P
pablope
Guest
I think Peter first. Second visit with Peter, James and John.Gorgias:
Peter and James.
- Status
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Assuming you are asking me in response to my comment about Protestant beliefs in the regular appearance of their beliefs in history: I imagine a Protestant would be able to draw on huge numbers of scriptural references that could be interpreted in this way. They do not profess ‘sola expressa scriptura’ .
K
kainosktisis
Guest
But sola scriptura amounts to the same.
They believe that all teaching is strictly explicitly from the Scriptures yet fail to realize that when the Church was initially established there were not yet Christian Scriptures in their totality with the canon of Scripture as we know it today. In fact as the Scriptures go, Tradition is Scripturally supported as well as the Church as being the pillar of truth. Somehow this seems to elude them.
The Holy Trinity is Scriptural even though the word Trinity is not found in the Scriptures.
They believe that all teaching is strictly explicitly from the Scriptures yet fail to realize that when the Church was initially established there were not yet Christian Scriptures in their totality with the canon of Scripture as we know it today. In fact as the Scriptures go, Tradition is Scripturally supported as well as the Church as being the pillar of truth. Somehow this seems to elude them.
The Holy Trinity is Scriptural even though the word Trinity is not found in the Scriptures.
Last edited:
Paul and Peter did have different avenues on expanding the church.
Jesus gave the Keys to Peter. He was to convert gentiles there in jeruselem.
Paul being an unbeliever and even at the stoning of St. Stephan as a jew was to convert Jews as he was an expert at OT Jerusalem.
Some protestants need to read Acts.
Jesus gave the Keys to Peter. He was to convert gentiles there in jeruselem.
Paul being an unbeliever and even at the stoning of St. Stephan as a jew was to convert Jews as he was an expert at OT Jerusalem.
Some protestants need to read Acts.
Last edited:
K
kainosktisis
Guest
K
kainosktisis
Guest
I wanted to compare Isaiah 22 from the Chabad Website - it has Commentary that can be shown or hidden with a button at the top of the page :
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15953/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-22.htm
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15953/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-22.htm
D
dochawk
Guest
There has not been serious dispute about Peter’s own primacy for some decades now; it’s clear and then some to any intellectually honest reader, whether or not of a sola scriptura bent.
That doesn’t, though, get us anywhere as to his succesors’ authority or leadership (or lack thereof).
oh, wait . . .
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Exactly. That seems to be the Protestants’ strongest argument.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Except that apostolic succession, itself, is found in Scripture…dochawk:
Exactly. That seems to be the Protestants’ strongest argument.
M
mcq72
Guest
And Judas was the treasurer. So then was Mathias and his successors?the way that they had done when they needed to replace Judas.
G
Gorgias
Guest
They replaced him in his role of apostle. That doesn’t imply a particular task.Gorgias:
And Judas was the treasurer. So then was Mathias and his successors?the way that they had done when they needed to replace Judas.
M
mcq72
Guest
Are there 12 continual apostles,? One a leader, one a treasurer, one the tough questioning skeptic, one brought people together?
No evidence of a “central government”.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Again, you’re confusing ‘task’ or ‘personality’ with the role of apostle.
And, we see in Scripture that apostles were the heads of local churches, and also that they’re naming others to fill that role as the Church expands.
Non sequitur. I’m not sure what you’re attempting to get at.
M
mcq72
Guest
But he did have a known particular task, just as Peter did. Why continue one and not the other?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Are you calling “Petrine ministry” a “known particular task”? I wouldn’t frame it up in that way. In any case, we see that it was Jesus Himself who set Peter as the head of the apostles.
Besides, why would you say that no one took over the financial role in the Church? We know that’s not the case (or else the Ananias and Sapphira story would make no sense).
M
mcq72
Guest
The apostles appointed presbyters, of which Peter was a fellow presbyter, over particular churches. The churches were first local (Jerusalem), and then regional (out to Antioch, and they reached out to Galatia ,etc.). It seems presbyters were not just appointed in the local churches but also for the regional area. The regional areas could confer (Jerusalem council). After these biblical garnerings we then seem to have history of a regional patriarchal system. The debate comes over the see of Rome have a preeminence of honor or actual juridiction ( not that it can not be both at times).
There does not seem to be any biblical ordinations to specifically look over all the entire church (later some refer to Jesus as the " Head" bishop). This latter point is what I mean by no central head as far as appointments/ governance.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Jesus is the head of the apostles and Peter a leader.
All Acts tells us is that the monies and gifts were laid at the apostles feet, as in plural. Peter took lead role in speaking judgment on the two deceivers, just as James made judgement at Jerusalem council.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The James who bases his judgement off of Peter’s vision?
G
Gorgias
Guest
So… is your difficulty based merely on the particular titles they used at the beginning of the Church?
Nevertheless, we do see ‘presbyters’ and ‘overseers’ (episkopoi) in the early church. These ‘overseers’ took over the role of governance in the early Church.
And I would argue that we do see that, in the ministry of Peter, from Jesus’ ascension onward.
Offhand, this doesn’t ring a bell with me. Would you mind citing it?
I’ll grant that it appeared more decentralized then. But, that seems to be a matter of pragmatics than anything else. It was just unrealistic to think that, given their resources and their (lack of) legal standing in the empire, they’d have a highly visible central leadership / main office.
Seems we’re sinking to the level of quibbling. I’d say that Jesus is the King and Peter the al-bayit of the kingdom.
This notion of “at the feet of the apostles” kinda hurts your thesis more than mine. You’ve claimed that Judas’ “office” – for which they found a replacement – was “treasurer”. And yet, as you’ve shown, that role was filled by the Church. (In fact, a little later, that role of distribution of resources is filled by a ministry that the apostles made up on their own – the diaconate!). So, my contention that the office was “apostle” is seen to be the stronger case, I’m afraid.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Even then the Church had a system resembling the monarchial episcopate. Titus and Timothy had singular authority to oversee Churches and ordain presbyters. Let’s not forget Peter is an Apostle, something not all presbyters could say of themselves.
Last edited:
- Status