Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[SoonerServant]

It isn’t as if I said some fish fly that would be random.

You are speaking of the grave and I merely pointed out that it is talking about death not the grave. Hades was Greek Mythology for a place where the dead went. They aren’t talking about the grave where the body is buried. It is understood by Christians to mean either hell or limbo. Limbo being the temporary place where those who died before Jesus died on the cross. Where Jesus preached to the dead. Hell is where the demons are. The demons tried to defeat Jesus but they can’t neither can they defeat The Church that Jesus founded on Peter.

But, when translated, this was the word the Greeks used for the grave. This was part of their beliefs. In the KJ bible, the words Hell, Hades, Tartarum and Sheol were all considered synonyms. The reality was, that only Sheol and Hades were the same in meaning. Sheol: from the Hebrew, was literally “The Grave”. Hades:from the Greek, is the word that the scribes chose when translating it from Hebrew. Because of the KJV of the bible, many of these mistakes have lead ppl to ignorant or irrational conclusions. Many of the newer translations clear these misunderstandings up with either subtexts or by changing the word entirely to its literal meaning.

 

[SoonerServant]

I see you have changed your tune a bit, Isaac. Interesting.

However, you do not qualify as a pope as you have not been handed the keys to the kingdom as St. Peter was and as his successors inherited.

But, I do qualify in that I’m not married, right? Wait, that doesn’t make much since. The Pope isn’t supposed to be married right? Or he can’t be the Pope. Interesting, because I believe Peter was married. I’m sure that’s just an exception.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

But, when translated, this was the word the Greeks used for the grave. This was part of their beliefs…

Source, please. There is a Greek word for *pit *which is used by many writers (Hellenic and koine) for ‘grave,’ but I can not find ONE single use of Hades for ‘the grave.’

Can you enlighten me, SoonerServant?

Thanks

 

[JonathanKinsman]

But, I do qualify in that I’m not married, right? Wait, that doesn’t make much since. The Pope isn’t supposed to be married right? Or he can’t be the Pope. Interesting, because I believe Peter was married. I’m sure that’s just an exception.

I don’t know where you get these wild hair ideas, SoonerServant, but the word ‘pope’ is affective and was only applied to bishops of Rome much later than St Peter.

Would you be happier if we called the Bishop of Rome, as leader of the Church, the Rock?

It never ceases to astound me that those who claim “if it ain’t in the bible, it ain’t right” always falter when confronted with an obvious statement: if St Peter was chosen by Jesus to be first among equals in leading his Church, then SOMEONE had to, years and centuries later, continue leading His Church and ensuring the teaching of the Gospel.

Also, ‘Pope’ is a term of affection, not of office. As ‘poppa’ or ‘dad’ it implies the head of a family, the family of CHRIST, the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

Make up your mind, SS, which author in the NT do you want to follow about being married (as a Catholic bishop) or not: Jesus or St Paul?

And why does your faith hang on such an insignificant hook of discipline, instead of dogma?

 

[SoonerServant]

I don’t know where you get you wild hair ideas, SoonerServant, but the word ‘pope’ is affective and was only applied to bishops of Rome much later than St Peter.

It is a term of affection, not of office. As ‘poppa’ or ‘dad’ it implies the head of a family, the family of CHRIST, the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

Make up your mind, SS, which author in the NT do you want to follow about being married (as a Catholic bishop) or not: Jesus or St Paul?

And why does your faith hang on such an insignificant hook of discipline, instead of dogma?

Then the Papal Primacy was not known for all ages, just until someone made it up? Perhaps, the split between the Catholics and the Protestants, was God protecting His chosen people. Maybe they’re the ones in the right and you all are wrong. Can you prove this?

 

[JaneFrances]

But, I do qualify in that I’m not married, right? Wait, that doesn’t make much since. The Pope isn’t supposed to be married right? Or he can’t be the Pope. Interesting, because I believe Peter was married. I’m sure that’s just an exception.

This thread is so funny. . .I have no idea where you are even going with this! It’s like a roller coaster ride, but maybe even more exciting because I can’t see the track in front of me!

What is the world does being married have to do with anything pertinent to this thread?

Being married or unmarried has nothing to do with anything. Priests generally speaking, are not married, as a rule of discipline. Some priests in other Catholic rites actually are married and even some in the Latin rite are married. It is not impossible for a married man, thus, to be elected pope, if the case so arose. Yes, Peter was married. So what?

I believe this weird tangent began when you tried to throw out some random point about Jesus overcoming the grave, I assume referencing “the gates of Hades will not prevail” passage. . . I’m completely lost now and thoroughly amused!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Then the Papal Primacy was not known for all ages, just until someone made it up? Perhaps, the split between the Catholics and the Protestants, was God protecting His chosen people. Maybe they’re the ones in the right and you all are wrong. Can you prove this?

You’re asking me to prove a negative?? And you’re the one with the signature line of “Context, context, context”???

 

[SoonerServant]

Did you read my post about Pope Pius IX? Those were all facts. Can you defend that claim or at least rationalize it as something other than heresy? Am I the only one here who saw the 2000 lb. elephant in the room called “his true intenions” screaming," I’m vane and arrogant! Worship me!"

 

[JonathanKinsman]

It never ceases to astound me that those who claim “if it ain’t in the bible, it ain’t right” always falter when confronted with an obvious statement: if St Peter was chosen by Jesus to be first among equals in leading his Church, then SOMEONE had to, years and centuries later, continue leading His Church and ensuring the teaching of the Gospel.

And why does your faith hang on such an insignificant hook of discipline, instead of dogma?

SoonerServant, maybe you missed this from my initial post?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Source, please. There is a Greek word for *pit *which is used by many writers (Hellenic and koine) for ‘grave,’ but I can not find ONE single use of Hades for ‘the grave.’

Can you enlighten me, SoonerServant?

Thanks

I’ll slow down if you answer this request. I don’t know the “context, context, context” where you make this assertion.

 

[JaneFrances]

Did you read my post about Pope Pius IX? Those were all facts. Can you defend that claim or at least rationalize it as something other than heresy? Am I the only one here who saw the 2000 lb. elephant in the room called “his true intenions” screaming," I’m vane and arrogant! Worship me!"

I missed that post. . .where was it?

 

[SoonerServant]

You’re asking me to prove a negative?? And you’re the one with the signature line of “Context, context, context”???

You won’t try to prove this beacuse the initial reaction that has been programmed into your brain is," I’m right. Everyone else is wrong." How expected.

Have you ever thought outside the premise of," I’m right. Everyone else is wrong."?

To prove something to someone else, you must first prove it to yourself.

 

[SoonerServant]

I’ll find it.

 

[YADA]

The word “Pope” we get from the italian word for father, like papa, daddy or from Isaiah 22 that some here want to dismiss…Lets look at how the people recognise the prime minister…

How do the people know the prime minister [the holder of the keys on behalf of the King, the one who opens and shuts] they call him abba or in other times and places what might be refered to as father, daddy, papa or in this case pope!

Peter entrusted with the keys, given the authority to open and shut…how called?

 

[SoonerServant]

SoonerServant, maybe you missed this from my initial post?

It is . God doesn’t need men to carry on his “church”.(btw, I’m getting really tired of that term. It’s false. Can you find it anywhere in the original manuscripts? I’ll send you a post from another thread where I addressed that issue.) As though, as soon as Peter died, everyone would forget about it. Give me a break. Also, what is the biblical office of the pope. Like: Elder, Deacon etc.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

You won’t try to prove this beacuse the initial reaction that has been programmed into your brain is," I’m right. Everyone else is wrong." How expected.

Have you ever thought outside the premise of," I’m right. Everyone else is wrong."?

To prove something to someone else, you must first prove it to yourself.

Do you even know what I mean by “proving a negative?”

Your answer tells me that you do not read very carefully what you are posting. You’re asking me to ‘prove’ Protestants are right and Catholics are wrong concerning Papal Primacy?

Do you even see the ridiculousness of this? Are you thinking before typing?

What Pius IX post? We ask and we do not receive from you, Isaac.

I think you need to read the Bible some more and expand your intellectual horizons with some surveys on Christendom and early Church history. There are a lot of non-Catholic books out there which support what others have been trying to tell you.

Here is something for you to mull over: if what the Church teaches about the pope and apostolic succession is wrong, then there is NO Church founded by Jesus. The Mormons are right and you should fall in line with their pantheology, Isaac, because every Protestant denomination gets its scriptures (chosen by a Catholic Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I) and its traditions (such as worship on Sunday, Christmas, Easter week, nativity scenes, rosaries,lectionaries, symbols) and its reason for being from the Catholic Church.

Without us there would be NO Church to complain about centuries AFTER the fact of its organization and its structure and its influence on western civilization.

 

[SoonerServant]

I don’t feel like looking for my post right now, but here is a statement from one of the Elders of a church of Christ in Arkansas. “While the Popes claim infallibility, this is actually a very new idea. “Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council in 1869 for the express purpose of declaring himself infallible, against a very stubborn opposition in the hierarchy” (Catholicism Against Itself, vol. II). In fact, it was only introduced into the Catholic creed in the next year. It appears that the idea that the Pope is infallible is some sort of latter day revelation. If this is the case then according to II Peter 1:3; Galatians 1:8,9 the idea of papal infallibility should be wholly rejected.”

Hm, just found out he’s infallilable and decided to mention it to someone? Interesting, very interesting. Apparently, the supernatural abilities of the Pope were still being revealed.cough heresy Maybe next he’ll learn how to fly or shoot lazers from his eyes. This was the 2000 lb. elephant I was talking about.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

It is . God doesn’t need men to carry on his “church”.(btw, I’m getting really tired of that term. It’s false. Can you find it anywhere in the original manuscripts? I’ll send you a post from another thread where I addressed that issue.) As though, as soon as Peter died, everyone would forget about it. Give me a break. Also, what is the biblical office of the pope. Like: Elder, Deacon etc.

What “original manuscripts?” The Septuagint’s? All mainstream Protestant bibles now get their “original manuscripts” from Catholic sources and from ones in libraries in London and Berlin. The ‘textus receptus’ is a collection of Jewish scripture retranslated from the Septuagint Greek in 90 and later AD in Jamnia. It was AFTER the documents you so treasure in the Bible: the New Testament. And it was done by Jewish scholars and rabbis to expunge any reference to Jesus (esp Isaiah) as being the 'Messiah." How’s that for Protestant ‘sola scriptura’ !!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I don’t feel like looking for my post right now, but here is a statement from one of the Elders of a church of Christ in Arkansas. “While the Popes claim infallibility, this is actually a very new idea. “Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council in 1869 for the express purpose of declaring himself infallible, against a very stubborn opposition in the hierarchy” (Catholicism Against Itself, vol. II). In fact, it was only introduced into the Catholic creed in the next year. It appears that the idea that the Pope is infallible is some sort of latter day revelation. If this is the case then according to II Peter 1:3; Galatians 1:8,9 the idea of papal infallibility should be wholly rejected.”

Hm, just found out he’s infallilable and decided to mention it to someone? Interesting, very interesting. Apparently, the supernatural abilities of the Pope were still being revealed.cough heresy Maybe next he’ll learn how to fly or shoot lazers from his eyes. This was the 2000 lb. elephant I was talking about.

Why don’t you read the source yourself, Isaac? It is Vatican I. It is available in English at the vatican.va website and hundreds of scholars (Catholic, Protestant and agnostic) have written on it.

But that Elder from Arkansas sures knows more than those who read the “manuscripts” in their original languages: Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin. Right, Isaac?

Vatican I was a conciliar meeting: that means ALL the bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, the Pope) agreed to meet and discuss what were the pressing items at the time. If you would take the time (5 minutes) to read what “Papal Infallibility” is FROM THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, you wouldn’t be making such idiotic statements like “shoot lazers from his eyes.”

But I guess you’re not here to ask questions and then decide for yourself: in your own post you claim “infallibility” in interpreting the scriptures.

Go for it, David Koresh.

You still owe us some answers: hades; Pope Pius IX post; how you propose to prove a negative.

 

[SoonerServant]

Do you even know what I mean by “proving a negative?”

Your answer tells me that you do not read very carefully what you are posting. You’re asking me to ‘prove’ Protestants are right and Catholics are wrong concerning Papal Primacy?

Do you even see the ridiculousness of this? Are you thinking before typing?

What Pius IX post? We ask and we do not receive from you, Isaac.

I think you need to read the Bible some more and expand your intellectual horizons with some surveys on Christendom and early Church history. There are a lot of non-Catholic books out there which support what others have been trying to tell you.

Here is something for you to mull over: if what the Church teaches about the pope and apostolic succession is wrong, then there is NO Church founded by Jesus. The Mormons are right and you should fall in line with their pantheology, Isaac, because every Protestant denomination gets its scriptures (chosen by a Catholic Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I) and its traditions (such as worship on Sunday, Christmas, Easter week, nativity scenes, rosaries,lectionaries, symbols) and its reason for being from the Catholic Church.

Without us there would be NO Church to complain about centuries AFTER the fact of its organization and its structure and its influence on western civilization.

Wow, you guys think you really own it? How sad. Btw, you keep forgeting the other word in your name, Roman. And, the “church” Jesus founded was not called Catholic in the beginning. This was added later. Sometime after the ROMAN’S acceted it as the true religion. You know, the empire in control when Jesus was crucified. The one persecuting the christians. So plz say the whole name when talking about yourselves. It makes me giggle…and cry a lil.