W
Wesrock
Guest
That was a quote, not a block quote, but I guess it gets the same result!
Last edited:
- Status
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Galatians 2 tells us Peter was called to the Jews not Rome. Tradition tells us Peter was called to Rome. Which one should I believe? the word of God or tradition? Hmmm…
Peter was a great Apostle and served God well, but his contemporaries would argue if they found out he was in charge of them. What a mess that would be. The office of pope (Papa) with all of its glitter, glamour and prophetic revelations by it’s Vicar, is not recognized by the Apostolic Church, nor Jesus Christ himself who made the claim that He is the “head” of the body.
When the Apostle Paul gave instructions about Church government, there was no mention of a priesthood, or a pope. At best, a bishop was a overseeing elder. Today, when the pope comes to town, streets close and crowds gather to see the face of God in the vicar as he passes by in his bullet proof car surrounded by armed guards. Wow. … we’ve come a long way from the 1st. Century Church.
Peter was a great Apostle and served God well, but his contemporaries would argue if they found out he was in charge of them. What a mess that would be. The office of pope (Papa) with all of its glitter, glamour and prophetic revelations by it’s Vicar, is not recognized by the Apostolic Church, nor Jesus Christ himself who made the claim that He is the “head” of the body.
When the Apostle Paul gave instructions about Church government, there was no mention of a priesthood, or a pope. At best, a bishop was a overseeing elder. Today, when the pope comes to town, streets close and crowds gather to see the face of God in the vicar as he passes by in his bullet proof car surrounded by armed guards. Wow. … we’ve come a long way from the 1st. Century Church.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
tgGodsway:
Zaccheus:
tgGodsway:
Zaccheus:
tgGodsway:
Zacchues:
tgGodsway:
Zaccheus:
tgGodsway:
Zaccheus:
Last edited:
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Shouldn’t he have said, gentile blood runs in the veins of Jesus? Which is of course true, as non-Jew blood was in Jewish lineage.
Pagan is a later concept. Most Christians are from pagan lineage.
Pagan is a later concept. Most Christians are from pagan lineage.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I’m typing from my phone so it will be short and sweet zaccheus. The Matthew 16 passage is not saying what you think it says. The larger context brings out the true meaning. Peter had declared a Divine truth. Jesus is the Christ! … Well done Peter. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. Let me tell you something, you are Peter -petros- small rock and upon this ROCK- petra- large bolder, I will build my Church… The English language covers up the word-play found in the Greek. But Jesus did give Peter the Keys to the kingdom just as he has all who make the same declaration Peter did. Ok… I’m done. It’s too hard on the phone.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
This objection is not new to me. I’ve looked up the Greek words. In Greek petra means big rock or boulder. The word for small rock or pebble is lithos, not petros.
In Greek, petra means boulder; but it’s a feminine noun. To say to Simon “You are Petra” would get the reaction “Why are you giving me a girl’s name?”. So the Greek translator changed it by using the masculine ending: -a became -os.
“Greek translator”? Yes, because:
Was Christ speaking Greek when He spoke to Simon Peter?
Or did He speak Aramaic and later on someone wrote the Gospel account in Greek?
At least some translations of Scripture tell us that Christ used the word Cephas, which means rock or stone in Aramaic. “You are the Rock, and on this Rock I will build My Church.”
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ahh… then @Vico’s response is what you’re looking for: just as a blockquote begins with the “>” character, any blank lines you want, must likewise consist of the “>” character.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
We know that when the New Testament writers wrote their gospels the holy Spirit inspired them. When Matthew recorded his writings in Greek, he was under the inspiration of the holy Spirit.
This distinction of translation to the English language should not be ignored or avoided. The common Greek text was and is reliable. But the argument about Peter can still be made from other angles as well. Jesus wasn’t interested in setting up a “head” on earth over all churches. He alone is the Head over the universal body and does not share that through some kind of succession. At best, each local Pastor is the head of his local flock.
According to Rome, Peter was already in his position as Pope during the ministry of Paul. This makes for some interesting debate.
This distinction of translation to the English language should not be ignored or avoided. The common Greek text was and is reliable. But the argument about Peter can still be made from other angles as well. Jesus wasn’t interested in setting up a “head” on earth over all churches. He alone is the Head over the universal body and does not share that through some kind of succession. At best, each local Pastor is the head of his local flock.
According to Rome, Peter was already in his position as Pope during the ministry of Paul. This makes for some interesting debate.
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Christ is Head of the Church. He does not surrender His Headship to anyone. Not Peter, not Peter’s successors. Christ is the Head.
But He can set one servant to administer over other servants. Paul was in authority over Timothy and Titus, and Timothy had authority over others. Why could not Peter be given authority over his fellow apostles?
And why would Christ not appoint a single person to lead His Church? To appoint multiple leaders, with none having authority over the others, would be to invite dissension and power struggles. Our God is not a God of confusion.
Edited to add: And yes, the text is reliable. But I’m not disputing the words. I’m disagreeing with your interpretation.
It does say (in Greek) “Petros” and “Petra”. But Petros does not mean pebble or little rock. Petros is the masculine ending of Petra, said that way because Peter is not a woman.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I do not dismiss authority and ranking in the body of Christ. Paul had authority over Timothy and Titus, but remember those boys were not in the office of Apostle. Please give me more than Matthew 16 to shows how the Apostle Peter takes authority over other Apostles of the same rank? What in the world do you do with the disagreement Paul had with Peter when he rebuked him for siding with Jewish converts over gentile? The act of binding and loosening in Matthew 16 was given to all the disciples in Matthew 18. I would argue that all believers can practice with kingdom keys. God’s ways of doing things was not, and is not, for a select few. All of his body can practice Kingdom ways with the same authority. All of the disciples, before they became Apostles, exercised authority to trample on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy…
T
tgGodsway
Guest
(name removed by moderator),. God confirms His word through various voices all agreeing to a truth. These are the apostolic rules. How do the other Apostles recognize and agree with the office of pope? Where is the pattern of conformity over this revelation? lest it not be God’s revelation. So far we’ve got one witness, Matthew, but even Matthew doesn’t say what you are saying.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
You’re asking “where is that in the bible?”
I reply that we are not a Sola Scriptura denomination.
Paul rebuked Peter because Peter was wrong on that occasion.
We’ve never claimed the Pope is incapable of making mistakes.
Further it is possible for someone of lesser rank to point out, correctly, that someone of greater rank is wrong.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Where is the evidence that the other Apostles denied Peter’s authority?
And why did the Apostles need independent confirmation of what Christ told them Himself, in explicit words, while He was with them in the body?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Do you seriously want to argue such important doctrine as this, from silence and an implicit position?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
The Apostolic Church are the eye witnesses to the death, burial, and Resurrection. They are the foundation of Christianity recorded in the N.T.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Zaccheus,
All we can do today is read the history of all that happened to put together the pieces. The other apostles as well as Paul seem totally unaware of any appointment that made Peter the head of the Church. Nowhere do they acknowledge his authority. And nowhere does he attempt to exercise authority over them. The only instance in which another man was chosen to succeed an apostle is recorded in Acts 1:15:26, and there the choice was made not by Peter but by popular choice on the part of the brethren who numbered about one hundred and twenty and by the casting of lots.
On another occasion Peter, together with, John was sent by the other apostles to preach the Gospel in Samaria, (Acts 8:14.) Imagine the pope today being sent by the cardinals or bishops on any such mission.
Paul wrote to the Ephesians and said that "God gave Him (Christ) to be head over ALL THINGS to the Church, which is his body. 1:22,23
According to Roman Catholic tradition Peter was the first bishop of Rome, his pontificate lasted twenty-five years from 42 to 67 A.D. and he was martyred in Rome in 67 A.D. The Douay and confraternity version s say that he was in Rome before the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and that he returned to Jerusalem for that council, after which he went to Antioch, and then returned to Rome.
The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only ine times in the bible, and never is peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Paul’s journey to that city is recorded in great detail. Act 27, and 28. There is in fact no new testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind that peter ever was in Rome. All rest on Legend. The first twelve chapter of the book of Acts tell of Peter’s ministry and travels in Palestine and Syria. Surely if he had gone to Rome, the capital of the empire, that would have been mentioned.
All we can do today is read the history of all that happened to put together the pieces. The other apostles as well as Paul seem totally unaware of any appointment that made Peter the head of the Church. Nowhere do they acknowledge his authority. And nowhere does he attempt to exercise authority over them. The only instance in which another man was chosen to succeed an apostle is recorded in Acts 1:15:26, and there the choice was made not by Peter but by popular choice on the part of the brethren who numbered about one hundred and twenty and by the casting of lots.
On another occasion Peter, together with, John was sent by the other apostles to preach the Gospel in Samaria, (Acts 8:14.) Imagine the pope today being sent by the cardinals or bishops on any such mission.
Paul wrote to the Ephesians and said that "God gave Him (Christ) to be head over ALL THINGS to the Church, which is his body. 1:22,23
According to Roman Catholic tradition Peter was the first bishop of Rome, his pontificate lasted twenty-five years from 42 to 67 A.D. and he was martyred in Rome in 67 A.D. The Douay and confraternity version s say that he was in Rome before the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and that he returned to Jerusalem for that council, after which he went to Antioch, and then returned to Rome.
The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only ine times in the bible, and never is peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Paul’s journey to that city is recorded in great detail. Act 27, and 28. There is in fact no new testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind that peter ever was in Rome. All rest on Legend. The first twelve chapter of the book of Acts tell of Peter’s ministry and travels in Palestine and Syria. Surely if he had gone to Rome, the capital of the empire, that would have been mentioned.
V
Vico
Guest
Rome privileged the idea of the triple Petrine episcopal see: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...tuni_doc_20060322_patriarca-occidente_it.html
S
stpurl
Guest
I’m sure that someone who has studied Scripture is aware that Scripture itself mentions that not everything Christ said or did is mentioned in Scripture. Still less would there be a blow-by-blow account of everything each of the Eleven did after the Resurrection. Remember, Christ did not leave us a book; He left us a Church (which Scripture notes to be the pillar and foundation of the faith).
For the first 300 plus years of Christian history, the Church was ‘underground’. Therefore, little was actually ‘written’ down lest something betray members, already needing to be on their guard. The apostles did not ‘know’ that they were writing or recording ‘for all time’. Consider that even with Jesus’ teachings (including in the 40 days after the Resurrection), they still considered Him the Messiah, and a Messiah had certain connotations according to Jewish history. Consider that Scripture has Jesus mention that some ‘will not see death until I return", consider that the destruction of the Temple took place less than 50 years after Jesus’ Resurrection, when many first generation Christians who had seen Him were still alive. Consider the events of Masada. The earliest Christians were trying to spread the gospel as far and fast as can be because they considered that the Kingdom was imminent. So why in Heaven’s name would they be remarking about where Peter went, thinking, "Gee we’d better document that he’s the First Pope and give all the details of the decisions he makes, so that 1900 years plus from now people on the Internet will realize that what the Catholics–and the Orthodox–have been preaching since AD33–is true.
And do remember that the society of the time was an oral society. Most were not literate. The Roman Empire wasn’t like say the US with everybody speaking English as the official language, a large ‘minority’ speaking Spanish, and many dozens of people speaking other languages ‘at home’. If you lived in Gaul, you spoke the dialects there and enough Latin to get whatever your station in life demanded (meaning, peasants hardly anything, merchants quite a bit, others in between). There was a lot of translation that needed to be done. However, unlike today’s ‘telephone’ society, simply because oral communication was so important --and there were few distractions like today’s Internet, radio, TV, etc-- people LISTENED more, and remembered much better.
The apostles tailored the news to the people they were evangelizing. They used idioms that would be as familiar to the people of their time as ‘raining cats and dogs’ is to us in our time and place and language. Some of those idioms and word plays don’t work out so well in 21st century English (witness the difficulties people have with Petros/petra since the English language doesn’t have much in the way of a NEUTER (to us) word that can be reflective of masculine or feminine). One has to consider the context. One has to consider what the people who lived ‘BEFORE’ the event (as opposed to us, who are coming way after) were seeing.
Also much of the argument you use, has been thoroughly debunked and not solely by Catholics, but by Protestant theologians as well.
For the first 300 plus years of Christian history, the Church was ‘underground’. Therefore, little was actually ‘written’ down lest something betray members, already needing to be on their guard. The apostles did not ‘know’ that they were writing or recording ‘for all time’. Consider that even with Jesus’ teachings (including in the 40 days after the Resurrection), they still considered Him the Messiah, and a Messiah had certain connotations according to Jewish history. Consider that Scripture has Jesus mention that some ‘will not see death until I return", consider that the destruction of the Temple took place less than 50 years after Jesus’ Resurrection, when many first generation Christians who had seen Him were still alive. Consider the events of Masada. The earliest Christians were trying to spread the gospel as far and fast as can be because they considered that the Kingdom was imminent. So why in Heaven’s name would they be remarking about where Peter went, thinking, "Gee we’d better document that he’s the First Pope and give all the details of the decisions he makes, so that 1900 years plus from now people on the Internet will realize that what the Catholics–and the Orthodox–have been preaching since AD33–is true.
And do remember that the society of the time was an oral society. Most were not literate. The Roman Empire wasn’t like say the US with everybody speaking English as the official language, a large ‘minority’ speaking Spanish, and many dozens of people speaking other languages ‘at home’. If you lived in Gaul, you spoke the dialects there and enough Latin to get whatever your station in life demanded (meaning, peasants hardly anything, merchants quite a bit, others in between). There was a lot of translation that needed to be done. However, unlike today’s ‘telephone’ society, simply because oral communication was so important --and there were few distractions like today’s Internet, radio, TV, etc-- people LISTENED more, and remembered much better.
The apostles tailored the news to the people they were evangelizing. They used idioms that would be as familiar to the people of their time as ‘raining cats and dogs’ is to us in our time and place and language. Some of those idioms and word plays don’t work out so well in 21st century English (witness the difficulties people have with Petros/petra since the English language doesn’t have much in the way of a NEUTER (to us) word that can be reflective of masculine or feminine). One has to consider the context. One has to consider what the people who lived ‘BEFORE’ the event (as opposed to us, who are coming way after) were seeing.
Also much of the argument you use, has been thoroughly debunked and not solely by Catholics, but by Protestant theologians as well.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Yes I agree that the first three centuries only little was written and society was an oral society. However, we do have a historical record by first hand eye witnesses to the events of Christianity’s foundations. This historical record is like none other. It was inspired by the Spirit of God before the ink dried on the page.
When a lawyer is collecting facts to make a successful case, the facts are either there or not. A little evidence here and a little evidence there begins to build on the overall view of what happened. Evidence just presents itself without intention.
In the context of Church government, the holy Spirit gave us the various offices to which the Church would function throughout the Church age. He did this through the hand of a few Apostles whom God enlightened. With that clear understanding, you now are asking me to consider another office and another revelation.
When any un-bias student goes searching through scripture for this new office called the Papacy, he is unable to find even the smallest piece of evidence that there was such an office. All he is left with is contrary evidence. The contrary evidence is that God spoke and said, “And he (God) gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelist; and some pastors and teachers… for the equipping of the saints (that’s us) for the work of ministry… UNTILL we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ,” Eph… 4:11-13
The Roman Catholic Church comes along many years later to say, "oh no… there’s another office but the Apostles didn’t really have anything to say about it, or to educate anyone concerning it … and oh yeah, by the way… the person in this new office is now in charge of the entire Church around the world. Actually by succession he took Peter’s place who was in charge during the time of the apostles who lived on the earth, and they all submitted to his universal rule.
But strangely no one had a word to say about Peter’s new governing office, not even Peter.
No one wanted to educate us about this new office. No Apostle wanted to acknowledge it. Oh… yeah there were other writings that DO acknowledge the Papacy but for whatever reason, the holy Spirit didn’t want to put His approval on those writings.
… one more update… there was also a priesthood who would officer perpetual sacrifice …
You are serious?? You can believe these things if you want to. I know I can’t change your mind, but there is something fundamentally wrong with ex-biblical revelation.
When a lawyer is collecting facts to make a successful case, the facts are either there or not. A little evidence here and a little evidence there begins to build on the overall view of what happened. Evidence just presents itself without intention.
In the context of Church government, the holy Spirit gave us the various offices to which the Church would function throughout the Church age. He did this through the hand of a few Apostles whom God enlightened. With that clear understanding, you now are asking me to consider another office and another revelation.
When any un-bias student goes searching through scripture for this new office called the Papacy, he is unable to find even the smallest piece of evidence that there was such an office. All he is left with is contrary evidence. The contrary evidence is that God spoke and said, “And he (God) gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelist; and some pastors and teachers… for the equipping of the saints (that’s us) for the work of ministry… UNTILL we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ,” Eph… 4:11-13
The Roman Catholic Church comes along many years later to say, "oh no… there’s another office but the Apostles didn’t really have anything to say about it, or to educate anyone concerning it … and oh yeah, by the way… the person in this new office is now in charge of the entire Church around the world. Actually by succession he took Peter’s place who was in charge during the time of the apostles who lived on the earth, and they all submitted to his universal rule.
But strangely no one had a word to say about Peter’s new governing office, not even Peter.
No one wanted to educate us about this new office. No Apostle wanted to acknowledge it. Oh… yeah there were other writings that DO acknowledge the Papacy but for whatever reason, the holy Spirit didn’t want to put His approval on those writings.
… one more update… there was also a priesthood who would officer perpetual sacrifice …
You are serious?? You can believe these things if you want to. I know I can’t change your mind, but there is something fundamentally wrong with ex-biblical revelation.
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
We are not a Sola Scriptura denomination. There is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.
Further as others have pointed out even Scripture tells us that not everything was written in books.
Further as others have pointed out even Scripture tells us that not everything was written in books.
- Status