B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
Great capitalist thinking. who controls the money rules the Church.
Who runs the Federal Reserve of the USA and looks after the finances of the Country is the leader of it?
Pax
Brian
- Status
Who runs the Federal Reserve of the USA and looks after the finances of the Country is the leader of it?
Pax
Brian
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Brian Ingram:
I wasn’t stating Paul’s primacy rather showing that there could be a case made for it just as there can be a case made for Peter
Jumping in a little late and out of context…
I wasn’t stating Paul’s primacy rather showing that there could be a case made for it just as there can be a case made for Peter
J
jimmy
Guest
No there can’t be a case for Paul being first. The idea that he was in charge of finances does not come close to imply that he was first. The only way that would mean anything would be if the Church were a bussiness, which I am sure you will not claim.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Absolutely!!!
From ScriptureCatholic.com:
Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
Acts 5:13 - " None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them." - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.
Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem. The teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.
Notworthy
R
RyanL
Guest
Martin,
Just a reminder to read (and hopefully respond to) post #126.
God Bless,
RyanL
Just a reminder to read (and hopefully respond to) post #126.
God Bless,
RyanL
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Act 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.
Act 5:14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
I don’t see where this gives apostolic authority it showed they acknowledge their knowledge in christ.
Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem. The teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ. Notworthy
Once again…
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Apostolic authority? why because elders (presbyters and apostles came together, this actually is closer to all other churches except Catholic because Catholic’s have the single figure head the Pope, and others have elders w/o a single figure head.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I thought on page 1 we established that ScriptureCatholic.com
is not credible in it’s position of the primacy of peter because it states a falsehood in the first 50 words.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I never said my beliefs were in concert with the waldensians but I am rather giving you pre-reformation people whose beliefs were in the same line of thinking as many diffrent protestant churches
you asked yes or no I went one further and gave you a name a background about him and showed his line of beliefs and yes he was a Catholic Bishop. Yet his 8th century beliefs stand alone seperately from the papacy
J
jimmy
Guest
Actually I would gaurantee that your 157 mentions of Paul is false. Paul is not mentioned once in the gospels. He is not mentioned by John, James, or Jude. Peter mentions him once. Acts does mention him a decent amount but not 157 times. Where are you getting your 157 times? Does Paul refer to himself? Are you referencing all the times Paul uses a first person verb?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
M
montanaman
Guest
Actually, that’s true. However, it doesn’t mention Paul in a prominent role every single time. A lot of it is stuff like “Paul went out for groceries…”
J
jimmy
Guest
Several of them are Paul refering to himself. They include phrases lie ‘I Paul’. When Peter is mentioned he is being mentioned by someone else. I counted 30 references that he made to himself. So it is down to 127 total that someone refers to Paul other than himself.
R
RyanL
Guest
Does that same standard apply to you? If so, you are also no longer credible because you didn’t count the mention of ‘Cephas’ in your total - or ‘Simon’ for that matter.
Be careful the standard you set for credibility…
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
I asked for a Protestant, and you gave me someone who believes in Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders. I am unaware of any Protestant denomination greater than about 100 members who would hold this as a doctrine. If your belief criteria in this argument extends to any group who call themselves Christian, I suppose there’s no doctrine so strange some Protestants somewhere won’t believe it. What I’m looking for is some semblance of a mainline Protestant.
Maybe you should try the Albigensians. Or the Donatists. Or the Novationists. Or the Paulists. Or the Waldenses…but wait…the Waldenses are post 1000AD. That wasn’t any part of my question. Guess you flunked that test, too.
Now, if your sole criteria is that people disagree with the Church to be Protestant, I would point you to the Gospel examples of Ananias and Sapphira, or perhaps the Judiazers. Yup - they disagreed with the Church - therefore, they’re Protestant. Are you sure you want to take sides with them? Perhaps Judas?
Get real. Either show me a Protestant or admit that your beliefs are invented. Anything else is a dishonest little game.
If this sounds harsh…well…it is, but it’s done out of love. I have attempted to correct you gently, but you have persisted in your willful blindness. You are trying to dodge any semblance of a real answer, and that is intellectually dishonest. Quite frankly, it is only because of concern for your soul that I continue.
God Bless,
RyanL
N
Nicene
Guest
You mean like asserting that “the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture”?
Aren’t you going to answer my questions inm post #140 or will it undermine our credibility?
Does not answering and avoiding them result in the same effect?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
S
super64
Guest
Act 1:20 "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office.’
Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
Act 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
Act 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Dear sir,
I am not a scolar or a great Christian but you state that an arguement for the primacy of Paul is plausible as is Peter. I’m sorry, what bible do you have? Is this a joke? April fools isn’t here yet is it? Arguements can be made as to Pauls ‘primacy’, however Paul would be the first to say ‘nope’. You have not impressed me with your so-called knowledge of scripture. I admit that you are gifted in gabbing.(i.e. B.S.) Clearly, Simon-Peter was head of the Church. Jesus changed his name to Peter; Saul changed his own name to Paul. Jesus gave to Peter the keys, etc., etc. How could Paul be their leader when Titus was appointed to Paul by the Church in Jerusalem headed by Peter.
Why are you doing this? What good will come of this? Is this Gods work you are doing or your own? You seem very bright and intellegent…far more then I am. As stated in earlier posts, the early church seemed to think of Peter as the leader of the Apostles and that the center of the church would be first in Jerusalem then Rome(the lions den). Both Peter and Paul were great at what they did and we should respect that, along with the aurthority of the church and the successors of St. Peter’s office. I won’t post all the obvious scripture text as it has been done already…over and over.
You seem to treat the church as not having authority in Christ. As Paul said of believers: ‘Treated as deceivers yet are truthful’ 2Cor.6:8
Best of luck on your doctorate or whatever is driving you to such madness. Read 2Cor.11, something about false apostles or false brothers.
May the Holy Spirit lift the scales from your eyes.
T
Tonks40
Guest
Hmmm…this just jumped out at me…
…you just provided us with one of the proofs of Peter’s primacy!
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
You used a poor example especially as Judas also controlled the finances
Pax
Brian
C
Church_Militant
Guest
myfavoritmartin said:
and wouldn’t be seen as the basis for deciding the “true church.” What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right and what is not.
In important matters, the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture, not apostolic succession, as the determining factor of the trueness of a churchMFM, you GOTTA be kidding!
**Acts 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. **
That’s about as clear a scriptural example of apostolic succession (and Petrine primacy, since he called them to deal with the issue right there in the beginning of church history!) as you can ask for.
Peter cites OT mandate to do exactly this and since this is cited in inspired canon, your bolded statement above is what is not found in scripture.
By your theory, I can come along and claim the same authority as the apostles just by appearing before a couple of believers with a Bible in hand. That’s nuts!
Pax tecum,
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Church Militant:
- Status