Matthew 16:18 controversy

[steve-b]

De_Maria:

The truth is true whether you accept it or not.

Just like you said it. That is very very true! Although you do realise this can be said to anyone from anyone?

On this side of eternity, people can say and make all kinds of stuff up.

NOT after one has taken their last breath.

 

[De_Maria]

NO, De_Maria. you are ignoring God’s holy word.

No, tg, you are.

Psalms 119:160 is a real divine principle of interpretation. Truth has never been obtained by lifting a verse out of it’s context.

You claim it is lifted out of context, but I have provided the context and you do nothing but deny. Offer an explanation. Otherwise, you’re just making an assertion without backing it up.

What will you do with this principle De_Maria? Ignore it, or consider what God is saying to you through his word?

I am obeying God’s word. You are ignoring it. Here’s a very simple principle for you. You are not the official interpreter of God’s word. If you want me to believe you, you need to provide explanations. Simply waving mine off without anything to support your denials, is not convincing.

So, again, my explanation stands.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

The truth is true whether you accept it or not.

Just like you said it. That is very very true! Although you do realise this can be said to anyone from anyone?

The point is that I provided an entire well thought out argument. And he simply waved it off without explanation.

 

[MichaelP3]

The point is that I provided an entire well thought out argument. And he simply waved it off without explanation.

I do get where you are coming from with this (I saw you changed it)statement. I really do.

And I really admire his stamina and perseverance in this thread against all this. I wouldn’t say I am defending him. I would not approach this subject this way around but hey, we are all different.

It’s just statements like the one I quoted that is interesting for me. What was that one quote by JP II? “The truth is the truth even if only few believe it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it” or something like that. It’s a very good quote and also very true. Problem is, it doesn’t prove any truth, it’s just a philosophical statement.

Thanks for changing that post btw

 

[Gorgias]

No, you’re right. There is no such thing as a "sinner’s prayer. A post-protestant movement made it up. It was wrong.

you’re right again. Alter calls are not necessary to be saved

OK… but, the point we were discussing wasn’t whether you hold them to be correct, but whether they exist, outside of explicit Scriptural mention. I was asserting that there are things that exist that are outside Scripture, and you challenged me to name one, and I named two within Christianity.

tgGodsway:

Here’s the funny thing: the Catholic position on Mary’s perpetual virginity is based in Scripture! Yep, you heard me right: that’s a doctrine supported by the Bible!

Now, I don’t expect you to believe in it…

You said that the position on Mary’s perpetual virginity is based on scripture, but you never quoted the scripture. … WHAT INTERPRETATION of WHAT SCRIPTURE??? What scripture did the Church interpret to show the perpetual virginity of Mary?

The only scripture I know is the one who list her children.

No problems. Again, you’re going to deny it, but that’s a matter of interpretation; here, we’ll have two groups claiming inspiration of the Spirit, but saying opposite things. Hmm…

Anyway, I can demonstrate from Scripture that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ conception, at his birth, and at his crucifixion. It’s gonna take two posts, though:

We know that Mary was planning a life of virginity. Gabriel comes to her – a girl who’s betrothed and preparing for marriage to Joseph – and tells her “you will conceive in your womb and will bring forth a son”. (He says “συλλήμψῃ” – you will conceive – future tense (Lk 1:31). Now, any normal Jewish girl of the day, preparing for marriage, was hoping to bear children to her husband. Yet, Mary is confused: “How will this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk 1:34)

There are only two possibilities:

• either Mary’s confused (and thinks that Gabriel is telling her that she’s pregnant already),
• or Mary doesn’t understand how she could possibly become pregnant in the future, since she knows that she would have to be with a man, and that’s just not in the cards for her.

I would argue that it’s the latter. After all, she doesn’t respond, “how is this?” (present tense); she responds “how will this be?”. The verb here is ἔσται, the future tense of “to be”. Mary knows that Gabriel is talking about something in the future, and knows that she is vowed to a life of continence. (Gabriel understands, too, and his answer shows that he needs to explain how Mary can become pregnant without intercourse (Lk 1:35). So… at the time of Jesus’ conception, Mary is a virgin.

 

[Gorgias]

Continuing my reply to @tgGodsway:

Mary’s a virgin at Jesus’ birth, too. Matthew is speaking to Jewish converts to Christianity, and needs to defend Mary’s virginity at the time of Jesus’ birth. He needs to show that Joseph isn’t the father. And so he says, “[Joseph] had no relations with [Mary] until she bore a son.”

But wait! If he says “until”, doesn’t that mean that the story changed, afterward? If not “until”, then certainly he means that they had relations after, doesn’t he?

No, not really. There are many examples in the Bible where we see things that happened “until” something, in which they didn’t stop happening “after”:

• “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). Would we say that she had a child after she died?
• “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” (1 Tim 4:13) Is Paul suggesting that Timothy stop reading scripture and teaching after Paul comes?
• “For [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Does this mean that Christ’s reign ends after His enemies are vanquished?

So, by the same token, this verse doesn’t prove that Mary and Joseph had relations after Jesus’ birth.

But what about all those references to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters”? Don’t they prove that Mary had other children to Joseph?

No, they don’t. The Bible is replete with mentions of people who are called “brother” or “sister” who do not share the same parents. It was common then – as it is now – to call relatives and those close to you and those with whom you share a religious bond “brother” or “sister”…

Does this prove Mary had no other children? No… but this does:

At His crucifixion, Jesus looks at Mary and the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross and says, “‘Woman, behold your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘behold, your mother.’ And from that hour, the disciple took her into his home.” (John 19:26-27).

But wait! That says somethiing very important! In that time and place, a widowed mother was expected to be taken care of by her eldest son! That role was filled by Jesus. But, at the time of his death, that obligation fell to the next oldest brother! As we read in 1 Timothy 5:3-4, “if [a widow] has children or grandchildren, their first responsibility is to show godliness at home and repay their parents by taking care of them.” This, in fact, is the standard in Jewish culture of the day. So, by telling the beloved disciple to care for Mary, Jesus is witnessing to one of two things:

• Jesus has no uterine brothers, or
• Jesus is delivering the greatest insult possible to his family: he’s giving his mother away to someone outside the family!

Given that Jesus preached “honor your mother and father” (see Mt 15:4), the latter is unthinkable. Therefore, we see that, at the time of the crucifixion, too, Jesus had no siblings.

Therefore, from Scripture, we see that Mary was a virgin throughout Jesus’ life.

 

[tgGodsway]

Elfo1. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious unlike some who have never interpreted without a bias. It is frustrating but I’ll get over it.

But to answer your question, Jesus warned Peter because of the gravity of what Peter was about to do. Jesus had insight where Peter did not. Also, Jesus loves Peter and prayed for him to not fall away permanately. Peter would experience his own doubt in ways the others would not. He would be the prime candidate to strengthen others who may be tempted to do what Peter did. But the fact that he strengthened them shouldn’t be construed any further than the text construed it. That is called “reading into the text” ideas not actually there. It is an isogetic sloppyness of interpretation.

 

[steve-b]

Elfo1. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious unlike some who have never interpreted without a bias. It is frustrating but I’ll get over it.

But to answer your question, Jesus warned Peter because of the gravity of what Peter was about to do. Jesus had insight where Peter did not. Also, Jesus loves Peter and prayed for him to not fall away permanately. Peter would experience his own doubt in ways the others would not. He would be the prime candidate to strengthen others who may be tempted to do what Peter did. But the fact that he strengthened them shouldn’t be construed any further than the text construed it. That is called “reading into the text” ideas not actually there. It is an isogetic sloppyness of interpretation.

tg,

I have to say,

to accuse others of bias and reading into texts what is not there, while excusing yourself of bias and reading into texts that which is not there, is rich.

As for me and our part (you and me) in this conversation, Everything I gave you was properly referenced.

 

[Vonsalza]

Because this is a forum post rather than a private message, I’m weighing in here-

Elfo1. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious unlike some who have never interpreted without a bias. It is frustrating but I’ll get over it.

I think you should be very careful to not exempt yourself from potential bias. One particular bias you display is that “the bible alone is sufficient to answer all my questions”.

Factually, absolutely no book in any testament or any canon is written as a stand-alone systematic theology for the Christian religion. You obviously assume that en toto, they can (maybe must) collectively serve this purpose, but this is also an assumption. Scripture gives us no indication of its own self-sufficiency for all theological inquiry.

In Peter’s epistle(s), he covers what he thinks is pertinent to his audience and that’s it. In all Paul’s letters, he does exactly the same thing. Are the complete and exhaustive teachings of these men fully encapsulated in the scant few writings that survived to form a collection as small as the New Testament? Of course not.

More to the point, we have good reason to believe that a Pauline letter to Laodicea once existed; but didn’t survive those early, dangerous years. I’m sure it too contained “nuggets” unique to itself as far as Pauline theology goes.

 

[Vonsalza]

That is called “reading into the text” ideas not actually there. It is an isogetic sloppyness of interpretation.

Brilliant! Now stay there for a second and apply this to the concept of the papacy!

Is there some scriptural support for Petrine headship? Absolutely! Peter’s leadership over the disciples in the gospels is a well documented idea that enjoys support from many, if not most, protestant theologians today. We see him mentioned in the gospels almost 200 times. John comes in second at just shy of 50. In fact, the only character more mentioned in the gospels than Peter is Jesus Himself.

After the gospels, it is an undisputed fact that the councils in acts met where Peter was. It’s also undisputed that Paul chose Peter to confirm him into the Church. You’d certainly think that if the leadership structure was more egalitarian, we’d see a few of the other apostles get more “air time”, right?

As another consideration, lets remember that Peter’s name wasn’t Peter. It was Simon. He was given the name “Peter” (Rock) by Christ Himself. Now, everywhere else in scripture, when God gives a man a new name, he also gives him a new mantle of authority. Abram became Abraham and became the head of God’s people. Jacob became Israel and became the head of God’s nation. Catholics argue that Simon became Peter and became the head of God’s Church.

But looking at Petrine headship exclusively from scripture, you absolutely must draw the unbiased conclusion that there is some evidence for it, if not outright proof. While we don’t have Paul explicitly writing “The Church is headed by the seat of Peter, in the city of Rome” as unambiguous proof, we do have a lot of evidence that suggests Peter as the head of the Church.

We agree that some sort of Roman primacy was a pretty established fact by the 4th and 5th century. I suspect that the primary reason we don’t have as much (but there is some) from the 2nd and 3rd is because it was still pretty dangerous to attach your name to a Christian writing until Constantine became a Christian in 312.

Objectively, with biased removed, there is absolutely scriptural evidence for the headship of Peter. To say that there is none or to feel the need to provide dismissals of that evidence is a good example of “reading into the text” that you commit.

 

[tgGodsway]

Steve-b

I’m sure I have bias, everyone does. But I will not allow my bias to make stuff up. If I do that, I’d rather stop reading the bible.

Some people read the bible to hopefully extract there information there to form solid and established doctrine. Other’s read the bible with a pre-conceived bias of what it should mean and what they believe it should mean, then force the passage to mean it as in this last case.

But then again, that is nothing more than my opinion.

blessings,

 

[MichaelP3]

Objectively, with biased removed, there is absolutely scriptural evidence for the headship of Peter. To say that there is none or to feel the need to provide dismissals of that evidence is a good example of “reading into the text” that you commit

Hi V

We had some good agreements previously (not that I at the least expect you to agree here) just that I’d like a good talk if possible.

I work in an industry where one needs to make many assumptions to even get anywhere, but they also need hold up eventually . So it’s nothing new to me to assume many things.

So I can easily assume the scriptural parts as true as I see good arguments there. That is not my problem. I have literally went through every Pope from Peter to Francis some time back (well it wasn’t Francis then). And as my work is, when you look back you first normally see the issues. It’s not the source that proves much, it is the consequences.

So what I mean with every Pope. As one goes through you need to make many more assumptions. Popes chosen as successors by the previous Popes and the council of Carthage. The Holy Roman Emperor needing to affirm elections. The “dove on the shoulder papacy”, all the wealthy italian families ruling the papacy at various times, then we have the election changed and that’s now God’s way of choosing a Pope up to the Papal Veto and a few more.

So it’s not the source for me, it’s the end result and when you look back you only realise how many assumptions you actually made. I am not referring to the people being Pope, but how they got there. One can argue all about Peter, but that line as Catholics believe it seems pretty scetchy.

For me all this would have been explained if there wasn’t this thing of the CC being infallible. (Not Papal infallibility but decisions as a whole). And also not who this guy in the office was, but how he got there.

Some say I have it the wrong way around but the aftermath (and not ons or two things, they are near the 50s) would rather make me think something wasn’t quite right in the initial understanding. I never understand how people say history proves Catholicism, that is rather my largest hindrance.

Regards

 

[De_Maria]

Steve-b

I’m sure I have bias, everyone does.

That’s more than most admit. Thanks.

But I will not allow my bias to make stuff up.

You’re insinuating that we make stuff up. But notice, TG, that we all have the same story. As though we’d been to the same Teacher.

Whereas, every Protestant teaches differently. For example: Do you believe in Believer’s baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, Covenantal Baptism or what else? You guys make all kind of things up based on Scripture alone.

If I do that, I’d rather stop reading the bible.

You ought to. You ought to stop reading the Bible and that way you’ll quit reading into the Bible the Protestant errors with which you’ve been raised.

Read the Bible. Sorry, nope. Remember, Jesus didn’t write the Bible. He started a Church and taught the Church His Traditions. Then He commanded the Church to Teach the whole world. The Catholic Church is that Church. Listen to that Church. Learn what she Teaches and then, read the Bible. It will make much more sense.

Some people read the bible to hopefully extract there information there to form solid and established doctrine. Other’s read the bible with a pre-conceived bias of what it should mean and what they believe it should mean, then force the passage to mean it as in this last case.

On the contrary, the Bible was born of the Teaching of the Catholic Church. We don’t read Catholic Doctrine into the Bible. The Catholic Church wrote the Doctrines of Jesus Christ into the New Testament. The New Testament is based upon the Doctrines that Jesus Christ deposited with His Church.

But then again, that is nothing more than my opinion.

blessings,

I know you are trying to be humble and I appreciate it. But, the Catholic Church Teaches more than mere opinion. She Teaches the infallible Doctrines of Jesus Christ. She Teaches the opinions of Jesus Christ.

 

[steve-b]

I’m sure I have bias,

okay

tgGodsway:

everyone does.

maybe

tgGodsway:

But I will not allow my bias to make stuff up. If I do that, I’d rather stop reading the bible.

Are you sure about that?

tgGodsway:

Some people read the bible to hopefully extract there information there to form solid and established doctrine. Other’s read the bible with a pre-conceived bias of what it should mean and what they believe it should mean, then force the passage to mean it as in this last case.

But then again, that is nothing more than my opinion.

blessings,

tg,

Lk 22:26 talks about the one who will be the following
ἡγέομαι http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm

My post 253 had that link, and you didn’t open it.

please open the link. Who is THAT apostle describing, that Jesus is talking about? The only apostle Jesus identifies by name, is Simon Peter.

here’s the description

1. to lead, i. e.
   a. to go before;
   b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: in the N. T. so only in the present participle ἡγούμενος, a prince, of regal power (Ezekiel 43:7 for מֶלֶך; Sir. 17:17), Matthew 2:6; a (royal) governor, viceroy, Acts 7:10; chief

That describes a position that one holds. It’s not plural, it’s singular.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hi V

We had some good agreements previously (not that I at the least expect you to agree here) just that I’d like a good talk if possible.

I’m game! We’ve had some good ones that have been heated at times, which makes them fun. Cuts made to reduce length.

So what I mean with every Pope. As one goes through you need to make many more assumptions. Popes chosen as successors by the previous Popes… council… The Holy Roman Emperor… wealthy italian families… then we have the election… Papal Veto and a few more.

Sure. Where I’d drive my first wedge is the idea of “God’s way of choosing a Pope” must be static rather than dynamic. I have zero problem admitting that many popes and the process of selecting them were a little dubious. This is, after all, an institution made up of men. As such, it will encounter problems generated by the common faults of men.

The main issue, for me, is that the Church must be submissive to the idea of it. If the “Bride of Christ” is ok with it, then Christ is ok with it (“whatsoever you bind on Earth…” and so on). If it’s not part of the deposit of faith, then it can change. And men can “muck it up” using the power of the Church so long as it doesn’t err in a way that damages salvation per the Catechism.

One can argue all about Peter, but that line as Catholics believe it seems pretty scetchy.

Absolutely. One might get their thread deleted for saying this, but I’ve no problem saying that some popes had MAJOR issues and that their process of election was less than ideal by most standards.

For me all this would have been explained if there wasn’t this thing of the CC being infallible. (Not Papal infallibility but decisions as a whole). And also not who this guy in the office was, but how he got there.

Perhaps we have different understandings of what infallibility means in the Catholic Church. Particularly, what it extends to. I think popes can and have been wrong. I think councils can and have issued erroneous proclamations. But neither can be wrong when issued with a decree of infallibility.

I still recognize an erroneous papal statement or conciliary decree as technically authoritative, even as I might fail to submit to a few of them. It’s like when your boss makes a wrong call, but you’ve got to stick with it because he’s the boss.

I never understand how people say history proves Catholicism, that is rather my largest hindrance.

I think people will be people and popes are no different.

But to be perfectly clear, I’m not Catholic because I think Catholicism-on-the-whole is the perfect expression of Christianity.

I’m Catholic because it beats all the others. Sorta like when Churchill supposedly said “Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others.”

I can make a better argument with fewer large assumptions for Catholicism than any other expression of Christianity - Orthodoxy being a very close second.

Your turn!

 

[tgGodsway]

No. actually Steve-b, what I stated is a shared and long-tested principle of hermeneutics. I’m surprised that you didn’t know that.

And this whole “leader” issue you’re caught up on is a tuff sell but I see you are determined to make Peter the leader of Paul, James, John and others no matter what.

Jesus established his government in the following way, pay attention to what the Holy Spirit said in Ephesians 2:20, the gentiles are now fellow citizens with the saints… “having been built (past tense) on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corners stone.”

Just of few things to notice here: 1. This foundational layout of government is a finished work, in the words, “having been built.” This means that no one can come along and rebuild it or replace it. see 1st. Cor. 3:10 to substantiate it. 2. Notice that this foundation of apostles is in the plural, suggesting that each apostle is co-equal in authority. There is NO suggestion that Peter is singled out as an Apostle over the other Apostles. Pay attention to that because it is the word of the Lord. 3. Thirdly, Jesus Christ Himself holds all of it together as the chief corner-stone of the foundation. The Spirit of God has set this government in place at it’s inception and hasn’t changed His mind.

Ponder on it my friend. Consider what the word of the Lord says here. Repent over it if need be.

see Eph. 3:5; 4:11 Jude 1:17; Acts 14:4

 

[Vonsalza]

Jesus established his government in the following way, pay attention to what the Holy Spirit said in Ephesians 2:20, the gentiles are now fellow citizens with the saints… “having been built (past tense) on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corners stone.”

Let’s open up the context a little bit further in this letter from Paul -

Eph 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Here, Paul is telling the Christians at Ephesus that (19) they’re citizens of the kingdom, (20) members of the same ancient faith with (21) Christ at the center and (22) that they’re being improved so that the spirit may dwell within them.

So where is this treatise on the functional structure of the Church? That doesn’t seem to be what Paul was addressing here. Was he seems to be doing is encouraging and affirming the intended recipients of the letter. Moreover, there’s nothing here that a Catholic would be troubled by.

Maybe you’re “reading it in”?

Just of few things to notice here: 1. This foundational layout of government is a finished work, in the words, “having been built.”

As a Catholic would obviously insist that Petrine primacy existed from day one, this wouldn’t trouble them.

This means that no one can come along and rebuild it or replace it.

A Catholic would agree. Then the restorationist groups of the last few centuries (read: most of your Evangelicals) cannot be children of the True Faith since it cannot be rebuilt or replaced.

see 1st. Cor. 3:10 to substantiate it.

1 Cor 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Absolutely. That laid by the apostles is built upon by the bishops and the deposit of faith cannot be changed. A very Catholic piece of scripture.

Notice that this foundation of apostles is in the plural, suggesting that each apostle is co-equal in authority.

Simply, no it doesn’t suggest this. Plurality only suggests that there’s more than 1. You’re reading-in your concept of egalitarianism.

There is NO suggestion that Peter is singled out as an Apostle over the other Apostles.

Arguments from absence are junk. On this same basis, we could argue Christ preferred Pepsi because there is NO suggestion that he didn’t in this text.

Thirdly…The Spirit of God has set this government in place at it’s inception and hasn’t changed His mind.

All the Catholics of the world just said “Amen”.

 

[steve-b]

tgGodsway:

Jesus established his government in the following way, pay attention to what the Holy Spirit said in Ephesians 2:20, the gentiles are now fellow citizens with the saints… “having been built (past tense) on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corners stone.”

Let’s open up the context a little bit further in this letter from Paul -

Eph 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Here, Paul is telling the Christians at Ephesus that (19) they’re citizens of the kingdom, (20) members of the same ancient faith with (21) Christ at the center and (22) that they’re being improved so that the spirit may dwell within them.

What he seems to be doing is encouraging and affirming the intended recipients of the letter. Moreover, there’s nothing here that a Catholic would be troubled by.

Maybe you’re “reading it in”?

Just of few things to notice here: 1. This foundational layout of government is a finished work, in the words, “having been built.”

As a Catholic would obviously insist that Petrine primacy existed from day one, this wouldn’t trouble them.

This means that no one can come along and rebuild it or replace it.

A Catholic would agree. Then the restorationist groups of the last few centuries (read: most of your Evangelicals) cannot be children of the True Faith since it cannot be rebuilt or replaced.

see 1st. Cor. 3:10 to substantiate it.

1 Cor 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Absolutely. That laid by the apostles is built upon by the bishops and the deposit of faith cannot be changed. A very Catholic piece of scripture.

Notice that this foundation of apostles is in the plural, suggesting that each apostle is co-equal in authority.

Simply, no it doesn’t suggest this. Plurality only suggests that there’s more than 1. You’re reading-in your concept of egalitarianism.

There is NO suggestion that Peter is singled out as an Apostle over the other Apostles.

Arguments from absence are junk. On this same basis, we could argue Christ preferred Pepsi because there is NO suggestion that he didn’t in this text.

Thirdly…The Spirit of God has set this government in place at it’s inception and hasn’t changed His mind.

All the Catholics of the world just said “Amen”.

Nicely done.

 

[Vonsalza]

Nicely done.

Please don’t let that stop you from taking your crack at it.

Your posts are more objective than mine, which is probably more useful here.

 

[steve-b]

actually Steve-b,
this whole “leader” issue you’re caught up on is a tuff sell but I see you are determined to make Peter the leader of Paul, James, John and others no matter what.

I’ve always given full credit to Jesus when defending the authority Jesus gave to Peter as the leader of the apostles ergo leader of the Church?

tgGodsway:

Jesus established his government in the following way, pay attention to what the Holy Spirit said in Ephesians 2:20, the gentiles are now fellow citizens with the saints… "having been built (past tense) on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corners stone."

1. This foundational layout of government is a finished work, in the words, “having been built.” This means that no one can come along and rebuild it or replace it. see 1st. Cor. 3:10 to substantiate it. 2. Notice that this foundation of apostles is in the plural,

I agree. And it is NOT without a leader which Jesus put in place
Jesus built His Church on Peter and those in communion with Peter, the Catholic Church. It’s been that way BY NAME since the 1st century

see links below

And as scripture and tradition teaches, ANY and ALL division from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is condemned as are those who do it and keep it going, and don’t return to not just unity but perfect unity.

tgGodsway:

each apostle is co-equal in authority. There is NO suggestion that Peter is singled out as an Apostle over the other Apostles.

That’s not supported by scripture and tradition.

tgGodsway:

Jesus Christ Himself holds all of it together as the chief corner-stone of the foundation. The Spirit of God has set this government in place at it’s inception and hasn’t changed His mind.

Ponder on it my friend.

Put your seat belt on.

Part 1 Did Satan Create Catholicism? Trump-Supporting Pastor Robert Jeffress Thinks So - #57 by steve-b

Part 2 Did Satan Create Catholicism? Trump-Supporting Pastor Robert Jeffress Thinks So - #58 by steve-b

you are now properly informed. Therefore, the following paragraph from the CCC applies to you

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ , would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.