Other Christian denomination responses?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Matthew is my favorite book of the Bible. Throw it out - no way! And I was referring to the quote from St. Augustine, not the comments of the other writer. And yes, Matthew was employing techniques geared towards Jewish readers. That is fact - not theory. Yes, the gospels are God-inspired but still written by men using tools that they possessed, and the author of Matthew was a very skilled writer; skilled in writing technique. Jewish technique specifically; like writing the book in five parts to link it to the five books of Moses. Like using the words “kingdom of heaven” unlike the other gospels that used “kingdom of God” that would have offended Jews of his time. And many other techniques that tie his gospel to his particular Jewish audience.

And you have no comment on binding and loosing, as understood by the Jewish people, or the added writings from St. Augustine?

 

[MuddyRocker]

Don’t be condescending.

Christ told Simon Bar-Jonah:

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.
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.

He renamed Simon to Peter, which is English for the Greek word used for ‘rock’.

A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.

The gates of ‘hades’ or the ‘great abyss’ was located in a niche at Caesarea Philippi, the place Christ chose to announce His Church, and even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Caesarea Philippi was known as Panion, city of the great pagan god Pan, who pagans believed ruled the world. Pan was a pagan god of shepherds, flocks and thought to be depraved. To Christians he represented evil. The altar to Pan was hidden in the cliffs below the city. The site that honored Pan exists even to present day.

Caesarea Philippi was so named by Herod Philip, in honor of the ruling caesar at the time.

Why of all the places Christ travelled, did He choose this spot to announce His Church? Because through the Church He was establishing, it is the opposite to everything that kept men from the Kingdom. Remember, the ‘abyss’ was located in a niche in the mountain, and it shall not prevail against His Church.

Christ ‘inherited’ the Davidic throne, considered by Jews to be the throne of God, as it was given to David by God. Now read Isaiah 22 and realize the keys to the kingdom left someone in charge in place of the absent king. The holder of the keys acted in place of the king and only answered to the king.

This small passage in Matthew is a very easy read, unless your reaching to make it say something else, in my opinion. Read it in light of John 21 and we see what Peter’s role was according to Christ.

Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

This doesn’t even take into account the symbolism of Peter, alone, pulling in the net of fish that all the Apostles together could not land, and that the net did not break!

Joh 21:8 But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes.
Joh 21:9 As soon then as they came to land they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread.
Joh 21:10 Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.
Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.

Sorry, I was not aware that I was being condescending. Please forgive me. Yes, Christ did in fact give Simon a nickname; Rock or Peter. Funny though, in scripture, each time Peter’s actions are worldly, Jesus refers to him as Simon (even after he is given the name Rock) and when his actions are heavenly, Jesus refers to him as Peter. Although in the passage you cite at the bottom, John refers to him as Simon Peter.
Question: Do you think in John 21:15 when Jesus asked if Simon loved him “more than these” he was referring to the other disciples or to the fish?

 

[flightkid]

I don’t think Peter’s authority among the disciples is in question by anyone.

so u do not believe there was succession AFTER Peters death???

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry, I was not aware that I was being condescending. Please forgive me. Yes, Christ did in fact give Simon a nickname; Rock or Peter. Funny though, in scripture, each time Peter’s actions are worldly, Jesus refers to him as Simon (even after he is given the name Rock) and when his actions are heavenly, Jesus refers to him as Peter. Although in the passage you cite at the bottom, John refers to him as Simon Peter.
Question: Do you think in John 21:15 when Jesus asked if Simon loved him “more than these” he was referring to the other disciples or to the fish?

You question is silly and the avoidance to the points raised, very noticable.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I thought this was a great quote from the Reformer Martin Luther. I hope we all as Christians work towards unity again like Christ asked. Any thoughts from other denominations on this quote?

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

Luther was doing all right until he took refuge in the Wartburg under the political protection and patronage of two ruthless mercenary princes. From that time on the whole thing became decidedly political, and eventually the “churches” were placed by treaty under the control of the head of state of each nation, in order to stop the bloodshed. The church was no longer under the See of Peter, based on Christ’s response to Peter’s admission of the Messiah, but under secular royalty. Hence the Royal Family in Britain is the titular head of the Anglican Church. But when did God give them the authority?

To quote the rather old fashioned Catholic Encyclopedia…

His comrades in arms now were Ulrich von Hutten and Franz von Sickingen, with the motley horde of satellites usually found in the train of such leadership. With Melancthon, himself a humanist, as an intermediary, a secret correspondence was opened with Hutten, and to all appearances Sickingen was directly or indirectly in frequent communication. Hutten, though a man of uncommon talent and literary brilliancy, a moral degenerate, without conscience or character. Sickingen, the prince of condottieri, was a solid mercenary and political marplot, whose daring deeds and murderous atrocities form a part of German legendary lore. With his three impregnable fastnesses, Ebernburg, Landstuhl, and Hohenburg, with their adventurous soldiery, fleet-footed cavalry, and primed artillery, “who took to robbery as to a trade and considered it rather an honour to be likened to wolves” (Cambridge Hist., II, 154), a menace to the very empire, he was a most useful adjunct. With Luther they had little in common, for both were impervious to all religious impulses, unless it was their deadly hatred of the pope, and the confiscation of church property and land.

…

In the meantime Luther was saturating himself with published and unpublished humanistic anti-clerical literature so effectually that his passionate hatred of Rome and the pope, his genesis of Antichrist, his contemptuous scorn for his theological opponents, his effusive professions of patriotism, his acquisition of the literary amenities of the “Epistolae Obscurorum Vivorum”, even the bodily absorption of Hutten’s arguments, not to allude to other conspicuous earmarks of his intercourse and association with the humanistic-political agitators, can be unerringly traced here.

It was while living in the atmosphere surcharged with these influences, that he issued his first epochal manifesto, “Address to the German Nobility”. It is in “its form an imitation of Hutten’s circular letter to the emperor and German nobility”, and the greater part of its contents is an abstract of Hutten’s “Vadiscus or Roman Trinity”, from his “Lament and Exhortation”, and from his letters to the Elector Frederick of Saxony. This seems to be admitted by competent Lutheran specialists. He steps from the arena of academic gravity and verbal precision to the forum of the public in “an invective of dazzling rhetoric”. He addresses the masses; his language is that of the populace; his theological attitude is abandoned; his sweeping eloquence fairly carries the emotional nature of his hearers — while even calm, critical reason stands aghast, dumbfounded; he becomes the hieratic interpreter, the articulate voice of latent slumbering national aspirations. In one impassioned outburst, he cuts from all his Catholic moorings — the merest trace left seeming to intensify his fury. Church and State, religion and politics, ecclesiastical reform and social advancement, are handled with a flaming, peerless oratory. He speaks with reckless audacity; he acts with breathless daring. War and revolution do not make him quail — has he not the pledged support of Ulrich von Hutten, Franz von Sickingen, Sylvester von Schaumburg? Is not the first the revolutionary master spirit of his age — cannot the second make even an emperor bow to his terms? The “gospel”, he now sees, “cannot be introduced without tumult, scandal, and rebellion”; “the word of God is a sword, a war, a destruction, a scandal, a ruin, a poison” (De Wette, op. cit., I, 417). As for pope, cardinals, bishops, “and the whole brood of Roman Sodom”, why not attack it “with every sort of weapon and wash our hands in its blood” (Walch, XVIII, 245).

 

[flightkid]

I understand your point of being infallible in matters of doctrine of faith and morals. But tell me, how is the question of dietary laws etc discipline and circumcision doctrine? And you are substituting the word (bishops) for Apostles? (now that would sound very Catholic!) It was not a matter of discipline deciding what to eat and who not to eat with for a Jew. It was a matter of Torah. As was circumcision. And no one can present a legitimate case that Peter was ever a Bishop or a Pope. He was indeed leader of the Apostles, but in his day, Jerusalem was the “mother” church so to speak. And James was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Granted, the church at Rome grew more rapidly because of the population of the city and the number of diaspora Jews even outnumbering Jews in Jerusalem; especially after the destruction of the Temple, etc. Peter did defend Paul’s stand on circumcision for the Gentile believers, I believe after Paul called him out. However, if Peter was Bishop or even the Pope, why would not one of the gospel writers say so - especially Luke? I don’t mean by a passage that can be interpreted as meaning something else. If he were a Bishop, why not say “Peter, Bishop of Rome”? If Peter were the head of the church, why would James preside over - not just agree with as someone else suggested - the scriptures say he presided over the council?

Laws and doctrines are TOTALLY different. Laws can change doctrine can not. The judazrs were saying you needed to still be circumcised UNDER the old law to be saved and Peter refuted that which is doctrine. To be saved in New Testament is by the grace of Christ through faith working in love and charity. Thats doctrine and that cannot change since Christ came to save not the old law. You say why if peter was bishop why was it not said in specifically? We can say that for anything lol…why did the writings and epistles specifically NOT say which books, writings, epistles should be and should not be part of scripture??? Because it was the Catholic CHURCH who formed the canon of scripture. the bible did not just fall out of the sky. Things are not always specific in scripture…just like the word trinity…why was the word trinity NEVER in the bible??? the concept it would you agree??? All the word bishop is found in scripture…episkopon…What was the original word on scripture for apostle in greek or aramiac??? James was a bishop…he was PART of the council just like the bishop is a bishop of rome. all the bishops are part of the magisterium in union with the pope.

Peace!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But Paul never referred to Peter as a Bishop in the earliest writings we have in scripture and neither does any later writings of scripture. Peter and Paul died together in Rome and as far as we know, neither of them was Bishop of Rome at the time. Early Fathers of the church used Peters primacy as chief Apostle to attach it to the church at Rome to grab leadership for themselves over the Bishops in other areas but all the other Bishops did not submit themselves to the title.

So you would discredit the writings of St. Irenaus? Do you trust any of the writings of the early Church fathers?

Dionysius of Corinth

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[MuddyRocker]

John does not specifically say Peter is the head of the Church, because he did not know the legal ease that would be applied to his writings.

If Judas Iscariot was considered to hold the office of bishopric, don’t you think the others did as well?

**Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. **

Tell me something about John’s writings. How many times did he use the term ‘Apostles’? If he didn’t use it, does that mean the men chosen and appointed by Christ were not Apostles?

And if an office was to be filled, according to Old Testament scriptures, don’t you think these men realized they must fill their own offices at their end?

You have to read scriptures in light of scriptures. You cannot piece mill it so it appears to say what you desire it to say.

Read post #75 - and again as far as John using the word Apostle; you must consider to whom John was writing and why. John, unlike Matthew was not writing to a particular Jewish audience. John was writing from out in the diaspora. And I suppose you would not want to hear that there is a plausible argument that John is not John the Apostle? We’ll save that for another thread. But I am sure that you have noticed that John’s gospel is a little different than the others. Matthew, Mark, & Luke are considered synoptic gospels but John is in a category all by itself. John focused more on divinity and miracles in order to get his readers who were of a particular philosophy to comprehend more than if the message were in a more Jewish fashion. You mentioned the OT scriptures as reference above. It is definite that if you are to understand the NT you must use the OT to interpret. It cannot be separate. Hey, I think we agree on that!

 

[MuddyRocker]

And you have no comment on binding and loosing, as understood by the Jewish people, or the added writings from St. Augustine?

Sure, binding and loosing is a term used by Matthew to refer to the Jewish understanding that what is bound may not be done lawfully, and what is loosed may be done lawfully. Using it within the context of Peter’s authority would mean to a Jew that when the Holy Spirit comes on Peter (after Pentecost) he would be pronouncing lawful and unlawful in full agreement with what is lawful and unlawful in heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Read post #75 - and again as far as John using the word Apostle; you must consider to whom John was writing and why. John, unlike Matthew was not writing to a particular Jewish audience. John was writing from out in the diaspora. And I suppose you would not want to hear that there is a plausible argument that John is not John the Apostle? We’ll save that for another thread. But I am sure that you have noticed that John’s gospel is a little different than the others. Matthew, Mark, & Luke are considered synoptic gospels but John is in a category all by itself. John focused more on divinity and miracles in order to get his readers who were of a particular philosophy to comprehend more than if the message were in a more Jewish fashion. You mentioned the OT scriptures as reference above. It is definite that if you are to understand the NT you must use the OT to interpret. It cannot be separate. Hey, I think we agree on that!

Ok, how many times does Matthew use the term 'Apostles? Mark? Luke? This is important if we’re to believe your version that none of them were bishops, because it’s not specifically stated to your satisfaction.

Do you still deny Peter, or any of the Apostles, were bishops, even though we must read the New Testament in light of the Old?

You seem to be overlooking a lot of discussion points being raised…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure, binding and loosing is a term used by Matthew to refer to the Jewish understanding that what is bound may not be done lawfully, and what is loosed may be done lawfully. Using it within the context of Peter’s authority would mean to a Jew that when the Holy Spirit comes on Peter (after Pentecost) he would be pronouncing lawful and unlawful in full agreement with what is lawful and unlawful in heaven.

And we’re overlooking the added writings of St. Augustine? Are we to ignore parts of what He wrote, if it does not support your view?

 

[MuddyRocker]

so u do not believe there was succession AFTER Peters death???

Succession of Pope? I do not. Succession of Bishop? I do not. Succession as leader of the Church of Christ? You bet I do. However, Linus became the first Bishop of Rome according to Iranaeus, and Jerome says Linus is the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church, although Tertullian and the Liber Pontificalis (Book of Popes) says that Clement was his successor. But the Apostolic Constitutions say Linus was the first Pope and was ordained by Paul and that Clement succeeded him and was ordained by Peter himself. But according to the scriptures, James was still leader of the church - not Bishop or Pope - but leader even after Peter’s death.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Succession of Pope? I do not. Succession of Bishop? I do not. Succession as leader of the Church of Christ? You bet I do. However, Linus became the first Bishop of Rome according to Iranaeus, and Jerome says Linus is the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church, although Tertullian and the Liber Pontificalis (Book of Popes) says that Clement was his successor. But the Apostolic Constitutions say Linus was the first Pope and was ordained by Paul and that Clement succeeded him and was ordained by Peter himself. But according to the scriptures, James was still leader of the church - not Bishop or Pope - but leader even after Peter’s death.

James was the bishop of Jerusalem and you still hold there were no bishops, even though scriptures told the Apostles that the office of bishopric was to be filled by another?

You want to know about Catholics, you should really use Catholics sources and not those with a vested interest against the Church.

 

[MuddyRocker]

You question is silly and the avoidance to the points raised, very noticable.

What point is it you think I am avoiding? And I don’t think the question is silly at all. In fact, I happen to know that it is a much asked question by biblical scholars.

 

[MuddyRocker]

James was the bishop of Jerusalem and you still hold there were no bishops, even though scriptures told the Apostles that the office of bishopric was to be filled by another?

You want to know about Catholics, you should really use Catholics sources and not those with a vested interest against the Church.

Did you read post 75 where I responded to the question about the Bishoprick?

 

[MuddyRocker]

James was the bishop of Jerusalem and you still hold there were no bishops, even though scriptures told the Apostles that the office of bishopric was to be filled by another?

You want to know about Catholics, you should really use Catholics sources and not those with a vested interest against the Church.

By the way, I was a Catholic for 19 years.

 

[MuddyRocker]

And we’re overlooking the added writings of St. Augustine? Are we to ignore parts of what He wrote, if it does not support your view?

I love St. Augustine’s writings, especially his Confessions and The City of God. But I don’t believe he was correct on everything. And apparently neither did some of the other Fathers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What point is it you think I am avoiding? And I don’t think the question is silly at all. In fact, I happen to know that it is a much asked question by biblical scholars.

You have passed more writings from and about St. Augustine, you did not address the location chosen by Christ to announce His Church, you passed over the symbolism of the net and the writings of the early Church fathers. It’s becoming apparent that you only wish to share your ‘view’ and not enter into a discussion to approach the subject from all angles.

Biblical scholars? Scholars with a vested interest in validating their own view maybe. That’s the biggest stretch I’ve ever heard. Does Peter love fish more than Christ? That’s just sad.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

By the way, I was a Catholic for 19 years.

Was that from the cradle?

Doesn’t matter, it’s half as long as I was a Protestant…

Enough for tonight, I’ll be back tomorrow afternoon or night.

 

[MuddyRocker]

Ok, how many times does Matthew use the term 'Apostles? Mark? Luke? This is important if we’re to believe your version that none of them were bishops, because it’s not specifically stated to your satisfaction.

Do you still deny Peter, or any of the Apostles, were bishops, even though we must read the New Testament in light of the Old?

You seem to be overlooking a lot of discussion points being raised…

No, I don’t know how many times they each use the word Apostles. Where exactly do they say they were Bishops? Even in light of the OT? I don’t know that either? Do you? If so, please let me know.
You know, you never have to believe my “version” as you call it. You can remain Catholic all your life and it will not bother me at all. I am not trying to sway you to believe something else. I am merely stating what I believe, as you are. You have every right to hold to your faith, as do I, correct? Why does it offend you that I don’t agree with you?