Protestants can you help

[Bill_Pick]

And just where does it say that?

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive tea

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

 

[Dokimas]

Lets see if this helps The church is all the baptusze believe in Christ,the First Church just as the Bible said Is the Cathloic Church Remember Jesus charge Peter name to Rock I will build my Church on this ROCK. and told Peter to feed His sheep and then give Him the keys to heaven.

Nope, doesn’t help. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

That is so absolutely correct dokimas. All born again children of God, no matter which faith they follow, and none being better than the other.

Well stated. I sure know I’m no better.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well stated. I sure know I’m no better.

What do both of you not agree with,that the church is not the body of all believe in Jesus Christ(Baptize) or the First Church was the universal Church and later about 100ad called the Cathloic Church…

 

[Bill_Pick]

Nope, doesn’t help. Thanks for your opinion.

DoKimas Why are you here this is a Cathloic froum, you are not here to learn and nothing any one tells you you do not agree. If a Cathloic said the pope is Cathloic you will just tell them how wrong they are so why are you here. If you do not understand why Cathloic call the priest father you will not believe any thing so why wast eyour time and others,Please do not think Im being disrespectful but WHY ARE YOU HERE,is it to show the Cathloics as being wrong. with 2000 years that will not happen===2000 against 500 I do not like the odds.
One question what denomination do you belong and do you read about the Church Fathers.=PEACE

 

[Arkguy]

DoKimas Why are you here this is a Cathloic froum, you are not here to learn and nothing any one tells you you do not agree. If a Cathloic said the pope is Cathloic you will just tell them how wrong they are so why are you here. If you do not understand why Cathloic call the priest father you will not believe any thing so why wast eyour time and others,Please do not think Im being disrespectful but WHY ARE YOU HERE,is it to show the Cathloics as being wrong. with 2000 years that will not happen===2000 against 500 I do not like the odds.
One question what denomination do you belong and do you read about the Church Fathers.=PEACE

 

[Arkguy]

The Post says “Protestants can you help” so Dokimas is helping. He was invited and is very learned and articulate in his beliefs. So don’t condemn him for being able to defend his beliefs. I find it hard to see how Catholics can claim Peter as the first pope when Peter commanded everyone to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). The Catholic church today says baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not valid. That it must be in the “name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost”. They are contradicting their first pope who had the keys to the kingdom.

 

[LutheranDK]

Hello Jon,

Do all Lutherans confess the Book of Concord?

There seem to be some pretty diverse opinions among Lutherans concerning such issues as

• ordaining active homosexuals
• contraception
• abortion

Virtually all Lutheran Churches confess the Book of Concord (the only exception I can think of being the Danish national church, for historical reasons), but not all live up to that.
It is comparable to the teachings of the RC church being fixed, but not all RC clergy or laymen adhering to all of it. For instance, there are RCs who openly advocate infanticide (“abortion”), sees no problem with gay “marriage”, use contraception, et And I can’t think of any prominent RC politician who supports abortion who have been refused communion. At least no such case has made it to the media that I am aware of…

My point: These issues are issues of discipline, not of doctrine. Or rather: Of not ADHERING to doctrine.

 

[LutheranDK]

-If Mary were not sinless, she couldn’t be worthy to become the new Ark of the Covenant, the new Eve, to conceive God. Are you telling me God took sanctuary in a sinner?

I don’t know what Dokimas is saying, but I certainly am. God took sanctuary in a sinner, Mary, just as He now resides in all of us, though we are sinners.

-While Peter was married, the Bible tells us that when Jesus called the disciples, they were told to leave behind everything, including families.

That would also mean that NO Christian should ever be married, because that would mean not leaving everything behind.
Peter was married, and did not leave his family (also cf 1 Timothy 5:8).
Furthermore, look at 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul speak of taking a “sister” (of course here meant as “a sister in the Lord” = a Christian) as a wife, and he calls it a “right”.

-Where does it show that Jesus’s brothers were Mary’s children? When Jesus was in the Temple at the age of 13, we see Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in that story, but no brothers or sisters.

That’s one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. Please remember what happened beforehand. Mary and Joseph had discovered that Jesus was not in the company of those they travelled with, and went back to look for Him in Jerusalem. Do you honestly believe they would have brought their other children for this search? If you lost sight of one of your children, would you then bring the rest of them to help you search, or see to it that they were taken home, and search yourself?

When Jesus died on the cross, he entrusted Mary to St. John. If he had a brother, then he would’ve entrusted Mary with a brother, as was Jewish custom. Yet, no brother was there.

That is one of the better arguments. However, it is not entirely convincing, as there are other possibilities.

In Aramaic, the language of Jesus, the word “brother” meant a lot of things. It meant “brother”, “male cousin”, and even “male friend”.

That is more of a "it might not mean “brother” "-argument than a "it does NOT mean “brother” "-argument. Furthermore, the gospels were written, not in Aramaic or Hebrew, but in Greek. And the evangelists would have known how to make sure people did not think Jesus had biological brothers. They did not…

1 Corinthians 2:1 states “When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God,…” Do you think Paul was speaking to just his brothers, his mother’s sons? After all, it clearly states “brother”.

Strawman
“Brother” came to mean “fellow believer” in the early church, just as it had in Judaism. That argument is null and void, and has no bearing on the subject at hand. Unless you want to claim that Scripture speaks of Jesus’ “fellow believers”, which I don’t assume…

-Man, you took that verse of Scripture horribly out of context. The same passage states that Jesus tells us to call no man “father”, “teacher”, or “master”. Do you honestly think Jesus was abolishing the actual uses of the words?

He was abolishing those words as HONORARY TITLES. That is what He speaks of, and what He forbids us.

 

[Peter_J]

-While Peter was married, the Bible tells us that when Jesus called the disciples, they were told to leave behind everything, including families.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with you, LutheranDK. The Church (and St. Paul) teach the value of celibacy, but never say “If you’re married, you should abandon your wife and kids so as to be unencumbered to preach the gospel.”

 

[LutheranDK]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with you, LutheranDK. The Church (and St. Paul) teach the value of celibacy, but never say “If you’re married, you should abandon your wife and kids so as to be unencumbered to preach the gospel.”

See, that’s one of the aspects of Roman Catholicism that puzzles me:
Why demand from clergy that they remain unmarried (not counting the exceptions which have been made recently), when the First Church seems to have placed no such restriction on bishops (or apostles for that matter)?
And why then allow for priests from other rites than the Latin to differ here?

Some might see this a “another round of RC bashing”; but I trust that you do not
It’s an honest question.

 

[Louie1983]

See, that’s one of the aspects of Roman Catholicism that puzzles me:
Why demand from clergy that they remain unmarried (not counting the exceptions which have been made recently), when the First Church seems to have placed no such restriction on bishops (or apostles for that matter)?
And why then allow for priests from other rites than the Latin to differ here?

Some might see this a “another round of RC bashing”; but I trust that you do not
It’s an honest question.

Maybe this will help. (this may have been discussed earlier in the thread)

The church demands celibacy from priests because it is a gift from God. When you become a priest you must abandon everything of the world and make the Church and God your absolute focus! You are called to serve the church and God and deny yourself to any form of temptation that is there. The church’s aim is to keep the priesthood as sacred and as close to possible to god, and the only way to do that is to forget everything else and focus on God alone! By rwmaining celibate you are honouring god, by preaching the gospel you are honouring god, by hearing confessions you are honouring god, by fasting you are honouring god. If you have a look at many great priests over the centuries you will see that they were known for their celibacy and focus on the church and god alone!

Sex is a gift for married couples in order to have children and an act of love from husband to wife and vise versa. This is the intention of God to keep intercourse pure and to be used in the correct manner - procreation.

In regards to other rites allowing priests to get married - They must remain chaste after becoming a priest. They are not permitted to have sex once they have been ordained.

 

[Peter_J]

See, that’s one of the aspects of Roman Catholicism that puzzles me:
Why demand from clergy that they remain unmarried (not counting the exceptions which have been made recently), when the First Church seems to have placed no such restriction on bishops (or apostles for that matter)?
And why then allow for priests from other rites than the Latin to differ here?

You ask why priests in the Latin Church are (generally) required to be celibate. My answer is this: in the undivided Church of the 1st millennium, different Patriarchates were permitted to have different rules/policies/customs. Why shouldn’t that still be the case today? If the Melkite Catholic Church (Note: Church, not “Rite”) wants to allow married priests, they can. If the Latin Catholic Church wants to have all (or nearly all) celibate priests, they can. If a Church wanted to go even further, and not even allow married deacons, they could (in principle, anyways; that seems pretty far-fetched, but it makes a good illustration of my point).

Some might see this a “another round of RC bashing”; but I trust that you do not
It’s an honest question.

Really depends on how you define it. I think that a lot of Catholics define “Catholic bashing” to including any disagreement with (or questioning of) Catholic thought; hence they are able to claim that “Catholic bashing” is a big problem even on Catholic forums. Conversely, I think that a lot of Protestants define “Protestant bashing” to including any disagreement with (or questioning of) Protestant thought; hence they are able to claim that “Protestant bashing” is a big problem even on Protestants forums.

 

[jean8]

There are hundreds of millions of Protestants, all interpreting Scripture individually by mere personal opinion, and with all of them claiming “The Holy Spirit Told Me”.
How can this possibly be, when every doctrine taught by one sect is denied by another, except for the existence of GOD? One claims the “spirit” told them to worship on Saturday, another makes the same claim except they were told Sunday. One says the “spirit” told them not to baptize infants. Yet another makes the same claim from the “spirit”, but insists they were told just the opposite, they must baptize infants.
One claims they were “told” to have communion once a week, yet another was “told” once a month, and yet a third was “told” quarterly. You can readily see that I could go on and on down through the whole list of beliefs and find one which teaches one way and another to the contrary.
Since GOD is one, with only one truth and with only one Holy Spirit, how could that one Spirit of truth be prompting those who have contradicting viewpoints?

Bill,
When folks are telling you what they believe they should quote that belief from scripture. From there you can give your opinion on how you understsnd the passage.
Do you have a study bible? A Commentary, all of these are tremendous helps when reading the bible. If all else fails , ask your priest. Pray for understanding, that is where the Holy Spirit helps. The Holy Spirit is our helper. He indwells every believer. The Holy Spirit is God. Read Jn.14:15-17,23-27

God bless you,
jean

 

[jean8]

You ask why priests in the Latin Church are (generally) required to be celibate. My answer is this: in the undivided Church of the 1st millennium, different Patriarchates were permitted to have different rules/policies/customs. Why shouldn’t that still be the case today? If the Melkite Catholic Church (Note: Church, not “Rite”) wants to allow married priests, they can. If the Latin Catholic Church wants to have all (or nearly all) celibate priests, they can. If a Church wanted to go even further, and not even allow married deacons, they could (in principle, anyways; that seems pretty far-fetched, but it makes a good illustration of my point).

Really depends on how you define it. I think that a lot of Catholics define “Catholic bashing” to including any disagreement with (or questioning of) Catholic thought; hence they are able to claim that “Catholic bashing” is a big problem even on Catholic forums. Conversely, I think that a lot of Protestants define “Protestant bashing” to including any disagreement with (or questioning of) Protestant thought; hence they are able to claim that “Protestant bashing” is a big problem even on Protestants forums.

Peter,
Bashing and judging other christians is a sin. We are told in the bible not to judge others.
Naturally we have disagreements on doctrines, but we as christians have the same Savior, Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches, “Whoever loves God, must also love his brother.”
We can have debates without hate.

This strong statement is found in 1Jn.3:10 “this is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: anyone who does not do what is right is not the child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”
verses 11-24 "Love one another.

God bless you,
jean
I am a conserative Lutheran (LCMS) Do you love me as your brother in Christ?

 

[JonNC]

You ask why priests in the Latin Church are (generally) required to be celibate. My answer is this: in the undivided Church of the 1st millennium, different Patriarchates were permitted to have different rules/policies/customs. Why shouldn’t that still be the case today? If the Melkite Catholic Church (Note: Church, not “Rite”) wants to allow married priests, they can. If the Latin Catholic Church wants to have all (or nearly all) celibate priests, they can. If a Church wanted to go even further, and not even allow married deacons, they could (in principle, anyways; that seems pretty far-fetched, but it makes a good illustration of my point).

Peter,
As the son of a pastor, I can understand why the Church might want a celibate clergy, as I saw first hand the strain on Dad to be both father and husband to his family, and “father” to his parish.

On your other point, in an earth-shattering event, the LCMS and Rome come to an agreement for reconciliation. So, it is conceivable that the LCMS Catholic Church hypno could continue to have married clergy?
Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,
Bashing and judging other christians is a sin. We are told in the bible not to judge others.
Naturally we have disagreements on doctrines, but we as christians have the same Savior, Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches, “Whoever loves God, must also love his brother.”
We can have debates without hate.

This strong statement is found in 1Jn.3:10 “this is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: anyone who does not do what is right is not the child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”
verses 11-24 "Love one another.

God bless you,
jean
I am a conserative Lutheran (LCMS) Do you love me as your brother in Christ?

In my experience, a lot of Protestants who come to this forum are “gluttons for punishment” – they gravitate, not toward the threads that are devoted to dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, but rather toward the threads that are geared toward bashing Protestants.

Perhaps they feel that it is best to give the Protestant-bashers plenty of opportunity to vent their anger and hatred, in the hope that it will run out. (I can’t say for sure.) But here’s the thing … it’s often quite difficult to distinguish these “gluttons for punishment” from a second kind of Protestant poster – namely, those Protestant posters who come here and strike up conversations with the most uncharitable and Protestant-bashing Catholic posters, much like the first type but with the goal of “show casing” the lack of charity, and even making it appear that uncharitableness is the dominant trait of Catholics. (Not exactly a charitable thing to do, wouldn’t you say? )

Alright, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

John Calvin, John Knox,John Smyth,JOhn & Chas Wesley,Joseph Smith,Chas Russell,Benny Hinn,Leroy Jenkins,Don Stewart, Billy Bob all lead by the Holy Spirit.

Ist the Pope guide by the Holy Spirit? By the way, Pope means Papa.