James, Brother of Jesus?

[tobinatorstark]

Hi Paul,

I apologize; I did not realize the the original site linked indirectly to the NewAdvent site; which was not my intent. I agree that a site, which I stumbled upon ( God as my witness), with a name like “Catholic arrogance” is not pro-Catholic or maybe even anti-Catholic; I did not spend but a minute or two there.

Here is the correct Catholic link:
newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm This is the direct Catholic link and brings to the same place.

Again; I apologize! :manvspc:

all you speak is absolute heresy. I haven’t heard one ounce of credible evidence for anything you support. Elvisman has debunked you several time as well as many post in this thread. My earlier post before I got suspended debunk you as well.

 

[erikd]

Very nicely put i must say but you do not provide any scripture to address what you have written. Thanks anyway

Neither did you in the original comment. I don’t remember the names like Norman Geisler, Ralph Mackenzie and Charlie Campbell in Scripture. Can you tell me in which Books and passages those names appear?

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: if James was an unbeliever and only believed after the the resurrection. Would such a new convert not trustworthy enough to provide for his own mother be made head of the church in Jerusalem without spiritual development, to provide for the welfare and care of the people of God. If James could not run his own house, how could he in charge of God’s. [1Tm3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)]

While James and the other brothers and sisters shirked their family duties, which in Jewish culture, in that day would have been outrageous and maybe a stoneable offense to publicly dishonor one’s parent.

**First, you are adding speculation as to what Jesus did or said; therefore we can open the door to all speculations and come up with all kinds of unknowable positions. It was God that made the decision and God has all authority of men, including their tradition. I know God does not contradict Himself, nor does He lie. So we can only accept this at face value. We may be able to really dig into the word and come up with a Biblical reason for that specific event.

I wouldn’t let a relative take care of my mother would you?

** I would depending on all the surrounding circumstances and I would want what my mother would want; perhaps that can be a speculative reason for Jesus decision. **

[edit]. Believer or non believer Christ would not have commended his mother to anyone but her children, had she anyothers.

Remember when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were inquiring about Him; what was His response. "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

The antithesis of that statement is that those who do not believe in Him and do not the will of the father is not His mother, brother or sister. We know His brothers did not believe in him until sometime after His death and resurrection; therefore since both John and Jesus mother were at the foot of the cross and He defined what a brother, mother and sister really is; John would have qualified to be His brother and therefore He did according to the Jewish tradition you spoke of because in the eye of God, which is the truth; His blood brothers would not be considered brothers in the most important sense, which is the spiritual. Did Jesus do the right thing; of course.

Also, just came to my mind that He came and stated that if you were not willing to hate your mother or father or brother (paraphrasing) Matthew 10; here is an exert, but it would be worth reading from verse 16 till the end to get the entire picture.
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me**.

Do you suppose Christ as God would not have known his alleged brothers would have converted after his death? By the way at Pentecost the so called brothers were there, with Mary, Acts1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. THOSE PRESENT were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, ALONG WITH the women AND MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS, AND WITH HIS BROTHERS

He is omniscient.

 

[Tanner9188]

Well, to be honest, Tanner, it sounds like a man-made tradition you’re using to determine what’s inspired and what’s not. YOU’VE decided that historical, cultural and geographic errors eliminate writings from the canon. That’s not a criteria that’s stated in Scripture, right?

Where does the sacred writer tell us in 2 Maccabbees that it is not inspired? The word “inspired” isn’t in the entire book of 2 Maccabbees.

Are you Catholic? Of course man-made Tradition defines Scripture. Why would Scripure define tradition? Does God make errors or contradict Himself? If you answer no; then anything with errors is not from God. If you say yes; then you make God a liar.

 

[Tanner9188]

Neither did you in the original comment. I don’t remember the names like Norman Geisler, Ralph Mackenzie and Charlie Campbell in Scripture. Can you tell me in which Books and passages those names appear?

Go back to Post#477; so you know why FreedomWriter made a reasonable comment.

 

[Tanner9188]

all you speak is absolute heresy. I haven’t heard one ounce of credible evidence for anything you support. Elvisman has debunked you several time as well as many post in this thread. My earlier post before I got suspended debunk you as well.

I don’t know who is more Christ-like; you or Elvis…we will call it a tie. So nasty in your posts; you need to be set free and only the Son can set you free. God bless and good luck with the charitable attitude.

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: It is never okay to add or subtract from the word of God, Whether by word or epistle, 2Thes2:14. By the way, if the Holy Spirit by the church can infallibly discern and faithfully preserve the written Apostolic Tradition of Scripture, without distortion. Then that same Holy Spirit can certainly by the same church preserve that Apostolic oral Tradition, without distortion. It is that same Holy Spirit who is the origin and acts thru both the church and scripture. Who outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see the Watch Tower translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men. So we see even the written word doesn’t guarantee, there is no distortion, not to mention misinterpretation.

What are those oral traditions spoken of by Paul that existed at the time he wrote the epistle; not the man-made ones a century afterward?
Your logic or lack of and argument in defense of your Church adding to Scripture is no different than the JW’s, Mormon’s or any other religion. One could also say the same “who outside the Catholic Church can not see the Catholic translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men”. All I’m saying is that your logic is completely flawed and the very same arguments in defense of your religion can be made to defend another religion that, in my opinion has added to God’s word via extra special revelation in written and oral tradition. In the end; the only reliable source of God’s word are the 66 books that we know are inspired and sufficient in practice and faith and able to bring salvation; thus we have come full circle to Sola Scriptura.

Edit for space

.

[Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, (holy orders, in apostolic succession.)

**Where does the Bible say “Holy Orders” and “Apostolic succession”? **

It is thru the Holy Spirit oral apostolic tradition is discerned, by the church, as opposed to a tradition of men, such as Sola Scriptura.] 1Tm 3:15 (DISTORTED)

As the pillar and ground of truth the church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both When did God say that? and active in both, as the council of Jerusalem wrote to the churches, Act15:28 For it seemed GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US, other scriptures say, 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US. BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH AND the spirit of ERROR. Jn 15:20… if they have kept MY SAYING they will KEEP YOURS ALSO Jn 17:20 Neither pray I for THESE alone but for THEM which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD. [Apostolic tradition is discerned by the help of the Holy Spirit, were scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the NT and OT were both discerned thru the Holy Spirit, by the church, using apostolic tradition. The scriptures themselves do not give a list of inspired books.]

I could go on, there are many more good scripture examples of tradition, the burden of proof is on you, you must SHOW scripture alone, which is a tradition of men, made a doctrine of God around 1520, {EDITED FOR SPACE Paul says in 2 Thes, OUR GOSPEL, brethren, WHETHER word=oral OR epistle=written.
It is also interesting that JESUS, MATHEW, Paul AND JUDE used oral Jewish tradition, where is the following written in the OT?

Mt 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in MOSES’ SEAT. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Find in the Old Testament, MOSES’ SEAT, you wont as it is OT oral tradition, that Jesus quotes.]

1Cor10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that FOLLOWED THEM, and that Rock was Christ. [Where does the OT tell us THE ROCK FOLLOWED THEM? It does’nt, it is an OT oral tradition.] **They all played the religious game; ate and drank the same spiritual substance, but only a few pleased God. Why? Some were genuine, many were not. Same principal we see in Mathew 7:13-14; All “Christian” religions are on the paths marked heaven, but only the few are on the actual path that goes to heaven. Was this a oral tradition; if so, then it was a bad one since most died from it; still the same story of religion we have tody and a s Solomon would say “there is nothing new under the sun” **

Jude used an oral Jewish tradition: Jude 1:9 Yet MICHAEL the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke you! [Find in the OT, were it is says MICHAEL, contended over Moses’ body]

Jude 1:14 Now ENOCH, the seventh from Adam, PROPHESIED about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, [Where does the OT QUOTE ENOCH as prophesing this?]

2Tim 3:8 Just as JANNES AND JAMBRES opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. [Find the names JANNES AND JAMBRES in the OT? you wont it is OT oral tradition.]

1Cor11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And THE REST WILL I SET IN ORDER WHEN I COME. [Where did Paul set this in order by scripture?]

[/quote]

 

[erikd]

Go back to Post#477; so you know why FreedomWriter made a reasonable comment.

I did reference that post, as you know, because if I had not I would not have mentioned those three names. If you can’t make a coherent argument, perhaps you should not post one. Just a suggestion.

 

[ppasa316]

all you speak is absolute heresy. I haven’t heard one ounce of credible evidence for anything you support. Elvisman has debunked you several time as well as many post in this thread. My earlier post before I got suspended debunk you as well.

You mean they let you back on here tobbie lol. I see that your time off was not spent praying for a humble spirit. I like Tanner on here he gives a lot of good scriptures to back up what he is saying. Still praying for you My Friend. God Bless

 

[freedomwriter]

That’s NOT what Geisler said on the Bible Answerman Show with Hank Hanefraff.
**Hmmmm . . . if he changes his mind on this topic - what else **has he changed his mind on. That’s the Protestant way - change change change.

Now - since you claim that the Catholic church was started in the 5th Century - prove it with history.
In essence - put your "facts" where your mouth is.

PS - I’m no hater. I have 13 siblings and 2/3s of them have left the fullness of truth for Protestant denominations and I love each an every one of them. I pray for them and you that the scales will fall from your eyes and God reveals himself to all of you.

If you read his book Geisler’s book on Roman Catholics and Evangelicals you might see it. I am glad to hear that you listen to Hank Hanegraff. Thats a start. I have already proven it you have been debunked LoL. You know we pray the same prayer for each other:thumbsup:

 

[freedomwriter]

Is this not from Scripture:
The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ( Matthew xvi, 18).

I copied and pasted that from erikd’s post.

In the Greek Peter means stone, Jesus is the rock on which the church would be built. Never says anything about peter being pope or the catholic church lol. Now you can copy and paste this one LoL:thumbsup:

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Well, to be honest, Tanner, it sounds like a man-made tradition you’re using to determine what’s inspired and what’s not. YOU’VE decided that historical, cultural and geographic errors eliminate writings from the canon. That’s not a criteria that’s stated in Scripture, right?

Tanner, what are you talking about? You have yet to describe any of the errors you alude to in the Deuterocanonical books. Give an example so that we can have a discussion based on evidence instead of handwaving. I’ve been asking for that for dozens of posts now. Why won’t you comply?

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t know who is more Christ-like; you or Elvis…we will call it a tie. So nasty in your posts; you need to be set free and only the Son can set you free. God bless and good luck with the charitable attitude.

I only speak the truth and furthermore, I will not get into an argument with you

 

[tobinatorstark]

You mean they let you back on here tobbie lol. I see that your time off was not spent praying for a humble spirit. I like Tanner on here he gives a lot of good scriptures to back up what he is saying. Still praying for you My Friend. God Bless

Who are you to attack my prayer life? Furthermore, I refuse to argue with you. I am working hard on my charity. You and Tanner like everyone else on this forum should always work on your charity.

 

[paul_c]

**First, you are adding speculation as to what Jesus did or said; therefore we can open the door to all speculations and come up with all kinds of unknowable positions. It was God that made the decision and God has all authority of men, including their tradition. I know God does not contradict Himself, nor does He lie. So we can only accept this at face value. We may be able to really dig into the word and come up with a Biblical reason for that specific event. **
Tanner, You do know that the Jewish sense of the word used for Brother in these readings, simply means relative and not necessarily full brother, correct? And as for speculation, you use plenty of it yourself. You state that Jesus’ borthers didn’t believe in him until after the resurrection. Where does it say that in scripture?
Tanner9188;5404854:

** I would depending on all the surrounding circumstances and I would want what my mother would want; perhaps that can be a speculative reason for Jesus decision. **

Remember when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were inquiring about Him; what was His response. "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
This is complete speculation on your part. You condemn JLhargus for his speculation and then you speculate yourself.

The antithesis of that statement is that those who do not believe in Him and do not the will of the father is not His mother, brother or sister. We know His brothers did not believe in him until sometime after His death and resurrection; therefore since both John and Jesus mother were at the foot of the cross and He defined what a brother, mother and sister really is; John would have qualified to be His brother and therefore He did according to the Jewish tradition you spoke of because in the eye of God, which is the truth; His blood brothers would not be considered brothers in the most important sense, which is the spiritual. Did Jesus do the right thing; of course.

How do we know that his brothers didn’t believe in him until after the resurrection?

Also, just came to my mind that He came and stated that if you were not willing to hate your mother or father or brother (paraphrasing) Matthew 10; here is an exert, but it would be worth reading from verse 16 till the end to get the entire picture.
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me

.

He is omniscient.

So he would have known that James would have become the Bishop of Jerusalem and a martyr for the faith. Doesn’t that demonstrate his love for Jesus?

Look, this whole thread is about proving that Mary isn’t the ever-virgin Mother of God.
Have you read the whole thread? If so, you would have noticed this in post 3:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
I suggest you read it before going further in this discussion. Then at least you will understand the Catholic position and the scriptural verses behind them.

 

[tobinatorstark]

more proof that Jesus didn’t have brothers and Mary was a perpetual virgin

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/03/perpetual-virginity-of-mary-vs-brothers.html

Tanner, ppasa316: I am praying for you guys

Ave redemptor, Domine Jesus:
Cuius ob opus
Superatur mors, enim salvatio
Nunc inundavit super universam terram.
Sancte redemptor, reputata
Fides est nobis peccatoribus,
Nunc et in morte, ad iustitiam.

Hail the Redeemer, Lord Jesus,
By whose work
Death is defeated, for salvation
Has now overflowed upon all of the world.
Holy redeemer, our faith
Is reckoned to us sinners,
Now and in death, as righteousness

 

[paul_c]

**What are those oral traditions spoken of by Paul that existed at the time he wrote the epistle; not the man-made ones a century afterward? **
Your logic or lack of and argument in defense of your Church adding to Scripture is no different than the JW’s, Mormon’s or any other religion. One could also say the same “who outside the Catholic Church can not see the Catholic translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men”. In the end; the only reliable source of God’s word are the 66 books that we know are inspired and sufficient in practice and faith and able to bring salvation; thus we have come full circle to Sola Scriptura.

The key differences between the Catholics relation to scripture and the others are :

1. The Catholics developed the Bible as a teaching tool where the others merely co-opted it.
2. Everything the Catholics say is consistent with Scripture, whereas the others intepretations conflict with it in important ways

Also, Sola Scriptura is not scriptural itself. Find a reference to it in scripture. On the other hand, there are many, many references to oral tradition.

Furthermore, between 382 AD, when the bible canon was first set and the Protestant reformation in the mid 1500s, when the Protestants took out the deuterocanonical books , every bible had 73 books. This is an historical fact. So if Sola Scriptura was really true, this means that the truth was changed by the Protestants.

.

**Where does the Bible say “Holy Orders” and “Apostolic succession”? **

Holy orders are described in 1Timothy4: 13-14:
13 Until I arrive, attend to the reading, 7 exhortation, and teaching.
14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate

It is also discussed in Titus1:5-6:
5 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
6 on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.

As for apostolic succession: It is done for the first time in Acts 1: 15-26, where Simon is succeeded by Matthias
15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16 “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
17 He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.
19 This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.
20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

**They all played the religious game; ate and drank the same spiritual substance, but only a few pleased God. Why? Some were genuine, many were not. Same principal we see in Mathew 7:13-14; All “Christian” religions are on the paths marked heaven, but only the few are on the actual path that goes to heaven. Was this a oral tradition; if so, then it was a bad one since most died from it; still the same story of religion we have tody and a s Solomon would say “there is nothing new under the sun” **

This is actually only partially true. There is one path to heaven. The Catholic Church is the guardian of these truths. To the extent that other Christian Churches deviate from these, they deviate from the path to heaven. And not all Catholics will go to heaven. Only those that die in the state of Grace. Can non-Catholics get to heaven: sure, but only by doing what the Catholic Church teaches, because that is the path to heaven.

Here is that Path:
1> Believe in salvation through Jesus Christ and demonstrate that belief through baptism
2> Stay in the state of Grace conferred in Baptism by doing the will of God, loving him and your neighbor. Work continually on your sanctification by participating in the sacraments and doing good works.
3> If you fall from Grace through sin, receive the sacrament of reconciliation, confessing your sins to a priest, repenting and doing the required penance, and you will regain the necessary grace to be saved.
4> Die in the state of grace and you will go to heaven.

Clearly it is harder for non-Catholics to get to heaven, since they separate themselves from the graces of the sacraments.

 

[paul_c]

In the Greek Peter means stone, Jesus is the rock on which the church would be built. Never says anything about peter being pope or the catholic church lol. Now you can copy and paste this one LoL:thumbsup:

Lets discuss how Scripture shows Peter is the leader of the Catholic Church:

Let’s start with Matthew 16:13-19

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So as you can see, Peter was picked out by God the father of all the Apostles to acknolwedge that Jesus was the Christ. As recognition of this, Jesus says that he will build his church on Peter and that that Church will always prevail. He further gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose on heaven or earth.by the way the word used in Aramic in verse 18 is Cephas, meaning rock. so it would say You are cephas and on this cephas, I will build m church. You will note that in his Epistles, Paul usually calls Peter Cephas…

In Luke 22: 24-32, Jesus reiterates this role for Peter as the leader:
24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Notice how the discussion starts as an argument about who is the greatest. Jesus tells them that the leader will serve the others and then he turns to Simon Peter and tells him it is he who must strengthen his brothers.

If you read the bible closely, you will see that from then on, we see Parallel paths for Peter and Jesus. During Christs Passion, we are also witnessing Peter first defending the Lord with his sword and then his denial and then his leadership. He is the first apostle to see Jesus after the resurrection. and after the resurrection, Jesus commissions Peter again to tend his sheep as shown in John 21: 15-19:

15 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.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “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.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a 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.
18 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
to be continued in the next post:

 

[paul_c]

After the Ascension, we see Peter carrying out this leadership role.
In Acts 1, he is the one that points out that Judas’s Apostolic office needs to be filled.
In Acts 2, he speaks for all the Apostles to the people at Pentecost and tells them to be baptized in order to be saved.
In Acts 3-4, he is the first of the Apostles to heal and again, he speaks for the Apostles to the People and to the Jewish leaders.
In Acts 5, he calls out Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit
In Acts 8, he excommunicates Simon for trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit
In Acts 10, he is the first to bring Gentiles into the church.
In Acts 15, Peter makes the definitive dogmatic decision at the Council of Jerusalem after noting that he alone among the Apostles was chosen to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles

In Galatians 2, Paul talks about seeing Peter alone amoung the apostles before starting his mission and then recognizes that Peter is in charge of the Circumcised.

In Peter 2:3, Peter critiques the letters of Paul, giving them creedence, while noting that people are trying to interpret them themselves to their own detriment.

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the new testament, more than all the other Apostles combined and in several places the reference is to Peter and the Apostles, this highlighting his leadership.

So Peter is demonstrated through scripture, by both word and action, as the leader of the Apostles. He demonstrated most of the powers we see the Pope exercise today in scripture: speaking for the church, preaching, healing, setting dogma, replacing the leadership, baptizing, excommunicating, taking a position on church writings (St. Paul’s).

 

[PRmerger]

Are you Catholic? Of course man-made Tradition defines Scripture. Why would Scripure define tradition? Does God make errors or contradict Himself? If you answer no; then anything with errors is not from God. If you say yes; then you make God a liar.

I have no idea what this post means in response to my post.

I asked where in 2 Macc, as you claim, the inspired writer says that he’s not inspired.
Chapter and verse, please. (BTW, I’m not necessarily doubting you–I’d just like to see for myself. My guess is that it’s a man-made, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation you’ve given to one verse, but let’s see.)