

[thecoach]

Start your own chuch - want a link? Pope Coach

by the way…your profile doesnt state any affilitation, it can be taken as deceptive.

 

[dosdog]

wow, you really have nothing left to refute me with, do you? How is it offensive? I think I have more than proven my point here.

You refuse the authority - done nothing but belittle the church

 

[thecoach]

You refuse the authority - done nothing but belittle the church

NO what I have done was prove the Scripture does not support the Petrine Papacy, cutting and pasting not withstanding. You have then resorted to nothing more than a sort of stomping your feet. Unless you can directly challenge what Acts says and how it relates to Peter, and refute it and what else I have posted, then we are done, yes?

 

[fbl9]

who made the decsion in the first plasce not St.James but St. Peter. St.James was adding unto what St.Peter had decided.the original dispute was over circumsion not the rest of what St. James was talking about. He did not appiont the delegates did he? no it was a decsion of the Church who to send and what they were sending. Coach when you are saying the Eastern rite may have more credence in aurthority you in a backhand way are saying that your church actually has no aurthority bc the Eastern rite has the aurthority.

 

[dosdog]

NO what I have done was prove the Scripture does not support the Petrine Papacy, cutting and pasting not withstanding. You have then resorted to nothing more than a sort of stomping your feet. Unless you can directly challenge what Acts says and how it relates to Peter, and refute it and what else I have posted, then we are done, yes?

James was killed - Christ chose Peter - All The Apostles had apostolic authority

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of concordant judgment. At that council James echoed the policy established through Peter by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), explained by Peter to the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts11), and enunciated by Peter at the council (Acts 15).
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp​

 

[thecoach]

who made the decsion in the first plasce not St.James but St. Peter. St.James was adding unto what St.Peter had decided.the original dispute was over circumsion not the rest of what St. James was talking about. He did not appiont the delegates did he? no it was a decsion of the Church who to send and what they were sending. Coach when you are saying the Eastern rite may have more credence in aurthority you in a backhand way are saying that your church actually has no aurthority bc the Eastern rite has the aurthority.

No what I am saying is the passage does not support your position.What decision are you refering to that Peter made in the first place? If you referring to work among the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas also relate the same work. There is no passage that supports that Peter was the one to send anyone out. And you cannot explain why James was head at Jerusalem and NOT Peter. As far as the Eastern church, if what legend says is true that Peter was head of the church at Antioch, the logical conclusion then is that if you want Petrine succession, it would be there, and not in the Roman rite.

 

[thecoach]

James was killed - Christ chose Peter - All The Apostles had apostolic authority

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of concordant judgment. At that council James echoed the policy established through Peter by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), explained by Peter to the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts11), and enunciated by Peter at the council (Acts 15).
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp​

Just how was it established by Peter alone? Paul was already doing the same work.

"James was killed - Christ chose Peter - All The Apostles had apostolic authority "

Im confused…Christ chose Peter AFTER James was killed? And if Peter was chosen for the role you think he was, why was he NOT head of the community at Jerusalem? You have still yet to answer that. You state all apostles had apostolic authority almost as if one is not supreme over the other.

 

[fbl9]

No what I am saying is the passage does not support your position.What decision are you refering to that Peter made in the first place? If you referring to work among the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas also relate the same work. There is no passage that supports that Peter was the one to send anyone out. And you cannot explain why James was head at Jerusalem and NOT Peter. As far as the Eastern church, if what legend says is true that Peter was head of the church at Antioch, the logical conclusion then is that if you want Petrine succession, it would be there, and not in the Roman rite.

Acts 15;6-12

 

[dosdog]

Just how was it established by Peter alone? Paul was already doing the same work.

"James was killed - Christ chose Peter - All The Apostles had apostolic authority "

Im confused…Christ chose Peter AFTER James was killed? And if Peter was chosen for the role you think he was, why was he NOT head of the community at Jerusalem? You have still yet to answer that. You state all apostles had apostolic authority almost as if one is not supreme over the other.

Acts 10 44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.

46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

Acts 11
Peter defends his having received the Gentiles into the church.

 

[Des]

NO what I have done was prove the Scripture does not support the Petrine Papacy, cutting and pasting not withstanding.

You have used ONE verse to do this. Your ONE verse against many others that support ours. James was the local Bishop who presided over that area. This was not an Ecumenical Council either. So he rightfully was in the position to speak along with Peter.

When was James ever called ‘The First’ apostle. Cause I can give you numerous occasions when Peter was and always named first accordingly.

Was James told by Christ to feed his Sheep when the other Apostles were in the very room. You neglet many verses where Peter is our First Pope.

You speak about how we are illogical. NO! What is illogical is a man who claims that he and his pastor have the right to preach error just because you are FOR Christ. Your man made tradition has done nothing but split Christians up when it comes to Truth.

Your logic definitely crumbles when you somehow believe the Jesus gave us all the written word only when for over a good 1300 years very little people could read it and it was scarce at that.

There is NO verse in the Bible whatsoever to back up your sola scripture non denominational doctrine which you are trying so hard to cling to.

I’m off to Mass now.

You have yourself a good day.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Earlier in acts, Sts. Peter and John and James (if memory serves) are said to be in charge of the Jerusalem Church, When St. Paul seeks the apostles he goes and speaks to St. Peter. When Simon Magus shows up, it is Saint Peter who deals with him, and does all the talking.

Before the Jerusalem Council the original James is dead, and an arrest warrant is out for Peter (and the others,) Peter flees the scene and appoints James to the See of Jerusalem.

So Peter appointed James in Jerusalem as the communities leader, as he had to evade te authorities. So it was Saint Peter’s See. Just as Alexandria was started under Peter’s authority when he sent Saint Mark. The four ancient Sees (Constantinople wasn’t until much later) all have the markings of Saint Peter. But as the Church Fathers have written, each one was special and started by Peter; but Rome was the exalted See.

 

[fbl9]

You have used ONE verse to do this. Your ONE verse against many others that support ours. James was the local Bishop who presided over that area. This was not an Ecumenical Council either. So he rightfully was in the position to speak along with Peter.

When was James ever called ‘The First’ apostle. Cause I can give you numerous occasions when Peter was and always named first accordingly.

Was James told by Christ to feed his Sheep when the other Apostles were in the very room. You neglet many verses where Peter is our First Pope.

You speak about how we are illogical. NO! What is illogical is a man who claims that he and his pastor have the right to preach error just because you are FOR Christ. Your man made tradition has done nothing but split Christians up when it comes to Truth.

Your logic definitely crumbles when you somehow believe the Jesus gave us all the written word only when for over a good 1300 years very little people could read it and it was scarce at that.

There is NO verse in the Bible whatsoever to back up your sola scripture non denominational doctrine which you are trying so hard to cling to.

I’m off to Mass now.

You have yourself a good day.

well said…me too

 

[thecoach]

Acts 15;6-12

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 1

It seems to me Paul and Barnabas has as much influence on the assembly as Peter did, and funny how you didnt include verse 19, where JAMES issues the edict, NOT Peter. You cannot get around that, Peter is shown to be in NO position of authority at Jerusalem. Can noone respond directly to why that is?

 

[thecoach]

Acts 10 44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.

46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

Acts 11
Peter defends his having received the Gentiles into the church.

And the majority of Acts shows Paul doing the same work…how do these verses prove Petrine supremacy? They dont.

 

[thecoach]

You have used ONE verse to do this. Your ONE verse against many others that support ours. James was the local Bishop who presided over that area. This was not an Ecumenical Council either.perhaps not, since no such thing yet existed. However, “Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem” from newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm, so it WAS a council. So he rightfully was in the position to speak along with Peter.

When was James ever called ‘The First’ apostle. Cause I can give you numerous occasions when Peter was and always named first accordingly.and yet, Peter was not the head at Jersualem. Wonder why that is?

Was James told by Christ to feed his Sheep when the other Apostles were in the very room. You neglet many verses where Peter is our First Pope. so then he wasnt to feed the sheep at Jerusalem? For he was not in chagre at the most important community at the time, nor does he issue the edict from that council, James does that.

You speak about how we are illogical. NO! What is illogical is a man who claims that he and his pastor have the right to preach error just because you are FOR Christ.my pastor? and who is that, since I have mentioned none Your man made tradition has done nothing but split Christians up when it comes to Truth.your traditions have done that

Your logic definitely crumbles when you somehow believe the Jesus gave us all the written word only when for over a good 1300 years very little people could read it and it was scarce at that.

There is NO verse in the Bible whatsoever to back up your sola scripture non denominational doctrine which you are trying so hard to cling to.not any to support Petrine supremacy specifically. Acts contradicts it completely.

I’m off to Mass now. good, it seems you need it

You have yourself a good day.

 

[thecoach]

Earlier in acts, Sts. Peter and John and James (if memory serves) are said to be in charge of the Jerusalem Church,I dont find that in Acts…can you related a verse as to where I can find this? When St. Paul seeks the apostles he goes and speaks to St. Peter.Acts 9:26…mentions Paul going to the Apostles, but not Peter by name. Acts 15: 1-6 mention the Apostles and elders, but not Peter by name. When Simon Magus shows up, it is Saint Peter who deals with him, and does all the talking.

Before the Jerusalem Council the original James is dead, and an arrest warrant is out for Peter (and the others,) Peter flees the scene and appoints there is no mention of Peter doing this. Therefore, you make a point. James killed, and James takes his place, so where is Petrine authority?James to the See of Jerusalem.

So Peter appointed James in Jerusalem as the communities leader, as he had to evade te authorities. So it was Saint Peter’s See. Just as Alexandria was started under Peter’s authority when he sent Saint Mark. The four ancient Sees (Constantinople wasn’t until much later) all have the markings of Saint Peter. But as the Church Fathers have written, each one was special and started by Peter; but Rome was the exalted See.

 

[dosdog]

And the majority of Acts shows Paul doing the same work…how do these verses prove Petrine supremacy? They dont.

It came though Peter unless the Gentiles were circumcised

Acts 10 44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.

Acts 11
Peter defends his having received the Gentiles into the church.

Acts 15
A dissension about circumcision. The decision and letter of the council of Jerusalem.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

I can’t seem to find my old posts in the Eastern Catholic forum that deal with this subject a bit in depth; but I did find this post which pertains to the issue, which was written when someone suggested something like Saint James being the Head of the whole Church:

Originally Posted by ALotLessThumb

It is established in Acts 1:15 Peter “stood up in the midsts of his brothers.” Later in Acts 3:1 and 8:9-25 it is shown that Peter and John are leading the faithful of Jerusalem. And even with both there, it is Peter who rebukes Simon Magnus in Acts 8:9-25 and it is Peter who Paul goes to confer with in Galatians 1:18. And after the death of James, the brother of John, Peter is targeted by Herod in Acts 12; and after his escape, he leaves instructions for James (verse 17.)

The evidence seems to suggest that James was left in charge by Peter. Which would make it very odd for James to head the early Church when he is essentially appointed by others. Futhermore, it would disingenuious to ignore that all the apostles had a role in growing and tending to the Lord’s flock- they all led the flock in various ways.

But of the four original Sees of the Apostles, all are recognized to have either be blessed, exalted, administered, and honored by the Apostle Saint Peter.

This of course is a huge issue between us Catholics and our Orthodox bretheren is what role Peter played and if such a role was passed down. But even in an Orthodox viewpoint, where the idea of Papal Supremacy is not accepted- I believe you would find few that share your viewpoint as James being the “head of the Church.” The Early Church Fathers speak of:

All the apostles being the Rock
Jesus Christ being the Rock
Peter himself being the Rock
Peter’s faith being the Rock

And though I cannot find the exact numbers to each statement (and there is truth to each statement) I have never come across an early Church Father who disagreed with one of the positions above and speculated that James was head of the Church.

So I cannot see how valid such a position is when your evidence largely points to the apparently unclear Council of Jerusalem and the spurious Gospel of Thomas…

 

[ALotLessThumb]

thecoach:
I responded to your questions a bit in my previous post.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, the Bible used as reference there was the New American Bible…if that is helpful…