T
TEPO
Guest
Jesus is the head of the church. Peter is the neck.
- Status
B
Bengoshi
Guest
We would have to go to the discussion of the canon of Scripture for me to satisfactorily answer your question. However, that would take very long to discuss here. Well…to state it succinctly, the Church did not determine the canon but merely discovered the canon of Scripture. The books of the Bible were already written and used by the early disciples then. We knew that it contained the words of God because of its authors and its contents through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I know that my explanation may not be sufficient but there is a good discussion on this by Dr. Wayne Grudem in his book Systematic Theology on the Canon of Scripture. Maybe this article could also help:
carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/did-roman-catholic-church-give-us-our-bible
B
Bengoshi
Guest
I’m kinda lost, what’s with the discussion of the sacraments? Were we even talking about the sacraments? You are going off-topic. This is totally unrelated to SS!Yes, yes, yes. You are correct. The Bible contains what we need to to be able to do EVERY GOOD WORK.
So here’s what the Bible says:
Jesus founded a Church, He did not go around writing the Bible. So He said to Peter: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus said to the Aposles : Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
And He also said: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
And He also said: “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
And (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
Yes indeed, the Bible contains what we need to be able to do every good work because in the Bible we find ALL THE SACRAMENTS
R
Robbinson
Guest
Thank you - I am familiar with that line of thought. However, one can’t really escape the historical fact that it was the Catholic Church (recognized authority through apostolic succession) which defined the cannon (albeit, of course guided by the Holy Spirit) and that judgement was respected by all of Christiandom for 1500 years (until the reformation and the rejection of the 7 dc books). Similarly, it was the Catholic Church which established the creeds and which surpresed the various hereseys leading to the creeds (still accepted by most Chrisitians) and the basis of authority for such establishment and suppression, respectively, was the apostolic authority of the Church.
That’s a tough nut to crack for non-Catholics, I think.
Thanks for the article link.
Blessings,
Brian
B
benedictus2
Guest
Okay it seems you were unable to read what you were replying to since you post this question. But here is what I posted and I am posting it again. TAKE NOTE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED BITS
I made the baptism bits in 4points so you can’t escape it.Acts 2 verses 36-38
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
EXACTLY!!! These verses are actually saying, yes, they have received the Holy Spirit BUT THEY STILL NEEDED TO BE BAPTIZED WITH WATER
I have highlighted the important bit so I rest my case.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/did-roman-catholic-church-give-us-our-bibleAnd who came up with the canon? The Catholic Church.
B
benedictus2
Guest
You haven’t that is why you think they are wrong. Many much more erudite protestants than you did read and was therefore converted. The force of the truth of the Catholic Church proved overwhelming.
Okay. Another case of your inability to read properly.
Here it is again. John 21, Jesus says to Peter : feed MY sheep, feed MY lambs. So Jesus here is actually telling Peter to be guardian of HIS (Jesus’s) sheep. So while Jesus is Eternal Shepherd, He has appointed someone else (Peter) to look after His (Jesus’s) Sheep.
Who was Jesus entrusting His sheep to? Peter. Who was entrusting His sheep to Peter? Jesus. That is as clear as day and there is no running away from that fact.
Let us hope so. But at this stage that is debatable.
And where did I mention Mary? This is one of the grave errors some posters here make. They / you reply to what you think I am thinking than what I have actually written. Stick to the written word.
And no it is not a different Peter. Peter is Cephas, rock. End of story. You will be hard pressed to prove that He isn’t Cephas (rock) because Jesus himself called him as such in John 2.
B
benedictus2
Guest
The priests role is to make a sacrifice. Read the accounts of the last supper. This is the time when Jesus instituted the priesthood.
How about John 20:21-23? And yes forgiveness of sins is God’s alone. But God GAVE that authority to His disciples.
Do you understand the meaning of the word GIVE?
(Can you think of the most popular prayer in the world is?),
The operative word here is MEANINGLESS. Remember Christ Himself gave us the prayer of the Our Father or the Lord’s Prayer. We repeat that several times a day. This is not meaningless repetition because in praying this we are actually OBEYING Christ’s command.
Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread. 12 **And forgive us our debts** opheilēma = metaphor - offense or sin], as we also have forgiven our debtors.
MY POINT EXACTLY!
Actually you do not adhere to Jesus because you do not believe it when He (Jesus) said to His apostles: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins YOU forgive they are forgiven, who soever sins YOU retain they are retained.
Hmmm, I am wondering why you have not addressed this verse ever. I have mentioned it several times but you have not commented on it at all.
The verses you have quoted I have actually addressed.
Refer to my answer above.
No sir. YOU are the one wallowing in UNBELIEF, that is why you keep avoiding discussing John 20:21-23
I have answered all your questions. My question is are you capable of answering mine?
B
benedictus2
Guest
No it seems you are not familiar with the Catholic argument because what I have written about the significance of Ceasaria Philipi, you have completely overlooked. Not one single comment.
And I have read 1 Peter and 2 Peter and you cannot make your case properly. Unless you can put forward a coherent exegesis of these two epistles then there is no point even mentioning it.
Oh no. It is not a personal choice of who to follow. To do that would be to listen to the dictates of the devil.
I follow whoever Christ appointed. That is not a choice left to us. Christ told us who to follow and and that is who I follow
B
benedictus2
Guest
Nope this is not parroting. This is clear debunking of your stone/rock argument. You have to find an explanation as to why Peter is called Cephas. Your time starts now…
S
steve_b
Guest
Clement was speaking for the Church. That’s why He uses “we” when addressing Corinth. That’s not personal it’s official as his office
Paul had been martyred 25 years before Clement’s letter was written. You don’t seem to be grasping what’s going on
gotta:
"
we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury"
The letter’s main purpose is to settle sedition. c’mon read the letter.
gotta:
I see you’ve not read THAT letter either.
gotta:
As you can see, Peter was bishop of Rome. The other quotes add some background. Can’t post them all due to space.
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]).
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (*Ecclesiastical History *6:14:1 A.D. 325 ).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (*Canonical Letter, *canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (*The Deaths of the Persecutors *2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Damasus
The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
gotta:
- The Church of Rome was already there 300 years before Constantine
- The saints were real, how dare you desecrate what they went through to pass on the faith.
B
benedictus2
Guest
To recap:
You said the Scripture equips us for EVERY good work.
So I answered that how we get EQUIPPED for EVERY good work is via the sacraments which YOU WILL FIND IN THE BIBLE.
So take time to re-read the post you replied and you will get the gist of what I am saying.
S
steve_b
Guest
I see you purposely ignored (edited out)
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=102
B
benedictus2
Guest
**Timeline of how the Bible came to us **
**Date **Event
**AD ****51-125 **The New Testament books are written.
**140 **Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.
**200 **The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
**367 **The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D…
**382 **Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
**393 **the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
**397 **The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …
**AD787 **The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
**1442 **AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.
**1536 **In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.
**1546 **At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.
from this website http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
G
GottaGo12345678
Guest
Self righteous and pride make it near impossible to see anything except self. I am very humble before God, but I also want others to see it in themselves; so they may be used by and for God.
Some things said are judgmental; the question is does the person that makes a judgment have a heart for God and a love that forthright toward ones neighbors.
That is very good and I do agree
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Benedicltus,
A lot of readers do not notice this departure from the usual sequence of the N.T. canon because Revelation (Apocalypse) still comes last. The familiar diglot Luther German and A.V. (K.J.V.) English Bibles, originally made for Amish and Mennonite use, conveniently restore the order that other Christians recognise as normative.
Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** *1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. *
Even in many modern editions of the German Bible in Dr. Martin Luther’s version or a later revision of it, printed for use of Lutherans in Europe, one still finds that most of the books (but not Hebrews) which Luther contested (and your list is incomplete!) are grouped at the end of the N.T., although not explicitly identified as an appendix, supplement, quasi-apocrypha, or suchlike phrase.A lot of readers do not notice this departure from the usual sequence of the N.T. canon because Revelation (Apocalypse) still comes last. The familiar diglot Luther German and A.V. (K.J.V.) English Bibles, originally made for Amish and Mennonite use, conveniently restore the order that other Christians recognise as normative.
Jerry Parker
G
GottaGo12345678
Guest
Try not to confuse zeal for the Lord and the Catholic people for pride and arrogance.
A far as learning the things pertaining to the Word of God; I would never look at a religious institution. I would go directly to the source of Truth and put my faith in the Trinity and there promises; one which is the promise of the Spirit of Truth, which is the guidepost for each Christian.
Blessing on your spiritual journey and on mine.
G
GottaGo12345678
Guest
You did do it and I brought it forth in the correct context to show you; now you appear to be in some denial. It is not that big a deal; just warning you not to do that or else I will take issue with you; just being firm so you we can have dialogue and I don’t have to waste time bringing things back into context.
God bless you and I pray you understand; I’m sure you have had people do that to you and you did not appreciate it.
GottaGo
G
GottaGo12345678
Guest
EXACTLY!!! These verses are actually saying, yes, they have received the Holy Spirit BUT THEY STILL NEEDED TO BE BAPTIZED WITH WATER :thumbsup:I have highlighted the important bit so I rest my case.Okay it seems you were unable to read what you were replying to since you post this question. But here is what I posted and I am posting it again. TAKE NOTE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED BITS
Acts 2 verses 36-38
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
- How many Baptisms are there in the NT; not including Jesus baptism? Please answer the question unless you are saying there is water baptism and a "prefigured baptism and that is all mentioned in the NT.
- Acts 2:38 when put into the Greek to English renders the exact same as Acts 10; therefore there really is nothing to reconcile concerning the order.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
I understand why you do not understand the purpose of water baptism, which cannot save you; yet you cited a quote concerning the Ark which carried the people and animals safely through the judgment of God, which is the water. Peter actually went out of his way to explain to folks like you, that it is not the removal of dirt, which is a bit of sarcasm toward water baptism. Do you recall Who "shut and sealed " the door to the Ark? Do you remember it is the “Holy Spirit of promise” that seals the believer into Christ? This is the baptism that actually saves; water baptism has zero to do with the removal of sin; if it were able to then, it become a works righteousness based sacrament that must be done in order to improve your chances of getting into heaven. just not Biblical nor the way God saves men from distruction; but the Lord is willing and able to do this.
G
greggy53
Guest
Thats nice, threaten me, and then say God bless? If you can’t respond to what I wrote, leave it alone. Personal attackes like yours always tell me the debate is over because you have nothing more worth while to respond with. I used your own scripture quote against you, and you are ticked off about it. If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen pal. You can take issue with me any time…bring it on.
- Status