Non-Catholic Christians...Simon to Peter?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Non Serviam,

Answer me one question, if you would be so kind. Do you believe in private interpretations of scriptures? Please qualify your answer, for example, with Holy Spirit guidance, etc.

Thanks,

 

[Non_Serviam]

**Mat 26:56 Now all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples, all leaving him, fled.

Mar 14:50 Then his disciples, leaving him, all fled away.**

They all fled initially, but then John and Peter followed the soldiers-Peter denying Christ and John not doing so.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Christ did not say they would have the same ministry. Why is it Christ told Peter, and only Peter, to feed His sheep, three times?

In the interests of space, read my answer here.

Peter spoke, and they did pray over casting lots to replace Judas, as a council following the leader should have. (Read the entire passage, I am not posting the entire thing because of limitations on posts.)

Peter spoke, it says nothing about his leading them-the one time we read that the Apostles followed Peter (John 21) it was on a fishing trip. They prayed as a group and chose as a group, unlike the current Catholic practice for selecting Bishops.

You my friend seem to be searching to justify denial.

And you have turned begging the question into an art form. Peter speaking doesn’t indicate leadership any more than Thomas, Philip and Judas speaking in John 14 shows they were leaders-it’s a presupposition on your part that is leading you to read into the narrative.

(to be continued…)

 

[Non_Serviam]

(continued)

I did not miss any part.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, and spoke. The others held their peace at Peters words, so Paul and Barnabas could be heard. Then James, who was bishop of Jerusalem, affirmed what had been spoken.

The phrase “fell silent” is attached to Paul and Barnabas, not Peter-you are reading into the text again to suit your presuppositions.

You condescending and sarcastic tone is enough, you don’t have to try and change the subject to presidents to make a point, or take the discussion circular to serve your purposes.

You suggested there was some special meaning to Peter being listed first-it’s common for the first person chosen to be listed first in a collection of the names-your argument is poor and received the derision it deserved-check out Augustine or Tertullian sometime and see how “charitably” they replied to a foundless argument.

So you’re admitting Peter told Mark to always write his name first because he was the leader of the Apostles?

I’m admitting that Peter told Mark that Jesus had chosen him first-likely because Jesus knew he would need the most work to turn into an Apostle.

Thomas was a twin. That was not a descriptive term, it was a truth. I am providing the Greek translation for you below.

G1324
Δίδυμος
Didumos
did’-oo-mos
Prolonged from G1364; double, that is, twin; Didymus, a Christian: - Didymus.

You made the point that Peter received special mention-I demonstrated a similar passage about Thomas-the only thing special about the phraseology was your presuppositions about Peter .

Could it have been the passage below that Peter was describing as God made a choice among them?

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation. The power to bind and loose, is a power to make decisions. This is affirmed by Christ giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

It’s not my interpretation-it’s Peter’s. You even posted the verse yourself Acts 15:7

Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

Nothing about decision making there.

You take something in the ninth century and wipe away everything up to that point.

I show that people came along later with an agenda to prove special authority was given to Peter and his successors so they could justify their actions and decisions. If there had been proof of this authority there would have been no need for forgeries.

I see you have “unconvinced” listed as your religion. Is there a reason behind hiding your Church affliation? Not that I would turn this into a “glass house” argument on you. It’s just so sad to see people look at the actions of men and doubt Christ’s ability to keep His promise of, “, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

What matters is that I am looking into the truth of Catholicism and I am still unconvinced-I’m posting my reasons and looking for good refutations of them. Just because later men claimed an authority as Pope, doesn’t mean that it exists-if there is no proof for it and it must be accepted purely on faith, say so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They all fled initially,

So you agree now, that they all fled at His arrest?

In the interests of space, read my answer here.

Peter spoke, it says nothing about his leading them-the one time we read that the Apostles followed Peter (John 21) it was on a fishing trip. They prayed as a group and chose as a group, unlike the current Catholic practice for selecting Bishops.

You have to realize Peter wasn’t an educated man, he was just a fisherman. It took him awhile to realize his calling. That is why Christ went to where they were fishing and told him 3 times to feed His sheep.

And you have turned begging the question into an art form. Peter speaking doesn’t indicate leadership any more than Thomas, Philip and Judas speaking in John 14 shows they were leaders-it’s a presupposition on your part that is leading you to read into the narrative.

(to be continued…)

Act 2:14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words.

Act 2:41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

Sounds like leadership to me. Remember, this was after he called for a replacement for Judas.

Let’s go back to something else Christ said to Peter.

Luk 22:31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

More instructions from Christ.

Who spoke to Ananias and Saphira?

There are just so many examples of Peter’s leadership, some of which you have not addressed.

Why was it Peter spoke for the Apostles?

**Mat 18:21 Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Mar 8:29 Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ.

Luk 8:45 And Jesus said: Who is it that touched me? And all denying, Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the multitudes throng and press thee; and dost thou say, who touched me?

Luk 12:41 And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?

Joh 6:68 (6:69) And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.**

Why is it Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles put together?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(continued)The phrase “fell silent” is attached to Paul and Barnabas, not Peter-you are reading into the text again to suit your presuppositions.

According to your interpretation, maybe, You have to realize, when scriptures were written, there was no numbering or punctuation. Peter spoke and they fell silent then Paul and Barnabas spoke. It’s like Peter spoke said his peace, the rest fell silent and then they spoke. It no way insinuates that Paul and Barnabas called the meeting to order.

You suggested there was some special meaning to Peter being listed first-it’s common for the first person chosen to be listed first in a collection of the names-your argument is poor and received the derision it deserved-check out Augustine or Tertullian sometime and see how “charitably” they replied to a foundless argument.

No, I was making the point that the authors of New Testament knew Peter’s role, especially at the time they actually wrote scriptures.

(I’m admitting that Peter told Mark that Jesus had chosen him first-likely because Jesus knew he would need the most work to turn into an Apostle.

I won’t argue that, I said in my previous post, in response to you, Peter was a fisherman and Christ had to continually lead him, but Peter was chosen.

(You made the point that Peter received special mention-I demonstrated a similar passage about Thomas-the only thing special about the phraseology was your presuppositions about Peter

Sorry, you worded it as if it was in reference to a nickname. Thomas received special mention in the passage you chose, because he doubted and the story was specifically about Thomas’ doubt.

(It’s not my interpretation-it’s Peter’s. You even posted the verse yourself Acts 15:7

Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

From early days God made his choice among you, that through Peter’s mouth the Gentiles would be led. Worded different and says the same thing.

(Nothing about decision making there.

Does using the sarcastic emoticon make you feel as if you’ve made a point or strengthened your argument?

(I show that people came along later with an agenda to prove special authority was given to Peter and his successors so they could justify their actions and decisions. If there had been proof of this authority there would have been no need for forgeries.

What matters is that I am looking into the truth of Catholicism and I am still unconvinced-I’m posting my reasons and looking for good refutations of them. Just because later men claimed an authority as Pope, doesn’t mean that it exists-if there is no proof for it and it must be accepted purely on faith, say so.

You know in the beginning they were called bishop. If you really are interested in the history, read the early Church fathers, starting with St. Ignatius. He was a disciple of St. John and appointed by St. Peter.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(55) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(56) Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(57)

That was written in 106AD, just a few years after the book of Revelations was written. You’ll get more out of reading their writings than running circular arguments on these forums.

By the way, looking into Catholicism and choosing a username meaning, “I will not serve”, makes it hard for me to believe you’re really looking into Catholicism for the purposes of choosing the Church Christ built. Especially in light of your statement you use certain documents for people who have an agenda to show the primacy of Peter. If you want tough refutations, try posting in the ask an apologist section, instead of where you find all the average lay people.

I converted in 1985. It was only then the Bible made sense to me. No one evangelized me. No one can change a person’s heart and mind, only the Holy Spirit can. Try a sincere prayer to Him to show you truth…

By the way, you didn’t answer my 3rd post. What Church do you consider yourself affliated with, or do you not serve any? Do you believe in private interpretation of scriptures? If so, by what authority can you tell anyone else their interpretation is wrong? Where does that teaching come from? It’s certainly not in scriptures…

 

[Peter_J]

Peter, good to see you.

Thanks, it’s good to see you too.

Your point is accurate-of course as a Catholic you believe the church transcends space and time so that Peter is still a part of it, albeit from heaven as part of the Church Triumphant. Likewise those he brought into the church are hopefully there with him as well. So the foundation he built on the day of Pentecost is still there.

Are we agreed that “foundation” isn’t a synonym for “ruling authority”, especially given Peter’s description of God’s promise to him in Acts 15:7?

It seems pretty obvious to me that “foundation” and “ruling authority” aren’t synonyms – hey that’s almost a palindrome.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luke checked with people who’d been there and tradition suggests that Mark got his information directly from Peter, who would have known when he was chosen.

Tradition suggests? Is this like the tradition that let’s us know the interpretation of scriptures by the early Church and the primacy of Peter?

 

[rbarcia]

Is it safe to assume you believe in private interpretation of scriptures, as guided by the Holy Spirit?

This word “private” interpretation is a term Catholics used to describe people who do not agree with the Catholic interpretation.

You definitely need to be guided by the Holy Spirit of God to understand God’s Word.

1 Cor 2:14

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But I do not believe verses have different meaning for different people, and that I can apply any interpretation I want. That is not Biblical.

The definition of an Interpreter from the Dictionary: ** a person who provides an oral translation between speakers who speak different languages.** The Translators already translated the Bible to English.

When Peter spoke about Interpretation:

**
2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
**

He is talking one, of prophecy in Scripture. Not all of the Bible is prophecy. Some is history, other is doctrine, other is Christian living. These are not things that are “Interpreted”, they are already written in my language. So when the Bible says “Do not Steal” , what is there to interpret?

Second, Peter is talking about the “Writers” of the prophecy being inspired by the Spirit, this emphasizes the authority of those prophecy being from God. The verse right before this makes it clear
2 Peter 1:19
19And we have the** word of the prophets made more certain**, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
2 Peter 1 has nothing to do with condemning understanding the Scripture by the Spirit. Is has to do with the fact that The words of Scripture is a sure witness because of the Spirit

Read it all together (Reading in Context rather than cherry picking verses and giving it your own meaning):
2 Peter 1

17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”–

18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What matters is that I am looking into the truth of Catholicism and I am still unconvinced-I’m posting my reasons and looking for good refutations of them. Just because later men claimed an authority as Pope, doesn’t mean that it exists-if there is no proof for it and it must be accepted purely on faith, say so.

Last night I had suggested the Ask an Apologist section to you. Let me suggest the Apologetics section instead. It will allow you the opportunity to question answers given as opposed to you having to the one question, one answer format offered by the Ask an Apologist section.

Looking into the truth of Catholicism on the Non-Catholic forum appears disingenuous from someone with the username, “I will not serve”…

 

[rbarcia]

Jesus called Peter the rock.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

I can’t help but notice you didn’t comment on my question of how can the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven, be granted to a “confession”…

The apostles and prophets are the first members and leaders of the church, what does that prove?

On the Binding and on earth and heaven, this has nothing to do with confession to a priest as taught by the catholic church. The concept of binding and loosing was a rabbinical concept. Binding and loosing is an old, archaic thing. It would be permitting and forbidding in our terms. And, Jesus said to the Apostles, you remember “that whatever you forbid on earth, shall have been forbidden in Heaven, and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in Heaven.” In other words, He is simply saying, when you act in agreement with the revelation of God, Heaven is acting on your behalf.

Church discipline is defined in Matthew 18:15-19. Let us say you know somebody is in sin, and so you want to go to that person and you want to confront them, and you say, “You are bound in your sin. You must repent. You must get your life cleansed. This is wrong. And, then, you proceed to discipline the person. You take two or three witnesses. You tell it to the whole church.

Matthew 18 (In context, this has to do with church discipline and confronting sinners to repent, and if they refuse, then treat him like an unbeliever) The process is described in the proceeding verse.

15"If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You mean at the time it was first changed in John 1?

Edyson I believe the importance of Jesus changing Simon’s name to Peter as we read in John 1 was due to the fact Jesus knew Simon would be the first to confess Jesus to be the Christ.

Jesus was alluding prophetically to Peter making his confession in Matthew when he changed his name in John. He addresses him as Simon after this, but once the revelation has been given to Peter and he confesses Jesus as the Christ, Jesus reaffirms the use of Peter. Once again, in Matthew, Jesus speaks prophetically about the gift he has prepared for Peter at the time of the church’s founding.

It seems to be a consensus that Jesus only knew that Peter would make a confession of faith.

Why is there a limitation on what Jesus knew would happen?

Why did Jesus say He would give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?

How can a confession of faith have the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven?

Isn’t the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven similar to saying, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained?”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This word “private” interpretation is a term Catholics used to describe people who do not agree with the Catholic interpretation.

You definitely need to be guided by the Holy Spirit of God to understand God’s Word.

1 Cor 2:14

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But I do not believe verses have different meaning for different people, and that I can apply any interpretation I want. That is not Biblical.

The definition of an Interpreter from the Dictionary: ** a person who provides an oral translation between speakers who speak different languages.** The Translators already translated the Bible to English.

When Peter spoke about Interpretation:

**
2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
**

He is talking one, of prophecy in Scripture. Not all of the Bible is prophecy. Some is history, other is doctrine, other is Christian living. These are not things that are “Interpreted”, they are already written in my language. So when the Bible says “Do not Steal” , what is there to interpret?

Second, Peter is talking about the “Writers” of the prophecy being inspired by the Spirit, this emphasizes the authority of those prophecy being from God. The verse right before this makes it clear
2 Peter 1:19
19And we have the** word of the prophets made more certain***, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

2 Peter 1 has nothing to do with condemning understanding the Scripture by the Spirit. Is has to do with the fact that The words of Scripture is a sure witness because of the Spirit

Read it all together (Reading in Context rather than cherry picking verses and giving it your own meaning):
2 Peter 1

17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”–

18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So, all the different denominations, with different doctrines/teachings, based on someone’s private interpretation, agree with each other and only disagree with the Catholic interpretation? What denomination of Christian are you? If you consider yourself non-denominational, let me qualify my question abit. Do you believe in speaking tongues? Do you believe it’s necessary to speak in tongues to really be saved? Do you believe in “once saved, always saved”? Do you believe in infant baptism? Do you believe it’s ok for a couple to divorce? Do you believe it’s ok for a woman to be over the Church? This list of questions can go on and on as you look at the different denominations. Which denomination is correct? Which denomination has the authority to say the others are wrong?

By what authority do you tell someone else their Holy Spirit guided interpretation is wrong?

I know what 2 Peter 1:19 states, in context. What does 1 Peter 3:16 tell us, in context?

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

If the people who saw and spoke to Christ could misinterpret scriptures, how easy would it be for someone 2000 years after His death and resurrection?

Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The apostles and prophets are the first members and leaders of the church, what does that prove?

On the Binding and on earth and heaven, this has nothing to do with confession to a priest as taught by the catholic church. The concept of binding and loosing was a rabbinical concept. Binding and loosing is an old, archaic thing. It would be permitting and forbidding in our terms. And, Jesus said to the Apostles, you remember “that whatever you forbid on earth, shall have been forbidden in Heaven, and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in Heaven.” In other words, He is simply saying, when you act in agreement with the revelation of God, Heaven is acting on your behalf.

Church discipline is defined in Matthew 18:15-19. Let us say you know somebody is in sin, and so you want to go to that person and you want to confront them, and you say, “You are bound in your sin. You must repent. You must get your life cleansed. This is wrong. And, then, you proceed to discipline the person. You take two or three witnesses. You tell it to the whole church.

Matthew 18 (In context, this has to do with church discipline and confronting sinners to repent, and if they refuse, then treat him like an unbeliever) The process is described in the proceeding verse.

15"If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

The confession I was referring too, was in response to other non-Catholics saying the power to bind and loose on earth, was in response to Peter’s confession of faith. How does a confession of faith get such power?

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

When you read the same statement as you provide in Matthew 18, in Matthew 16, the context, it speaks of Church authority, or discipline as you call it. Build Church, gates of hell shall not prevail against it, give keys to kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind and loose…

So, am I to assume you do not believe the Bible is the sole authority? I mean you seem to recognize Church authority over disputes.

 

[rbarcia]

So, all the different denominations, with different doctrines/teachings, based on someone’s private interpretation, agree with each other and only disagree with the Catholic interpretation? What denomination of Christian are you? If you consider yourself non-denominational, let me qualify my question a bit. Do you believe in speaking tongues? Do you believe it’s necessary to speak in tongues to really be saved? Do you believe in “once saved, always saved”? Do you believe in infant baptism? Do you believe it’s ok for a couple to divorce? Do you believe it’s ok for a woman to be over the Church? This list of questions can go on and on as you look at the different denominations. Which denomination is correct? Which denomination has the authority to say the others are wrong?

So all these issues that divide Protestants has nothing to do with “An Interpretation” of Scripture. Scripture is quite clear on all these topics. The differences have to do with people being ignorant of what the Bible says (either because they are still being Sanctified and are growing or willfully refuses to check the scriptures Acts 17:11), or willfully disobey a piece of Scripture for their own means. All of these differences fall into one of these categories. In any case, the Scripture is the authority and the Holy Spirit gives you the ability to “obey.” There are many false teachers in Protestantism, I apologize for that.

By what authority do you tell someone else their Holy Spirit guided interpretation is wrong?

I have no authority in of myself. Only the Word of God does.

I know what 2 Peter 1:19 states, in context. What does 1 Peter 3:16 tell us, in context?

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

If the people who saw and spoke to Christ could misinterpret scriptures, how easy would it be for someone 2000 years after His death and resurrection?

Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

Satan will continue confuse men and women, and thus why we need the full armor of the God. This will happen until he is ultimately thrown into the Lake of Fire. Definitely many will continue to misinterpret scripture today as they did in the past, for their own gain and destruction. Even Satan misused scripture. So I agree with that. The last 3 verses attest to what I am saying. They were in error because they did not know the Scripture. SO we should aim to “know” the scripture.

None of this speaks to the need of a Magesterium or body of Popes to keep from err. The church is the body of believers, not a select few in Rome.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So all these issues that divide Protestants has nothing to do with “An Interpretation” of Scripture. Scripture is quite clear on all these topics. The differences have to do with people being ignorant of what the Bible says (either because they are still being Sanctified and are growing or willfully refuses to check the scriptures Acts 17:11), or willfully disobey a piece of Scripture for their own means. All of these differences fall into one of these categories. In any case, the Scripture is the authority and the Holy Spirit gives you the ability to “obey.” There are many false teachers in Protestantism, I apologize for that.

The interpretation, or private interpretation, is the reason for all the denominations. Each denomination has slightly to great differences in their doctrines based on someone’s private interpretation of scriptures.

I have no authority in of myself. Only the Word of God does.

Please show me the scriptures that state scriptures is the sole authority, or where scriptures clarifies which interpretation is correct over another?

Satan will continue confuse men and women, and thus why we need the full armor of the God. This will happen until he is ultimately thrown into the Lake of Fire. Definitely many will continue to misinterpret scripture today as they did in the past, for their own gain and destruction. Even Satan misused scripture. So I agree with that. The last 3 verses attest to what I am saying. They were in error because they did not know the Scripture. SO we should aim to “know” the scripture.

None of this speaks to the need of a Magesterium or body of Popes to keep from err. The church is the body of believers, not a select few in Rome.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Doesn’t Christ infer there is a protection over the truth with the above statement?

Why does the inspired word of God, tell us to take disputes to the Church if scriptures are the sole authority?

Why does the inspired word of God say that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?

There are a lot of scriptures establishing the authority of Church.

**Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made
known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,**

There has to be an authority, since scriptures cannot come out of itself to give it authority.

You have to realize, the New Testament was written between 60AD and 100AD, to different Churches scattered all over Asia. There was NO copy machine or printing press until the 1500s. All those letters/epistles had to be brought together, along with many forged writings. Then there had to be a decision of what was to be included in the canon.

The canon of Bible is not stated in the Bible. Now, one has to accept an authority outside of scriptures. The canon of the Bible was not defined until around 400AD. Once the canon of the Bible had been determined, each Bible had to be hand copied, with no pencils or pens. They used papyrus and skins to begin with. A Bible could take a year or more to copy. Remember, Christians were persecuted for about 400 years, with a death penalty, so the Church had to operate pretty much underground.

Now one has to decide the literacy rate during those times, not everyone got an education. This was a common problem for centuries.

This means the faith and the Church grew without a Bible. The faith and Church grew through an oral tradition.

Why else does scriptures tell us to hold to the traditions we’ve been taught, whether by word or epistle?

You need to look at the history of the Bible you and I love so dearly. It did not simply fall out of the sky, and the Apostles did not sit around a table and write it at once, then order copies and have it distributed immediately…

The passage I provided above, about the chair of Moses’, how did the people know what Christ was talking about? That chair is not written about anywhere in scriptures. They could have only known it through the oral tradition. I can provide several examples of things written about in the New Testament, that could have only been known through oral tradition. Are you up for a challenge?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Satan will continue confuse men and women, and thus why we need the full armor of the God. This will happen until he is ultimately thrown into the Lake of Fire. Definitely many will continue to misinterpret scripture today as they did in the past, for their own gain and destruction. Even Satan misused scripture. So I agree with that. The last 3 verses attest to what I am saying. They were in error because they did not know the Scripture. SO we should aim to “know” the scripture.

Show me where it’s Catholics that are being deceived?

I mentioned several examples of oral tradition, written about in the New Testament. Please read on…

When Christ spoke of the chair of Moses, He did not explain what the chair was. It’s apparent the crowd knew what He was speaking about as the Chair of Moses is not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures. They could have only known this through oral tradition.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Another example of oral tradition is found in the writings of St. Paul. Remember, St. Paul was not an eye witness of Christ, yet he wrote words Christ spoke, that were not written anywhere else in scriptures.

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

St. Paul also wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

St. Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Th 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass away.

2Ti 1:13 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.**

Let me make another point. Think about Christ speaking the truth for 3 years. How long does it take to read everything written that He said? 3 hours, 4 or 5? Yet, he spoke for 3 years. Now think about the Apostles. They believe St. John died around 100AD. How much did he say that is not written? My point is, there was much taught through the oral tradition that far outweighs what is written in the Bible.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

It only stands to reason, to me, that there was much to rejoice in, that was not written. That’s why I became a Catholic. The Catholic Church is 2000 years old and was the only Christian Church until the great schism of 1054. Then there were two Churches that held to Catholic doctrine. Then in the 1500s, Martin Luther left the Church and started the Protestant reformation. The splits have continued until even this day…

 

[Peter_J]

So all these issues that divide Protestants has nothing to do with “An Interpretation” of Scripture. Scripture is quite clear on all these topics. The differences have to do with people being ignorant of what the Bible says (either because they are still being Sanctified and are growing or willfully refuses to check the scriptures Acts 17:11), or willfully disobey a piece of Scripture for their own means. All of these differences fall into one of these categories. In any case, the Scripture is the authority and the Holy Spirit gives you the ability to “obey.” There are many false teachers in Protestantism, I apologize for that.

Fair enough; I don’t think that explanation is much better or much worse than other Protestant “worldviews” (for lack of a better word) that I’ve heard.

The main difficulty I can see with what you are saying, is to reconcile it with the different historical phases. More specifically, the fact that for a while the books of the New Testament were still being written; this was followed by a phase in which the 27 books had all been written, but the Canon had not yet been agreed upon; this was, of course, followed by the phase (which we are still in) when the Canon of the New Testament has been established/agreed upon. (And that’s without even considering the Old Testament.)

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Non Serviam !

Nice to meet you again.

Here are some little observations.

Asked

“When the Apostles are listed in scriptures, why is it Peter’s name always comes first?”

you answer

Because he was the first one picked. The lists run fairly close to the order of selection in the narrative.

:

If we go back to John 1

38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, …

 

[pneuma07]

Luke checked with people who’d been there and tradition suggests that Mark got his information directly from Peter, who would have known when he was chosen.

.

If you consider reliable the tradition (small t) according to which Mark got his information directly from Peter, consider this too please:

All of the evangelists have a specific pericope pointing to the petrine mission, each in a different context and perspective: Matthew 16, John 21, and Luke 22:31-32 (IMHO ). But Mark.
In his Gospel Peter has “narrative primacy”, but without an* ad hoc * passage about his special mission. That can mean that there was no “petrine school”, within the primitive Church, trying to build an inflated image of their leader from which later misunderstandings could come.
Just the contrary. While Mark seems to refrain from anything particularly glorifying for his source, it is all the other evangelists who point in different manners to petrine primacy.

(The fact that Luke did not choose to present the Ceasarea Philippi incident the way Matthew did, with its jewish cultural flavour, can be probably explained IMHO remembering their different targets: mostly jewish for Matthew , essentially gentile for Luke.)